View Full Version : Global Climate Disruption.
Montmorency
09-29-2011, 20:20
Apparently, the ice is melting faster than predicted. Hehe. (http://www.economist.com/node/21530079)
Papewaio
09-29-2011, 23:02
Greenland was called that for a reason. Is it the greenest it has ever been?
=][=
Is the world warming? Overall yes
How much is man made? A lot, but how much I'm not sure.
Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily. It is much better then a mini ice age. Dinosaurs roamed a much warmer world. So whose up for T-Rex drumsticks? They come with one hell of a bite.
InsaneApache
09-29-2011, 23:19
You all do realise that the Earth is being terra-formed in favour of the octo-squids?
One of the Biggest Climate Skeptics' own research has set the record straight for him.
News Article on Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html)
Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.
Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.
The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.
skeptics are wrong when they claim that a “heat island” effect from urbanization is skewing average temperature readings; monitoring instruments in rural areas show rapid warming, too.
The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Furunculus
10-25-2011, 09:53
happy to agree with all of the above, but it does not substantially change my criticism of CAGW:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/page2.html
Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."
Banquo's Ghost
10-25-2011, 11:02
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/page2.html
Muller also cautions that observers should not take the BEST results and use them to prove something that they can't. When we asked him if it were possible to extrapolate from his team's results and predict whether the temperature increase will continue, he told us: "I don't think that is possible. The key issue is what fraction of the observed change is anthropomorphic. We don't shed much light on that."
I'm not surprised that little light is shed on that, since I don't think anyone claims that climate change looks like a human. It might however be anthropogenic. :wink:
Furunculus
10-25-2011, 11:58
I'm not surprised that little light is shed on that, since I don't think anyone claims that climate change looks like a human. It might however be anthropogenic. :wink:
lol, i noticed that too when i read it yesterday, but i think we know what he means. ;)
Vladimir
10-25-2011, 13:01
lol, i noticed that too when i read it yesterday, but i think we know what he means. ;)
Is it bad that I saw that too? I guess I'm in good company.
Proletariat
10-27-2011, 02:34
Am I understanding this; Muller is no longer a skeptic at all because his research says that two out of three temperature gauging stations show warming...? Is the fact that the earth is warming even up for debate? :dizzy2:
The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Sorry buddy, but unless your research shows that 1) it's anthropogenic, 2) it's going to continue to rise to crises levels I will happily remain incoherently grumbling and being stunned silent. :rolleyes:
Edit: I guess what I'm not understanding is the media's reacting to this as a lolpwnd moment for skeptics.
Tellos Athenaios
10-27-2011, 04:24
Is the fact that the earth is warming even up for debate?
Well that depends whom you are replying to... Ah, here it is:
It wouldn't matter to you if global warming is a lie? The earth just isn't warming up. Fact.
classical_hero
11-01-2011, 13:41
It wouldn't matter to you if global warming is a lie? The earth just isn't warming up. Fact.I would not say that, but rather that man is not the main driver of the climate, since in the past we have seen fluctuations of the temperature. There is an experiment at CERN called the CLOUD experiment Basically they are testing in lab conditions to see what is driving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I
Furunculus
11-01-2011, 15:51
good vid, cheers
Papewaio
11-04-2011, 10:35
If you are a scientist you should be a balanced skeptic. Examine the evidence and refine the methods to get the data.
Science should work to a consensus it should not work towards being a dogma.
The current consensus is that humans are helping the globe warm.
The reaction should not be denial it should be to build better tools and to question if this is really a good or bad thing.
Too much and we are Venus so global warming could be terrible, a couple of degrees more and we can go back to having Terrible Lizards.
Furunculus
11-04-2011, 10:49
i'm not sure that there is anything to disagree with there Pape.
The current consensus is that humans are helping the globe warm.
No it isn't, can't just decide that there is consensus, it really has to be there
Cool new e-mails http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
The euro crisis is a godsend in way, at least gutmensch gets to blame capitalism for something that is real, the absence of a need for post-modern science is somewhat refreshing, but I still think we should rebuild the wall
NEINNEINNEIN thx to the IPCC models we can predict an industrial age every 10.000 years with clockwork precision and ours is comming to an end
if we do not act right now
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284137/scientists-behaving-badly-jim-lacey?pg=1 <-'More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming' inquisitive journalist explains e-mails
But warmists will just continue to repear repeat keep repeating, it doesn't have to be true just keep repeating
Furunculus
12-12-2011, 16:33
durban failed, jolly good:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/12/cop17_failure/
i have a pretty high confidence that the science in IPCC5 in 2015 will be 'right', and some small confidence that the policy recommendeed will not be quite so insane, but i'll be damned if i want any legally binding treaties agreed before then.
Papewaio
12-12-2011, 22:02
I was watching Frozen Planet with the great David Attenborough. One stat he mentioned is that the Artic ice since 1981 has retreated to 2/3s the surface cover...a third of the ice has disappeared!
But it's not that bad, it's worse. Another stat in the same section... Military submarine data that measures Artic ice thickness ... And they have measured it a lot... After all if you need to surface for an emergency you need to know where. The ice thickness has halved.
So the Artic ice has halved in amount.
That's bad, but wait its worse.
You need to multiplie the two area x thickness = volume.
Artic ice volume 2011 = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 the volume of 1981.
Now if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its ice the oceans would rise 40m. Nothing to worry about there.
Furunculus
12-13-2011, 18:59
good job it isn't then, eh?
I was watching Frozen Planet with the great David Attenborough. One stat he mentioned is that the Artic ice since 1981 has retreated to 2/3s the surface cover...a third of the ice has disappeared!
But it's not that bad, it's worse. Another stat in the same section... Military submarine data that measures Artic ice thickness ... And they have measured it a lot... After all if you need to surface for an emergency you need to know where. The ice thickness has halved.
So the Artic ice has halved in amount.
That's bad, but wait its worse.
You need to multiplie the two area x thickness = volume.
Artic ice volume 2011 = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 the volume of 1981.
Now if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its ice the oceans would rise 40m. Nothing to worry about there.
Oh dear, somehow we sub-sealevel dutchies must have missed any effect of that.
Papewaio
12-15-2011, 01:43
Antarctic isn't diminishing like the Artic.
It's colder, larger and on land. Artic is floating in water so it's melting will not have the same sea level contribution as ice tha is melting on land.
As such if the Antartic melts it will have a much more visible effect then the Artic.
And if a train falls on my head I'll be dead, guaranteed. But there has to be a train above me, can't fall on my head if there isn't any
Papewaio
12-15-2011, 04:25
Simple experiment:
Need:
Ice cubes
Water
Three glasses
Whiskey
Marker pen.
First glass put three ice cubes in, add water until all the ice cubes are floating. Mark a line on the cup where the water level is.
Second glass put three ice cubes in, add water, but make sure the ice is not floating and still touches the bottom of the glass. This is difficult so do this before glass three. Mark the water level.
Third glass put in as much or little ice as you like, add the whiskey and sit back , drink and watch the ice melt in the other two glasses.
Report back which of the first two glasses had the highest rise in water level.
The first one is the Artic, the second is the Antartic.
No need I know what the outcome will be, ice has more volume than water. But tell me, if the artic did all that melting stuff since 1981, where did the water go. It sure didn't end up here. Odd n'est pas
Papewaio
12-15-2011, 09:02
Do the experiment and we can discuss the results
Do the experiment and we can discuss the results
Why don't you think of somethingg yourself, take the actual mass off ice and think of how sea levels can rise 40 meters. All the ice that is below sea level melting will lower sea levels, and what's above sea level will have to be spread out. No need for fancy calculations, it's simply impossible
Ironside
12-15-2011, 10:59
No need I know what the outcome will be, ice has more volume than water. But tell me, if the artic did all that melting stuff since 1981, where did the water go. It sure didn't end up here. Odd n'est pas
It ended up taking the same spot as the void left by the melted ice. Basic chemistry.
current sea level rise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise), so with current trend (that seems to be slowly accelerating) it's about 3,1 mm/year, or 31 cm/century.
Models of much more rapid sea rise are mentioned further down.
It ended up taking the same spot as the void left by the melted ice. Basic chemistry
No it doesn't, as ice has more volume than water the submerged ice melting will lower the water level.
Papewaio
12-15-2011, 11:30
Basic physics and I tested it with Bailey's and ice tonight.
Marked the glass, waited for the ice to melt. Same level.
The ice floats because it is less dense than water. When it melts it's density increase...the over all effect is that the level of the water (Bailey's in my case) does not rise.
Now. If the ice wasn't floating in the water as is the Antartic, any ice melting there will rise sea levels.
Antartic is much much larger and much colder then the Artic. So it currently is not melting like the Artic.
All the Artics melting is not adding anything to sea levels.
However if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its volume sea levels would rise by 40m.
Less baily's would be my advice. Ice is a solid object, that is why you don't drown when being on it. It has weight so it displaces water, water being fluid. Netto effect of submerged water melting is still an overall lowering of water level, not a rise. VERY basic stuff what do they teach you kids these days
current sea level rise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise), so with current trend (that seems to be slowly accelerating) it's about 3,1 mm/year, or 31 cm/century.
Missed this, 31cm in a centuryy for whatever reason, to even consider a rise of 40 meters, doubt there even exists enough water to raise the sea by just one sorry meter. How. From where
Papewaio
12-15-2011, 12:46
Simple experiment you can do at home as already outlined.
Glass of water, put in some ice. Make sure the ice isn't touching the bottom of the glass. Mark a line on the glass at the current water level. Sit back and watch. Basic experiment.
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to be a true skeptic and verify for yourself.
What you will find is that the weight of water displaced by the ice is the same weight as the ice. Hence once the ice melts it will not cause the water level to rise up anymore.
That is why the melting of the Artic is not a danger in itself. It is a warning sign.
Now the Antartic is a much much larger and colder piece of land with a lot more ice on and around it. The ice on that land of it was ALL melted is sufficient to raise sea levels by 60m. Luck has it that it isn't melting yet as it is far colder then the Artic. Actually it isn't luck again it's colder therefore it will melt after the north pole is water on summer.
Anyhow test the floating ice, read up about the differences between the two poles and come to your own conclusions.
a completely inoffensive name
12-15-2011, 13:01
Basically arctic ice is already displacing volume of water (more or less) it would create when melted. Antarctic ice is not displacing any water due to it being on land. Frag asks where is this 40 meter rise coming from. Basically the ocean and antarctic ice are two separate systems, not a single one. So when antarctic ice melts, you are essentially pouring more water in the glass.
At least that's my understanding.
Pape and ACIN did a very good job explaining it just now and personal experiment is the most riveting way of approaching any such subject, yet I am a bit incredulous as to whether we are actually debating this – buoyancy is a ~2200 years old principle, gravity itself has a much shorter history in science.
Archimedes established in On floating bodies:
Any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid.
Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.
Basically arctic ice is already displacing volume of water (more or less) it would create when melted. Antarctic ice is not displacing any water due to it being on land. Frag asks where is this 40 meter rise coming from. Basically the ocean and antarctic ice are two separate systems, not a single one. So when antarctic ice melts, you are essentially pouring more water in the glass.
At least that's my understanding.
let me know when you have found a way to have sea levels rise 40 meters, there just isn't nearly enough water for that.. it would have to rise 40m EVERYWHERE, how do you see thatto be possibl. Right, it isn't, ocean is only a few km deep
Ehmmmm the current depth of the ocean is irrelevant in relation to a rise in sea levels.
It is very easy to calculate the volume of added water.
Antarctica holds about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water).
It is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick.
If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).
Ironside
12-15-2011, 15:38
No it doesn't, as ice has more volume than water the submerged ice melting will lower the water level.
Indeed, ice has more volume. And that extra volume is the thing sticking up above the water surface. Take 1 kg (1L) of water, freeze it (roughly 1.1L). The ice cube will float, but also displace 1 kg (1L) of water. This is one version to weight things less dense than water. If an object becomes completely submerged (by weight or force) the you get its volume, by the displacement of water.
Melting completely submerged ice would lower the water level, but it would require something to keep the ice from floating up.
Missed this, 31cm in a centuryy for whatever reason, to even consider a rise of 40 meters, doubt there even exists enough water to raise the sea by just one sorry meter. How. From where
The worser scenarios are about 0.5-2 meters in a century.
Antartica contains ice equivalent to about a 60 meter water rise.
Greenland about 7 meters.
And yes, melting all of it would take thousands of years.
Land bound or bottom frozen (with abundant ice above sea level) regions are those that increases the sea level. It's the same principle that made the water level more than 100 meters lower than today during, the ice ages.
And for the fun of it. Fragony, the only relevance the depth has, is that increased water temperature increases the volume of water. It's very minor, but on 4 km (estimated average water depth) of water it makes a difference. Going from 4 C water to 30 C would cause a sea level rise of 17 meters. I doubt this factor is going to matter much normally (an average sea temp of 30 C is proably a half desert Earth or something like that), but it exists.
'Antartica contains ice equivalent to about a 60 meter water rise.Greenland about 7 meters.'
So they say but it's impossible when you think of it. Take it's volume and the volume it would require to even raise it with just one meter. Absolute bull that sea levels can rise 7, or even 60 meter, they may say so but that doesn't make it true, calculare it for me and i will listen
What’s so difficult about it? :shrug:
It's an elementary school problem.
You convert the ice volume of the ice sheets into the water volume it would create.
The volume of Antarctica’s ice is 29,315,965 km3.
Now, of course, we have different densities. Specifically, because of the various gasses trapped within it, ice is about 90% as dense as water – hence a 0.9 conversion rate.
Thus the volume of said water is 29,315,965 x 0.9 = 26,384,368 km3.
Now, you take your newfound water volume of the ice sheets and divide it by the total surface area of the oceans, which is 346,976,563 km2.
You now have 26,384,368 km3 / 346,976,563 km2 = 0.0760 km = 76m.
Basic arithmetic.
I suppose they come up with only 61 meters because there are a few independent atmospheric variables which intervene to lessen the impact.
Tellos Athenaios
12-15-2011, 19:43
Why not? In heavily simplified terms which serve only to illustrate orders of magnitude:
~71% of the earth's surface area is covered by ocean so assuming that we can just stack water vertically what would a 60m increase entail? Well, the 6.4km radius of the earth implies that the volume required would be something in the order of magnitude of: 7,1 * 6,0 * 4 * pi* (6.4*10^3)^2 m^3 = 2.2*10^10 m^3 in liquid water.
So what is Antarctica's surface area, then? According to the wiki, that is 14 million square kilometer, i.e. 14 *10^3 *10^3 m^2. Therefore if all that area was, on average covered with just 1m thick layer of ice what do we have: 1,4* 10^7 m^3. So how thick are these ice sheets apparently?
Well according to teh wiki 98% of that surface area is covered by layers of ice averaging at least a mile in height (1.6*10^3m). So using similar simplified calculation that yields a volume of: 1,4*10^7 * 0,98 *1.6*10^3 = 1.4*1.6*0.98 * 10^10 = 2.2*10^10 m^3 in ice... As a lower bound... Looks familiar?
What’s so difficult about it? :shrug:
It's an elementary school problem.
Actually, it becomes a very difficult calculus problem. Since water does not stack, knowing the total volume of water released from the melt only gets you half way. The percentage of the earth's surface covered with water will change as the volume of water increases, in a very not-easily-computable way. How much coastline and brackish riverbank gets eaten with a 20 meter rise in water levels? 30 meters? They have computer models for it, it is not as easy as you make it out to be.
Tellos Athenaios
12-15-2011, 20:48
It doesn't but the same holds true for ice as well at those volumes. Given the height of the ice sheets even in terms of order of magnitude this is a non-trivial volume as well.
@drone
It is already accounted for :bow:
Vertically, as I show above, you obtain 76m.
70-75% of the earth is already covered in water.
It appears to me that this, combined with the atmospheric variables I was mentioning above, makes the 61m they are advancing as a figure just about right.
Perhaps it's not 61, perhaps it's 59, or 55, but easily above the 40m figure they were debating about? Definitely.
Ironside
12-15-2011, 21:00
Actually, it becomes a very difficult calculus problem. Since water does not stack, knowing the total volume of water released from the melt only gets you half way. The percentage of the earth's surface covered with water will change as the volume of water increases, in a very not-easily-computable way. How much coastline and brackish riverbank gets eaten with a 20 meter rise in water levels? 30 meters? They have computer models for it, it is not as easy as you make it out to be.
10%-20% margin error on quick calculations is usually close enough to be acceptable. If you're toying with really large numbers, a factor 100 is still a small error.
Yes, the good calculations takes that into consideration and as Nowake already displayed, is already considered in the given calculations.
But it's not an elementary school problem.
a completely inoffensive name
12-15-2011, 23:23
But it's not an elementary school problem.
Pssshhhh, I was calculating this kind of stuff in 5th grade.
Papewaio
12-15-2011, 23:49
You could make it a primary school problem. Measuring melting ice in a cup is kitchen physics, cooking is kitchen chemistry.
Get a globe if the world.
Trace Antartica.
Photocopy tracing.
Cut out the photocopies.
Blue tack them to the globe.
Count the number of Antarticas that now cover the globe.
Take the thickness of the ice in Antartica (averages ~ mile)
Divide thickness by number of Antarticas to cover the globe.
You have an approximation on how much the worlds waters could rise.
I prefer the martini glass exercise. Take a shot glass, fill it with vodka, and pour it into a martini glass. Mark the level with a marker. Fill shot glass, pour, mark again. Fill, pour, mark again. Notice the lines get closer as more shots are poured in. This is what will happen when the icepack melts. Now drink the vodka.
But the water doesn't rise all that much since 1981, surely we dutchies must have noticed it if it did. Attenwhatshisnam is full off it, should stick to filming polar bears in Amsterdam's zoo. Nothing to be absolutely terrified about, it ain't happening
EDIT:
But the water doesn't rise all that much since 1981, surely we dutchies must have noticed it if it did. Attenwhatshisnam is full off it, should stick to filming polar bears in Amsterdam's zoo. Nothing to be absolutely terrified about, it ain't happening
It has been explained by half a dozen people already, all replying to you directly, that currently we are observing the melting of the Arctic's floating ice, and not the ice covering the Antarctic land.
It was also explained exhaustively why the difference is crucial.
Come on, now that we even proved there is plenty of solidified water to raise the sea level way above your threshold, are we going to just repeat the whole discussion for the sake of it?
@drone, ACIN
Look, my remark was a reply to Frag’s insistence that calculating mathematically that the sea level could rise by 40m is impossible.
drone: But it's not an elementary school problem.
ACIN: Pssshhhh, I was calculating this kind of stuff in 5th grade.
Thus I really don’t see where’s the cause for irony :shrug:
We were taught about buoyancy and how to calculate its force (hence also establish displaced volumes) precisely in the 5th grade, which inaugurated our first year of physics classes.
We were taught about density in the 6th grade.
Normal kids in a normal school in a normal 250.000 people town in a normal east-European country.
Now I will give you that perhaps that is middle school, not elementary, I am always fuzzy when it comes to your system – we go through general school (1st to 8th) and lyceum (9th to 12th) here, so we don’t really make a distinction.
Oh well, I guess we really needed the off-topic, you meanies ganging up on poor old Nowake :stare:
I did read the posts in question (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135174-Visit-Romania!&p=2053403272&viewfull=1#post2053403272) in that kid's thread and I found your sarcasm towards Sarmatian's comment - that is, your switching of his name upon quoting him - brilliant and a great pity that no one else remarked upon it but me - or perhaps they did and did not comment on it as well.
So I find it hard to reconcile your usually biting humour with this awful incapacity or refusal to understand the facts above.
I did read the posts in question (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?135174-Visit-Romania!&p=2053403272&viewfull=1#post2053403272) in that kid's thread and I found your sarcasm towards Sarmatian's comment - that is, your switching of his name upon quoting him - brilliant and a great pity that no one else remarked upon it but me - or perhaps they did and did not comment on it as well.
So I find it hard to reconcile your usually biting humour with this awful incapacity or refusal to understand the facts above.
Being just fourth just gets to you sometimes
You have to engage Fragony with a battle of Burns.
For example... "Jeez Fragony, that was a pretty dick-ish thing to say."
Get it?
Get it?!
Nuh-uh, I am a fun sponge, the ultimate prick.
EDIT: Please don't close the thread, we will find our way back on track!
Papewaio
12-16-2011, 05:35
Fragony if you want to catch up to Archimedes level of Eureka science I suggest yet again doing the ice bouyancy test and watch it melt and measure it for yourself.
At the moment though your mindset of not testing or challenging your ideas or verifying even basic science puts you in the same philosophical boat as not so fun fundamentalists.
Don't assume anything as it just makes an ass of u & me. Go test the floating ice, then you will understand why the melting Artic has zero impact on sea levels.
Until then your opinions on global warming are noted and form a Eucledia Point.
Au contraire I'm more of a fun fundamentalist. But I'm glad we all agree that water-levels aren't rising, and especially not with 60 meters. So what's the problem really? Attenbfgghhgf said the ice was retreating by the way, only landice retreats, the kind that's above water.
Papewaio
12-17-2011, 00:22
What is happening: the Artic ice is one third it's volume since 1981. As the Artic is floating its melting is not contributing to rising sea levels.
Antarctic is much larger and colder. Antarctica is approx the size of the EU and Australia combined with ice about a mile thick. It hasn't melted like that ... Yet... But what if it did?
What if: Antarctica melted to the same ratio as the Artic?
a) it's land ice so it's melting will contribute to sea levels unlike the Artic.
b) 70% of the worlds fresh water is locked in the Antartic. It's size is more then most minds can comprehend, for instance the land area that Australia claims in Antartica is over twice the size of Western Australia... Which itself is many times the size of Texas.
c). Melt 2/3 of the ice in the Antartic ... Same amount as the Artic has experienced in thirty years..
d) melting of a much much larger body of ice that is on load will contribute to sea level rising, 40m for 2/3 of the ice in the Antartic.
All basic physics... Literally Eureka era... Plus basic volume calculations and you can compute the results for yourself.
'What is happening: the Artic ice is one third it's volume since 1981.'
That's what they say in a BBC documentary, doesn't mean it's true. Take your experiment, if global temperature would rise the north-pole melting would still rise the sea level. Which doesn't rise
Tellos Athenaios
12-17-2011, 05:01
'Take your experiment, if global temperature would rise the north-pole melting would still rise the sea level. Which doesn't rise
That is precisely Pape's point: because the North pole is a little floating ice cube in your drink, melting it doesn't make a difference. Its volume is already accounted for in current levels by the displacement of liquid needed for it to float. (Hence why we don't notice big spikes in sea levels during summer or drops during winter.)
By contrast the Antarctic is not a little floating ice cube, but a big ice cube lying on a table. So what if you took it from your table then dropped it into your drink?
a completely inoffensive name
12-17-2011, 06:02
You can't reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into.
That is precisely Pape's point: because the North pole is a little floating ice cube in your drink, melting it doesn't make a difference. Its volume is already accounted for in current levels by the displacement of liquid needed for it to float. (Hence why we don't notice big spikes in sea levels during summer or drops during winter.)
By contrast the Antarctic is not a little floating ice cube, but a big ice cube lying on a table. So what if you took it from your table then dropped it into your drink?
What are the odds of balancing these effects up to an overall effect of zero? Maybe there is simply nothing happening? Where is the rest of the water that will rise sea levels 60 meter comming from by the way, if we do not act right now.
Ironside
12-17-2011, 10:48
Fragony, you do know that trolling is quite rude.
Fragony, you do know that trolling is quite rude.
Not trolling, if a global rise of temperature is the common dominator in the equation and the end result (rising sea level) is zero the two poles should exactly balance eachother out. Either they do, or nothing is happening.
No takers, but we can pour Pap's an extra glass as the rise in temperature would also melt glaciers. So much for your science. If I pour some extra water it will rise, no matter how weird it may look. Your math is wrong and it takes only common sense to point out where
Ironside
12-17-2011, 14:57
What are the odds of balancing these effects up to an overall effect of zero? Maybe there is simply nothing happening? Where is the rest of the water that will rise sea levels 60 meter comming from by the way, if we do not act right now.
And here's a nice example of what I feel is trolling. The worst estimates is 2 meters rise until 2100. For all 60+ meters to melt, we're talking more than a millenia or aliens testing their heat weapons on Antartica.
Not trolling, if a global rise of temperature is the common dominator in the equation and the end result (rising sea level) is zero the two poles should exactly balance eachother out. Either they do, or nothing is happening.
Sigh. Artic= glas with ice cubes floating on top of water. We've already given examples about how to display buoyancy. Water level won't rise.
Notable consequences. The polar bears are in trouble in thier natural habitat. The Northwest passage is suddenly useful for the first time in history. Suddenly every country is starting to claim Artica due to new access to the sea bottom.
Antartic =Mix between ice on the table (=continental glacier) and the whole glass being frozen with a nice 2km tall tower of snow on top of all of it.
And for the final thing you said. Did you notice that I said that the sea level is already rising because of this melting of glaciers? It's just slow due to the scale involved. It's about 5,8 cm since 1993.
Polar bears are doing just fine, And so are we here. You have absolutely nothing to absolutely terrify us.
Polar bears are doing just fine, And so are we here. You have absolutely nothing to absolutely terrify us.
My Alaskan tea-party conservative grandmother says the same thing lol. "The polar bears are doing just fine, they're just coming to live on the land now." She forgets to mention that more people are getting eaten by polar bears.
My Alaskan tea-party conservative grandmother says the same thing lol. "The polar bears are doing just fine, they're just coming to live on the land now." She forgets to mention that more people are getting eaten by polar bears.
Because there are more of them, doh.
haha no, I'm no biologist but I've read that polar bear populations are declining in most places. Polar bears usually live out on the sea ice and hunt seals. But because the sea ice melts so much in the summer now, the polar bears are forced to come onto the land to search for food or they risk drowning. This means that more people are getting eaten than in the past because a) people live on the land, not the ice; and b) polar bears aren't as good as brown bears and wolves at hunting caribou, etc. so people make for an easier meal.
You are wrong about that, polar bears are mating with grizzly's, warn your grandma as the result is really big
Papewaio
12-18-2011, 01:23
The poles are opposite in both location and composition.
The Artic is a sea. The Antartic is a continent.
One is a giant lake the other a giant mountain range.
Mountains are colder than lakes. Most snow ski fields are in the mountains, and most water skiing is done at sea level.
Also the Artic is a sea girt by land, the Antartic land girt by sea.
So two totally different compositions with different external environments around them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic
Average winter temperatures can be as low as −40 °C (−40 °F), and the coldest recorded temperature is approximately −68 °C (−90 °F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antartica
Temperatures reach a minimum of between −80 °C (−112 °F) and −90 °C (−130 °F), and the coldest natural temperature ever recorded on Earth was −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) at the Russian Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983.
End of the day you are trying to say that a snowy mountain range should have the same temperatures as the sea it sits beside.
Your experiment still sucks skippyballs though straw Pap's. For a zero overal rise the two poles should exactly balance eachother out right (lol), but a rise in temperature would still melt glaciers and other cold things.so sea would rise despite that. Now I doubt a melting glacier will have any effect Gorerists say it's a really bad thing (he himself doesn't think so as he bought a perfectly safe coastline mansion) add said water and how would the poles still balance eachother out. Maybe, incredible as it may sound, it's all just the next watermelon's THOU SHALT NOT apocalyptic IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW hoax and you gobbed it all up. Science is also for sale if you pay enough
Papewaio
12-18-2011, 11:18
As stated Antartic is not melting... Yet.
Artic is floating so it can melt away and not effect sea levels.
My statement was a thought experiment. What if the Antartic was as warm as the Artic and melted by 2/3rds? The rest has been repeated at length.
Easiest experiment in the world is to get some floating ice mark the glass, watch it melt and see no rise in the level.
What I cannot understand is someone as smart as yourself not even having the desire to test bouyancy. A scientific principle that goes hand in hand with Archimedes Eureka moment. In fact the principle is so well understood that not even the Catholic Church, Flat Earthers or Big Oil have ever proved it wrong. Again twenty minutes and you can prove or disprove it to yourself... Don't assume, man up.
The Antartic isn't melting anything like the Artic. The Antartic is a 3km high mountain range larger then Europe. It is much colder then the Artic. Iff it melted to the same degree as the Artic it would be noticeable. However at present the Antartic is still not doing so due to it being at a much higher altitude on average then the Artic.
Fragony I don't care if you currently believe or don't believe in Global Warming. I do despair that someone of your brains will not test even the most basic of principals. Things that the ancients literally murdered each other to know... How to figure out if a crown was pure gold or had a base material mixed in with it. Until Archimedes there was no easy way to figure out density. Density less then water means the material will float and the material will displace as much water in weight as the total weight of the floating material. Which means with ice the weight of the ice will displace it's same weight of water.
1 kg of ice will displace 1 kg of water.
1 kg of water has a volume of 1 L.
1 kg of ice when it melts becomes 1 kg of water = 1 L
That ice water now fills perfectly the 1 L of displaced water.
No more water gets displaced as the ice melts.
Do not take my word for it. Just test it.
a completely inoffensive name
12-18-2011, 11:38
As stated Antartic is not melting... Yet.
Artic is floating so it can melt away and not effect sea levels.
My statement was a thought experiment. What if the Antartic was as warm as the Artic and melted by 2/3rds? The rest has been repeated at length.
Easiest experiment in the world is to get some floating ice mark the glass, watch it melt and see no rise in the level.
What I cannot understand is someone as smart as yourself not even having the desire to test bouyancy. A scientific principle that goes hand in hand with Archimedes Eureka moment. In fact the principle is so well understood that not even the Catholic Church, Flat Earthers or Big Oil have ever proved it wrong. Again twenty minutes and you can prove or disprove it to yourself... Don't assume, man up.
The Antartic isn't melting anything like the Artic. The Antartic is a 3km high mountain range larger then Europe. It is much colder then the Artic. Iff it melted to the same degree as the Artic it would be noticeable. However at present the Antartic is still not doing so due to it being at a much higher altitude on average then the Artic.
Fragony I don't care if you currently believe or don't believe in Global Warming. I do despair that someone of your brains will not test even the most basic of principals. Things that the ancients literally murdered each other to know... How to figure out if a crown was pure gold or had a base material mixed in with it. Until Archimedes there was no easy way to figure out density. Density less then water means the material will float and the material will displace as much water in weight as the total weight of the floating material. Which means with ice the weight of the ice will displace it's same weight of water.
1 kg of ice will displace 1 kg of water.
1 kg of water has a volume of 1 L.
1 kg of ice when it melts becomes 1 kg of water = 1 L
That ice water now fills perfectly the 1 L of displaced water.
No more water gets displaced as the ice melts.
Do not take my word for it. Just test it.
Ice is as safe for bears as EU is joke. Two poles, balancing earth if warming is occurring. Where is the 40m then?
See, I can be incomprehensible as well.
@Pap's, it aint melting yet? I thought you said 1/4 th of it already did. The floating cube is the north-pole by the way, Antartica is land with ice on it. The effect just isn't there. The only explanation is that it's bull that 1/4th of it melted
Papewaio
12-18-2011, 21:35
Part of the orginal post:
Artic ice volume 2011 = 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 the volume of 1981.
Now if the Antartic lost 2/3 of its ice the oceans would rise 40m. Nothing to worry about there.
Artic has lost volume (and as noted is floating so will not effect sea levels)
Notice the "if the Antartic lost 2/3..." If, If, If... it is a prediction on what would happen if the much colder Antartic land ice melted (which since it's on a mountain, has not yet) to the same degree.
Ironside
12-18-2011, 22:09
Part of the orginal post:
Artic has lost volume (and as noted is floating so will not effect sea levels)
Notice the "if the Antartic lost 2/3..." If, If, If... it is a prediction on what would happen if the much colder Antartic land ice melted (which since it's on a mountain, has not yet) to the same degree.
The big thing with Antartica is the sea streams, not the mountains. Cold water simply goes around and around, around Antartica, while there's a significant amount of warm water coming towards Artica (like the gulf stream). Compare habitation zones around the Artic circle (that includes mountains) to the Antartic circle.
InsaneApache
02-07-2012, 19:50
Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?
Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good. Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. No electricity means no water, no trams, no trains, no airports, no traffic lights, no phone systems, no sewerage, no factories, no service stations, no office lifts, no central heating and even no hospitals, once their generators run out of fuel.
Modern cities are incredibly fragile organisms, which tremble on the edge of disaster the entire time. During a severe blizzard, it is electricity alone that prevents a midwinter urban holocaust. We saw what adverse weather can do, when 15,000 people died in the heatwave that hit France in August 2003. But those deaths were spread over a month. Last weekend's weather, without energy, could have caused many tens of thousands of deaths over a couple of days.
Why does the entire green spectrum, which now incorporates most conventional parties across Europe, deny the most obvious of truths? To play lethal games with our energy systems in order to honour the whimsical god of climate change is as intelligent and scientific as the Aztec sacrifice of their young. Actually, it is far more frivolous, because at least the Aztecs knew how many people they were sacrificing: no one has the least idea of the loss of life that might result from the EU embracing "green" energy policies.
Frau Merkel has announced that Germany is going to phase out nuclear power, simply because of the Japanese tsunami. Well, that is like basing water-collection policies in Rhineland-Westphalia on the monsoon cycle of Borneo. As I was saying last week, the Germans have a powerfully emotional attachment to everything that is "green", and an energy policy based on renewables will usually win German hearts. But it will not protect the owners of those hearts from frostbite and death due to exposure, for wind can often be not so much a Renewable as an Unusable, and also an Unpredictable, an Unstorable, and -- normally when it's very cold -- an Unmovable.
The seriousness of this is hard to exaggerate. The temperature in the Baltic countries last weekend was -33 degrees Celsius. The Eurasian landmass from Calais to Naples to Siberia was an icefield in which hundreds of millions of people were trapped. Without coal, oil and nuclear energy, mass deaths of the old and the young would have occurred on the first night. Three nights on of such conditions, and even the physically fit would have been dying of exposure, as the temperature inside dwellings fell and began to match that of the outside, an inverse image of what happened during the French heatwave 10 years ago, when there was no escape from the heat.
Yet you will see nowhere in Dail Eireann, or Brussels, or the Palace of Westminster, a serious discussion about energy policies based on these realities, or which acknowledges that wind usually doesn't blow when it is very cold, or that even when you have strong and steady winds blowing, you will still have to have created a parallel and duplicate energy supply to provide cover for when the wind stops. And merely to create that standby energy system will generate a zillion tons of carbon dioxide.
Wind power in Ireland actually produces only 22pc of its capacity: would you spend ¿100,000 on a car if it meant that ¿78,000 of the purchase price was wasted? It gets worse. On a really cold day, we actually need about 5,000 megawatts, but yesterday wind was producing under 50 megawatts: a grand total of 1pc of requirements.
Yet despite such appalling figures, we legally prohibit civil servants from even looking at the nuclear option. They won't even take a phone-call on the subject. Instead, the fiction has taken hold amongst our media classes that we are close to being an exporter of renewable energy through the much-vaunted interconnector with Britain. But this is grotesquely untrue. We shall actually be exporting through the connector only 3pc of the time, and importing 86pc, with the system otherwise idle.
Mad, isn't it? And madder still that RTE or the BBC will continue to trot out their pet wind-enthusiasts to bluster balderdash and poppycock about global warming and how renewables are the solution -- and without the contrary point of view ever being given an airing. This is dogma, as created, promulgated and enforced by the John Charles McQuaids of our time -- and if sceptics are not actually anathematised from the pulpit, they are ruthlessly and systematically ignored. These dishonest, hypocritical and deceitful energy policies are now widely accepted by our political and teaching classes as being the very embodiment of environmentalist virtue. Such imbecilic virtue, if implemented as energy policy across Europe, could have brought about a human catastrophe last weekend.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-energy-policy-based-on-renewables-will-win-hearts-but-wont-protect-their-owners-from-frostbite-and-death-due-to-exposure-3012098.html
A very sensible post given all that warble gloaming lying on the ground. For the fourth year in a row.
15 acrually , but that isn't going to stop the Green Khmer from preaching DEATH by CO2, repeat reppeat repeat, and everyone is absolutelty terrified of CO2. No warming you monkeys.
Tellos Athenaios
02-07-2012, 20:57
15 acrually , but that isn't going to stop the Green Khmer from preaching DEATH by CO2, repeat reppeat repeat, and everyone is absolutelty terrified of CO2. No warming you monkeys.
Oh well, must've been missing this exceptional cold winter you speak of. I was under the impression that until just about a week ago it had been a rather... mild...
excellent weather for a bit of outdoors beer drinking, in fact. Weather takes a turn for the worse, and that somehow proves... what exactly?
Oh well, must've been missing this exceptional cold winter you speak of. I was under the impression that until just about a week ago it had been a rather... mild...
excellent weather for a bit of outdoors beer drinking, in fact. Weather takes a turn for the worse, and that somehow proves... what exactly?
The weather musn't suit you, yeah it's cold. But that doesn't change the fact that you have all been fooled. Did you actually believe that we can change the atmosphere of an entire planet, or worse do you still do, It's so incredibly rediculous if so.
Papewaio
02-08-2012, 06:39
The weather musn't suit you, yeah it's cold. But that doesn't change the fact that you have all been fooled. Did you actually believe that we can change the atmosphere of an entire planet, or worse do you still do, It's so incredibly rediculous if so.
Lead in the atmosphere was man made from Roman times to leaded petrol you can see the effects in ice cores from Europe to Greenland to Antartica.
That is one man made change in the atmosphere.
Another is Ozone.
The third is the amount of carbon dioxide which also can be measured.
With co2 we are only seeing part of the picture as there are other molecules from industry that are causing greenhouse effects too.
IMDHO nuclear all the way then backfill it with solar and wind. Build buildings that are less dependent on heating and air conditioning too.
I don't think there's any doubt that we can, but I think most people give our powers of pollution more credit than they deserve. It's more likely that we'll all be killed by a perfectly NATURAL and UNFORSEEN climate shift than a man-made one. In geological time, these shifts happen frequently.
Then again, you never know. I'll know we're boned when I see rich people living in biodomes. The rich people always know first.
Fair enough. Of course climate can change it does that all the time. But man can't do that that is simply insanity, or rather faith. Global warming is a hoax, glad Canada says screw you as everybody loves Canada. If that thing you have there in Yellowstone goes boom that will be fun, you Americans just HAD to have the worlds greatest potential natural disaster didn't you so typical
We've got some of the best natural disasters in the world here in the USA. Hurricane Season in Florida is always memorable. Or Tornado Alley--screw that place.
That's for whiners, a tornadoh oh oh tssssss grow up, tornado's kinda suck but at least your sorry fate is above sea-level. Being surrounded by England Germany and France while giving the finger to god himself by just stealing his sea and planning to build a 2 km mountain, that is the true hardcore boy
gaelic cowboy
02-08-2012, 11:52
Fair enough. Of course climate can change it does that all the time. But man can't do that that is simply insanity, or rather faith. Global warming is a hoax, glad Canada says screw you as everybody loves Canada. If that thing you have there in Yellowstone goes boom that will be fun, you Americans just HAD to have the worlds greatest potential natural disaster didn't you so typical
Man can and does have an effect on his enviroment the Amazon rainforest is still feeling the effect of our interference, what we think of as pristine is in reality heavily managed.
Do you seriously believe that if say a country like Brazil cut there entire jungle down that this would not change the climate in South America.
If you release more CO2 things will change in our climate, especially if we continue to degrade vegatation worldwide which would be our biggest weapon in it's reduction.
Humans are always more afraid of the thunder and never of the far more dangerous rain, it's the same with this idea we have decided it's not that bad cos were living in it.
Enviroment isn't climate, the actual means to take as little as we can is actually frustrated by those who care more about being anti-anything, because they are bored rich kids who deeply care about a shrimp that's supposedly somewhere than simply being pragmatic. They want windmills because that's their religion, and I don't care about what they can say to eachother on party's
gaelic cowboy
02-08-2012, 12:23
Enviroment isn't climate, the actual means to take as little as we can is actually frustrated by those who care more about being anti-anything, because they are bored rich kids who deeply care about a shrimp that's supposedly somewhere than simply being pragmatic. They want windmills because that's their religion, and I don't care about what they can say to eachother on party's
Enviroment is shaped by climate....................................climate is shaped by enviroment
it's a feedback loop same as in engineering, the change wont stop till it reaches a new equilibrium
I would nearly make windmills illegal if I could, they are a dangerous fad that actually increases our dependency on finite fossil fuels.
Sure the enviroment changes planets move all the time with clockwork precison, as they do now, buy a good coat that is really all you can do
Papewaio
02-09-2012, 05:30
The hottest planet in the solar system is not the closest planet to the sun.
Mercury is not as hot as Venus.
Venus has a greenhouse atmosphere and the main gas is carbon dioxide.
Or it has a thinner crust
Tellos Athenaios
02-09-2012, 12:25
No, the thickness of its crust is totally irrelevant. Without atmosphere the planet simply has no insulation and it acts much like a black body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body). Hence why Mercury's cold side gets really very cold despite the other side of the planet being warmer than your oven.
The thickness of a vacuum flask is totally irrelevant to its temperature. It's how well it insulates and what you put in it that matters.
Mercury is tiny, so not so unlikely it loses warmth faster than Venus. Maybe it's even just a rock
InsaneApache
04-30-2012, 12:04
ha ha ha ha!
Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
Oh my aching sides.
ha ha ha ha!
gaelic cowboy
04-30-2012, 12:30
ha ha ha ha!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
Oh my aching sides.
ha ha ha ha!
Another reason to stop putting these blights on the landscape up.
I cant understand the fascination with them there useless for actually green energy due to the massive backup required, well actually I do understand there use cos it's basically rent seeking by blood sucking finacial types.
InsaneApache
04-30-2012, 12:53
So your not a big fan then? :wink:
gaelic cowboy
04-30-2012, 13:00
So your not a big fan then? :wink:
Bah dum bish
Tommy Coper style de de da da du *slide whistle*
ha ha ha ha!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
Oh my aching sides.
ha ha ha ha!
They also chop up birds and when on sea the low-frequenty sounds make confused whales and dolphins wash up shores.
WHALES AND DOLPHINS
gaelic cowboy
04-30-2012, 14:26
They also chop up birds and when on sea the low-frequenty sounds make confused whales and dolphins wash up shores.
WHALES AND DOLPHINS
I believe the whale and dolpin thingy is more to do with all sorts of pollution from chemical and sonar etc etc.
I believe the whale and dolpin thingy is more to do with all sorts of pollution from chemical and sonar etc etc.
Dolphins have sonars. Sonars don't like low frequency sounds. The part with the whales I just made up for fun.
Vladimir
04-30-2012, 14:37
They also chop up birds and when on sea the low-frequenty sounds make confused whales and dolphins wash up shores.
WHALES AND DOLPHINS
Well I never heard of that. Is there really a connection between marine mammals and wind turbines? That would be the capstone irony.
Well I never heard of that. Is there really a connection between marine mammals and wind turbines? That would be the capstone irony.
Yep there is, it disorientates them
InsaneApache
04-30-2012, 15:12
Beer has a similar effect on me.
Beer has a similar effect on me.
If you drink as much as the German tourists at our beaches, stay safe from these save the whale types, you could drown
Biggest key to global warming during the time was the dinosaurs was their wind production.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792
Putting the R back in rediculous I guess. At least getting destroyed by aliens IF WE DON'T ACT NOW was besides rediculous kinda cool. Many animals means less food, less food means less animals, and less farts. Certainly less 'gases' as that isn't a word, it's 'gasses' lol @ quality media
Papewaio
05-07-2012, 23:23
Bit more than dinosaur flatulence.
Single continent leading to a less fragmented set then now... Larger land masses tend to desert.
More volcanic activity
Solar activity
So a bit more to the equation.
Also as large dinosaurs rely on a complex robust foodchain, the arguement could be made that a warmer climate = increased biomass.
And then an astroid kills them all, like it or not but we are nothing more than a sore ass of a fly
Aren't smart people cool, CO2 as a source of energy! http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2012/story68288.html
Good news, we are not going to be killed with death CO2 is teh bomb
gaelic cowboy
05-22-2012, 10:22
Aren't smart people cool, CO2 as a source of energy! http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2012/story68288.html
Good news, we are not going to be killed with death CO2 is teh bomb
Excellant to see that people are trying to do something about this BUT according to the article you need Lithium Nitride.
Lithium Nitride is made by combining Lithium and Nitrogen the is a problem as Lithium is not found in the concentrations needed.
Plus I cant help wonder how much energy and CO2 is required to make some Lithium Nitride
Basically there is no free lunch.
Well it's a start if he's onto something, if he doesn't get an unfortunate accident that is
gaelic cowboy
05-22-2012, 10:33
Well it's a start if he's onto something, if he doesn't get an unfortunate accident that is
We need to figure a way to get the Lithium out of seawater would be my guess but it needs lots of energy which means nuclear energy.
You would get lots of Lithium and very little co2 as a result of production, therefore the only problem with nukes is the public.
It is a solution it's just not an easy one to get too.
We need to figure a way to get the Lithium out of seawater would be my guess but it needs lots of energy which means nuclear energy.
You would get lots of Lithium and very little co2 as a result of production, therefore the only problem with nukes is the public.
It is a solution it's just not an easy one to get too.
Isn't sea-water packed with deuterium, winwin
a completely inoffensive name
05-22-2012, 11:00
Lithium Nitride takes a lot of energy to make in the first place. Delta G would not be favorable in this set up.
gaelic cowboy
05-22-2012, 11:26
Lithium Nitride takes a lot of energy to make in the first place. Delta G would not be favorable in this set up.
Well obviously were not talking free energy, but seeing as the GHG emissions have been improperly priced anyway we need to ask if it's worth it to reduce CO2.
Basically we need Nuclear based generation and somehow to find more suitable Lithium (possibly from seawater maybe)
a completely inoffensive name
05-22-2012, 11:30
Well obviously were not talking free energy, but seeing as the GHG emissions have been improperly priced anyway we need to ask if it's worth it to reduce CO2.
Basically we need Nuclear based generation and somehow to find more suitable Lithium (possibly from seawater maybe)
I think the better way to reduce CO2 is to plant more trees and curb desertification.
gaelic cowboy
05-22-2012, 11:36
I think the better way to reduce CO2 is to plant more trees and curb desertification.
I would hazard a guess there isnt enough room left for that ACIN in order to feed ourselves and curb CO2.
Vladimir
05-22-2012, 14:34
I would hazard a guess there isnt enough room left for that ACIN in order to feed ourselves and curb CO2.
True to an extent. Areas that can support greenery are not always suitable for agriculture. The problem is money, both in purchasing and planting.
More can be done but it would take an economy of scale to make a dent in the big picture.
Store the stuff and use it for extended space travel. Hydrophonics baby!
gaelic cowboy
05-22-2012, 15:52
True to an extent. Areas that can support greenery are not always suitable for agriculture. The problem is money, both in purchasing and planting.
More can be done but it would take an economy of scale to make a dent in the big picture.
Marginal land is not always suitable for trees either and a good chunck of the global agricultural base was taken from the forest centuries ago.
If you ask me trees would merely slow the increase and not reduce ghg emmissions.
Vladimir
05-22-2012, 16:08
Marginal land is not always suitable for trees either and a good chunck of the global agricultural base was taken from the forest centuries ago.
If you ask me trees would merely slow the increase and not reduce ghg emmissions.
I intentionally avoided the word "trees." Anything that increases O2 production and biomass is a good thing to me.
InsaneApache
05-26-2012, 10:53
It is not surprising that President Obama is steering clear of any talk or action on global warming. The entire man-made global warming movement lay in shambles as the United Nations attempts to shift to the new environmental cause of biodiversity/species at the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio in June. Climate Depot will be attending. See: Sen. Inhofe may be joining Climate Depot at UN Rio Earth Summit in June! Inhofe: 'I think Marc Morano and I will probably go down to that one'
Formerly outspoken proponents of man-made climate fears are now openly admitting climate is not even the biggest environmental problem, let alone the biggest problem we face. See: Demoted: UN officially throws global warming under the bus: UN now says case for saving species 'more powerful than climate change' – May 21, 2010
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/16005/Time-for-Next-EcoScare-Obama-follows-lead-of-green-movement-and-demotes-global-warming-UN-now-says-case-for-saving-species-more-powerful-than-climate-change
I expected the next hoax would be about water shortages or particles of dust that will kill us all with death if we do not act right now really. Throw out the schoolbooks they are outdated, a lack of biodiversity is going to kill us all if we do not act right now. A lack of biodiversity will lead to mass starvations and and and WW3 and you know all kind of nasty stuff, if we do not act right now
Papewaio
05-27-2012, 23:53
That website is a news aggregator. Not a bad thing in itself, but it has an agenda and was helped put in place by Exxon.
" from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32]."
"ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano"
Paid to spin. The most they can dig up is that biodiversity is a much greater threat then global warming.
So people are worried about global warming. They are worried about sea levels rising, coral reefs dieing, animals disappearing, extinction events. Generally one would term a species dieing out as a reduction in biodiversity. So the. Spin doctors best paid finger pointing is to restate the concerns of the global climate changers into a poor attempt at a flip flop.
Climate changers are worried about the end results of global change causing extinctions, resulting in less biodiversity.
I dont see how pointing out the result lessens the root cause.
Global warming is undoubtedly real. So it global cooling. There's tons of evidence that shows that our planet has gone through tons and tons of change over the past billions of years. Some of the data we have from the past thousands of years is moderately accurate and can paint some pictures.
The problem is, there is data, but not a lot of it. It's also not incontrovertible. It sometimes does and sometimes doesn't line up with other data. Ice core samples. Rock samples. Archeological evidence. Geographical evidence. We've only had very real, SOLID temperature data for the past 100 years or so. Some of it's suspect anyway, due to potentially bad or faulty equipment, skill or human error. 100 years in the scope of the life of this planet is a tiny speck of a fart and drawing far ranging conclusions based on that is ridiculous.
In short, we don't know, and what conclusions we can draw are highly tenuous at best.
That said:
I unconditionally agree that humanity needs to get a hell of a lot better at taking care of spaceship earth. Heavy emphasis on recycling. Using greener energy methods. Cleaning up existing pollution. Educating people in all regards. Using more environmentally friendly products, and methods for producing these products. These are all very good, very solid things that we should all be moving towards. Using fear or bunk science as a method to push that is not the right way.
Climate changers are worried about the end results of global change causing extinctions, resulting in less biodiversity.
Worry worry worry! I have a solution for that:
5631
Of course before you do that, you should watch Peter Hadfield's (aka Potholer54) YouTube series about Climate Change (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8). His debunking of the "skeptic" Lord Monckton is a great job. That Monckton only answered with some petty insults, and finally ran away from a debate on the WattsUpWithThat website (the king of "skeptic" websites) just made it even more hilarious.
The 23 vids are a total of around 4 hours, but anyone with the slightest interest should be able to find the time.
InsaneApache
06-19-2012, 05:10
Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society – painfully but for a good cause.
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.
Good practice requires double-checking the facts. After all, geoscientists have checked the pre-industrial climate, over the past 10,000 years: this isolates natural climate drivers. According to the IPCC, natural factors hardly play any role in today's climate so we would expect a rather flat and boring climate history.
Far from it: real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.
Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years.
But then coal, oil and gas arrived: from the 1850s onwards, Man pumped large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the CO2 level today stands at 0.039%,compared to 0.028% previously.
With our empirically proven natural pre-industrial pattern, however, we would predict that solar activity had risen since 1850, more or less in parallel with an increase in temperatures. Indeed, both timing and amount of warming of nearly 1°C fit nicely into this natural scheme. The solar magnetic field more than doubled over the past 100 years.
Remember, there are three climate parameters that go up at the same time: solar activity, CO2 and temperature. Modern climate is likely to be driven by both anthropogenic and natural processes, so CO2 will undoubtedly have contributed to the warming, but the question is just how much?
Yet the IPCC's computer models consider the solar-forcing as negligible, requiring an unknown amplifying mechanism to explain the observed temperature variations. A promising model is proposed by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark but is still under research.
Whether this mechanism is understood or not, the IPCC's current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?
Furthermore, what is little known is that CO2 also requires a strong amplifier if it were to aggressively shape future climate as envisaged by the IPCC. CO2 alone, without so-called feedbacks, would only generate a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2 doubling. The IPCC assume in their models that there are strong amplification processes, including water vapour and cloud effects which, however, are also still poorly understood, like solar amplification. These are the shaky foundations for the IPCC's alarming prognoses of a temperature rise of up to 4.5°C for a doubling of CO2.
In the last 10 years the solar magnetic field dropped to one of its lowest levels in the last 150 years, indicating lower intensity in the decades ahead. This may have contributed to the halt in global warming and is likely to continue for a while, until it may resume gradually around 2030/2040. Based on the past natural climate pattern, we should expect that by 2100 temperatures will not have risen more than 1°C, significantly less than proposed by the IPCC.
Climate catastrophe would have been called off and the fear of a dangerously overheated planet would go down in history as a classic science error. Rather than being largely settled, there are more and more open climate questions which need to be addressed in an impartial and open-minded way.
Firstly, we need comprehensive research on the underestimated role of natural climate drivers. Secondly, the likely warming pause over the coming decades gives us time to convert our energy supply in a planned and sustainable way, without the massive poverty currently planned.
In the UK and Germany, for example, power-station closures and huge expenditure for backup of volatile wind or solar energy or harmful ethanol production will raise energy prices massively and even threaten power cuts: the economic cost will be crippling, all driven by fear.
We now have time for rational decarbonising. This may be achieved by cost-improved and competitive renewable technologies at the best European sites, through higher energy efficiency and by improving the use of conventional fossil energy.
The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html
'Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society – painfully but for a good cause. '
A religion that wants to go back in time, gee they never do that. And letting Greenpeace edit the final version lololol. Nice to see a serious scientist come clean about the IPCC calculation model I hope this doesn't destroy his carreer.
Papewaio
06-19-2012, 09:53
I wonder how many papers allowed a final edit by Greenpeace.
Might as well let PETA do the final edit on the Michillen Guide.
InsaneApache
06-19-2012, 10:06
I wonder how many papers allowed a final edit by Greenpeace.
Might as well let PETA do the final edit on the Michillen Guide.
Indeed. One of the reasons I went from supporter to sceptic was when I twigged about buying carbon credits about eight years ago. When I sat and thought about it, it only made sense as a money raising exercise. As I'm somewhat familiar how governent (albeit local) functions I smelt a great big Rattus Norvegicus.
InsaneApache
06-19-2012, 11:40
I think we might be nearing a tipping point.
The 92-year-old now says he is “not worried about sea-level rises”, which he believes will rise two foot a century “at worst”, and complains “the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion”.
He said wind farms were “ugly and useless”, instead supporting nuclear power and fracking, arguing Britain should be “going mad” on methane.
Professor Lovelock is most famous for his Gaia theory, formulated in the 1960s to explain the Earth’s environment as a regulating organism to sustain life.
The theory has been the foundation of many of the beliefs around climate change and energy production.
In an interview with the Guardian, Prof Lovelock has now said he had become more of “a thinker” since retiring from practising science, and is now moving to a seaside home in Dorset.
Speaking about environmentalists, he said: “It's just the way the humans are that if there's a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use.
“The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.”
Is 'green religion' taking over from the Christian religion?
Yes
He also criticised politicians for the way they have handled energy issues.
“I'm neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats,” he explained. "They are all well-meaning, but they have mostly had little experience of power.
“The coalition has behaved disgracefully on environmental and energy policies. It would have been much better if they had been properly rightwing.
“I don't mean something like Thatcher; that was a revolutionary Conservative government. Just a regular one. Our political system works because they tend to self-correct each other.”
Earlier this year, he admitted he had made "mistake" in being so certain about some of his climate predictions, conceding he had been “extrapolating too far”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9340819/Im-not-worried-about-sea-levels-says-climate-change-expert.html
I think we might be nearing a tipping point
Doubt it, they will just continue on repeating, repeat repeat repeat, preferably on schools the younger the better. Sceptics cannot hope to have their budget for indoctrination, nor the networks to even give them acces to media.
Fritz Vahrenholt...hmm where did I see something about him, oh yeah!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html
Frankly if Vahrenholt can't even accurately read the 18-page SPM [ IPCC summary for policymakers ], it's exceptionally difficult to take him seriously. His subsequent comments in the interview reveal that he has been very selective about what scientific research he chooses to accept.
And lots of other goodies there.
James Lovelock has made numerous outrageous predictions before so why should we care about him? It's not like climatology is based on his research is it?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/23/469749/james-lovelock-finally-walks-back-his-absurd-doomism-but-he-still-doesnt-follow-climate-science/
Major Robert Dump
06-19-2012, 14:57
I have 47 mature trees on my property and plan on growing more. The way I see it, that gives me 47 carbon credits, 5 of which I have used:
1. Dumping Freon
2. Flushing my used motor oil down the toilet at the state fair
3. Burning tires
4. Shooting a bald eagle
5. Dumping Freon
I have 42 credits left until my newly planted trees mature to the point of my current ones, which I expect will take about 78 years, so I have to pace myself on the freon dumping etc.
If everyone followed simple rules like mine and lived like I did, this old earth of ours would be a better place for my children.
Fritz Vahrenholt...hmm where did I see something about him, oh yeah!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html
And lots of other goodies there.
James Lovelock has made numerous outrageous predictions before so why should we care about him? It's not like climatology is based on his research is it?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/23/469749/james-lovelock-finally-walks-back-his-absurd-doomism-but-he-still-doesnt-follow-climate-science/
Isn't about his predictions, it's about him understanding that the green movement is a religion REPENT or the apocalypse will cometh
His old claims of doom did not have the science to back them up with nor does his new claims. Examples were provided in my link above. Same link ends with:
But until he actually reads the scientific literature, his thoughts on climate will continue to have, well, no basis in science.
But I guess this prophet-of-the-week-who-confirms-my-belief cherry picking is easier.
His old claims of doom did not have the science to back them up with nor does his new claims. Examples were provided in my link above. Same link ends with:
But I guess this prophet-of-the-week-who-confirms-my-belief cherry picking is easier.
For my position the mere fact that unlike the IPCC claims the science isn't settled, not everybody agrees we should be absolutely terrified of CO2 and that we are all going to be KILLED with DEATH if we do not act RIGHT NOW. And isn't the IPCC the champion in cheery-picking, there have now been so many gates that there aren't enough gardens
Read about the settled science bit here http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm There is both a basic and intermediate answer (and same thing with other two Skeptical Science links)
For IPCC http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm
So many gates you say. I guess the biggest one was the hacked emails and stuff:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
But there are other gates too as mentioned here (yes I know it is a longer text, but that is life for you)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
But a few videos would be easier perhaps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo
If you care so much about cherry picking, then why not also care about how much you are being manipulated by the "skeptics" ?
But since you have problems with acid rain and CFC gases too, I doubt the above links will do much. But gotta try anyway.
How could sceptics manipulate me in the same way believers can?
Lovelock is one example of how a believer(doomist) can make claims that have no scientific basis. There might be more examples and who knows, maybe the stereotypical hippie treehugger, who claims we need to go back to be hunter gatherers or Earth will die, is out there somewhere.
Skeptical Science has a list of the most common skeptical arguments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
In post #384 I encouraged people to watch the Climate Change videos made by Potholer54
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8 In several of the videos he does show how "skeptics" either manipulate or gets things totally wrong, and how it can spread to the mainstream media because people simply don't bother to read what the scientists are actually saying. But at least watch the third and fourth video in case you don't want to watch all 4 hours combined.
That does not mean that misleading information only comes from the "skeptical" side and Potholer54 also provide examples of that in at least one of his videos. Us "mortals" are not always served well by the media, as some journalists are not doing a good enough job on a complex subject.
I got more videos and several links with lots of text and graphs if you are interested, but as my cat has done a Sudetenland on my computerchair it will have to wait until I can check my bookmarks.
It spreads to mainstream media? I didn't notice any sceptics in it maybe that's just me. It will remain in the bloggosphere because sceptics have no acces to it
Could you at least wait a bit longer before you post, you know just so it looks like you have watched the two videos!!
The documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is by definition mainstream media. And what about the "skeptical" links provided in several posts in the thread. Hardly all from the blogosphere.
Could you at least wait a bit longer before you post, you know just so it looks like you have watched the two videos!!
The documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is by definition mainstream media
never heard of it, was it aired in Denmark
Yes it was aired here. It managed to piss off even some of the skeptical scientists because it misrepresented their opinions and research. Several things were then changed later on. Don't know if we were so "lucky" to see the edited or original version.
It was a great piece of manipulated garbage. Although it's from 2007 things have not changed much as many of the arguments are AFAIK still used http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
Yes it was aired here. It managed to piss off even some of the skeptical scientists because it misrepresented their opinions and research. Several things were then changed later on. Don't know if we were so "lucky" to see the edited or original version.
It was a great piece of manipulated garbage. Although it's from 2007 things have not changed much as many of the arguments are AFAIK still used http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
Not here, here kids are dragged at their hair screaming into watching Al Gore's lies, mandatory skullfuck
Was shown here too but I did not see it. From what I read the science in general is sound, but some things might have been more clear like the probability of the high rise in sea level. Either way there is no way one can say these two documentaries are equal in quality.
Google says July 2007 for The Great Global Warming Swindle and August same year for An Inconvenient Truth
Strike For The South
06-22-2012, 00:34
I have 47 mature trees on my property and plan on growing more. The way I see it, that gives me 47 carbon credits, 5 of which I have used:
1. Dumping Freon
2. Flushing my used motor oil down the toilet at the state fair
3. Burning tires
4. Shooting a bald eagle
5. Dumping Freon
I have 42 credits left until my newly planted trees mature to the point of my current ones, which I expect will take about 78 years, so I have to pace myself on the freon dumping etc.
If everyone followed simple rules like mine and lived like I did, this old earth of ours would be a better place for my children.
See the joke here is carbon credits don't really solve anything. MRD could be postulating the only way to change anything is by slowing consumption but I have long since given up assuming anything about him other than his irrevrency and crippiling manic depresion
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-22-2012, 01:19
See the joke here is carbon credits don't really solve anything. MRD could be postulating the only way to change anything is by slowing consumption but I have long since given up assuming anything about him other than his irrevrency and crippiling manic depresion
Well "Carbon Credits" would work if the exchange was 2:1 - i.e. every time you do something bad plant two trees.
People should be rewarded for doing good things though.
It comes down to this - you wouldn't pipe the exhaust of your car back into the cab unless you wanted to kill yourself. Apply that to the planet and the argument is over.
Major Robert Dump
06-22-2012, 01:25
I should not have to plant anything to make up for my pollution if I buy property with a bunch of Carbon Credits already growing on it. When I paid for the land, I bought the unused Carbon Credits from the owner.
I mean, this is how US Cap and Trade works, right? IIRC, that was the most groundbreaking-est, awesome-est, green-est environment saving invention ever from the government, certainly not a tax money grab like everyone said.
So, Philipvs, keep your government out of my carbon credits
InsaneApache
06-22-2012, 01:33
Well said Sir.
Google says July 2007 for The Great Global Warming Swindle and August same year for An Inconvenient Truth
I googled it and it's pro-believer
I googled it and it's pro-believer
The Great Global Warming Swindle is pro believer? Believer in what?
The Great Global Warming Swindle is pro believer? Believer in what?
That we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2 of course.
Maybe I misunderstood you but I took it as you meaning that sceptics were given a stage in Denmark and that there is a balanced debate in Danish media, but that is not the case here.
That we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2 of course.
If that is what you got out of searching on The Great Global Warming Swindle then we don't have the same internets!
If that is what you got out of searching on The Great Global Warming Swindle then we don't have the same internets!
You were right, I was wrong. Got on a wrong page somehow my bad, the swindle swindel or something. Good for Denmark. Sometimes I think I am living in a green DDR-like thought police-state.
You were right, I was wrong. Got on a wrong page somehow my bad, the swindle swindel or something.
Erm you mean this one : http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html The same link I provided in post #402 ?
That link was to show you the level of manipulation and misinformation in that documentary. Such a documentary does absolutely nothing for a debate.
Erm you mean this one : http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html The same link I provided in post #402 ?
That link was to show you the level of manipulation and misinformation in that documentary. Such a documentary does absolutely nothing for a debate.
That one.
But that isn't to say there is nothing to say though, it's like saying a rolex made you missed your train. No matter that they can predict warm and cold periods with absolute precision and there was never an industrial revolution in any of hem. Just this ond where people hate industial. They just happen.
But that isn't to say there is nothing to say though, it's like saying a rolex made you missed your train. No matter that they can predict warm and cold periods with absolute precision and there was never an industrial revolution in any of hem. Just this ond where people hate industial. They just happen.
I'm not sure what you are saying there. The science is not important because you know their intent, which is anti-industrial, or sumfink?
I'm not sure what you are saying there. The science is not important because you know their intent, which is anti-industrial, or sumfink?
It's a new religion, lefties need something new to scream against since the wall fell. I wish it stayed. There is nothing scientific about the global-warming hoax, it's nothing but a very good scam where oil companies get to trade emmision rights which involve billions of dollars/euro's
Reality check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
Ah, so because politicians do idiotic things then the whole science behind it is all a lie. It's wonderful, because you don't have to worry about spending any time trying to figure out the science behind it, you already know it's all wrong! Last time I saw similar reasons to dismiss science, would be religious fanatics who thinks it's all about those damn atheists and seculars.
Of course it did not start after the wall fell, but a bit earlier than that: Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 (http://youtu.be/OmpiuuBy-4s) Yes, a whole 10 minutes of video that you will either not watch or simply just deny.
Ah, so because politicians do idiotic things then the whole science behind it is all a lie. It's wonderful, because you don't have to worry about spending any time trying to figure out the science behind it, you already know it's all wrong! Last time I saw similar reasons to dismiss science, would be religious fanatics who thinks it's all about those damn atheists and seculars.
Of course it did not start after the wall fell, but a bit earlier than that: Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 (http://youtu.be/OmpiuuBy-4s) Yes, a whole 10 minutes of video that you will either not watch or simply just deny.
It's all fine with me, any sitution is perfectly fine with me. you won't make it though sorry ín advance
I won't make it?? Does that mean you're telling me I won't live forever?!!
Furunculus
06-25-2012, 10:08
ice shelf is doing fine:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/
fingers crossed IPCC5 will actually be useful, insomuch as good policy can be based off it.
Of course it is. Typical green mistake, you can't just decide the poles are melting, it really has to be true
InsaneApache
06-25-2012, 10:21
When the computer models and reality collide then it's reality that needs amending.
Fragony, you asked me at one point:
How could sceptics manipulate me in the same way believers can?
When a journalist use the title: Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data shows and the news release discuss only one ice shelf (the Fimbul Ice Shelf, which is the 6th largest of the 43 in the Antarctic area) http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-31.shtml
Funny thing is that the Fimbul Ice Shelf seems to be part of the Antarctica where not much was happening to begin with http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/ So it is all very interesting science but it is no ice shattering discovery that some like to think.
Fingers crossed that IPCC does not jump the gun like some other people....
InsaneApache
06-25-2012, 14:37
Fingers crossed that IPCC does not jump the gun like some other people....
Well it'd make a nice change from just making stuff up.
Fragony, you asked me at one point:
When a journalist use the title: Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data shows and the news release discuss only one ice shelf (the Fimbul Ice Shelf, which is the 6th largest of the 43 in the Antarctic area) http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-31.shtml
Funny thing is that the Fimbul Ice Shelf seems to be part of the Antarctica where not much was happening to begin with http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/ So it is all very interesting science but it is no ice shattering discovery that some like to think.
Fingers crossed that IPCC does not jump the gun like some other people....
It's all explained in the article I don't see the problem, you always have to read between the lines, but it simply can't be denied that believers have almost unlimited recources when compared to sceptics, it's not a fair fight at all.
...but it simply can't be denied that believers have almost unlimited recources when compared to sceptics, it's not a fair fight at all.
Hm, yeah maybe the skeptics need more funding, because so far they seem to getting it wrong.
5920
The author of (the?) The Register article (Lewis Page) did ring a bell somewhere and a quick look at his other articles showed a disturbing lack of credibility. Then it dawned on me that he had indeed been debunked on the YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vIWD4tAHc&feature=g-user-a&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8
The usual stuff of not reading the actual science behind it all, and jumping to the standard "skeptical" conclusions, yada yada. The only thing one can read behind the lines is his bias and ignorance, and nothing to do with lack of funding for those poor skeptics who can't get the truth out.
Hm, yeah maybe the skeptics need more funding, because so far they seem to getting it wrong.
5920
But they exist. Science is not settled. How could the individual sceptic compete with an almost recourceless IPCC? Excommunication from the green church means professional death
But they exist.
So does flat earthers, astrologers, homeopathist, numerologists, geocentrists and creationists etc etc. Heck there is even a guy who made an alternative theory to Einstein's relativity.
Science is not settled.
Wait, didn't I provide a link about the settled science bit, oh yeah another unread/misunderstood link I presume. Tell me this, when will you consider any type of science settled?
How could the individual sceptic compete with an almost recourceless IPCC? Excommunication from the green church means professional death.
Almost resourceless? That is actually quite funny because they don't have many resources, although I'm sure you actually meant limitless resources or something. From 1988 to 2007 their total expenses was less than 100 million dollars and the current annual budget is AFAIK still less than 10 million.
It is a lot easier to have IPCC as some evil bogeyman, instead of dealing with the fact that there are thousands of scientists who either author or review all this stuff.
That means there is only one logical conclusion: This global warming hoax is the biggest conspiracy since the faked Moon landings!
So does flat earthers, astrologers, homeopathist, numerologists, geocentrists and creationists etc etc. Heck there is even a guy who made an alternative theory to Einstein's relativity.
Wait, didn't I provide a link about the settled science bit, oh yeah another unread/misunderstood link I presume. Tell me this, when will you consider any type of science settled?
Almost resourceless? That is actually quite funny because they don't have many resources, although I'm sure you actually meant limitless resources or something. From 1988 to 2007 their total expenses was less than 100 million dollars and the current annual budget is AFAIK still less than 10 million.
It is a lot easier to have IPCC as some evil bogeyman, instead of dealing with the fact that there are thousands of scientists who either author or review all this stuff.
That means there is only one logical conclusion: This global warming hoax is the biggest conspiracy since the faked Moon landings!
It IS a hoax. There is no global warming it doesn't exist it is as simple as that. There was also no acid rain it never existed, and the hole in the ozon layer just lost interest. Who is 'they' the way, the anti truth folks are making billions of pecunia's with the emmision rights scam, it's a pyramide-game that is making some people filthy rich. At our expense.
There was also no acid rain it never existed.
:laugh4: ?
Oh deary me...
a completely inoffensive name
06-26-2012, 19:43
I love it when people treat problems that we fixed as issues that never arose.
Polio? Never existed. Big hoax by pharmaceuticals to rake in the money with their sugar water..
:laugh4: ?
Oh deary me...
Yes, there was no acid rain. That was also a hoax. Impossible ain't it
Greyblades
06-26-2012, 20:46
I think we should have a rule where Frags cant state any platitude without at least 3 sources backing him up.
InsaneApache
06-26-2012, 23:12
:laugh4: ?
Oh deary me...
Indeed.
Polio? Never existed. Big hoax by pharmaceuticals to rake in the money with their sugar water..
Now that you mention Polio http://whyfiles.org/2012/denial-of-science-science-of-denial/
An earlier example of denialism occurred in the 1950s, after Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, a breakthrough that halted a dreaded, paralyzing disease.Many chiropractors, Carroll found, opposed vaccines since they negated the central premise of chiropractic — that all disease results from misalignment of the vertebrae. “It shocked me. They actively opposed, disputed the efficacy of the polio vaccine. The opposed the March of Dimes, and federal and state efforts to get everybody vaccinated.”
FIVE HALLMARKS OF DENIALISM
The opposition continued — even after the polio epidemic tapered off as a result of the mass vaccination that started in 1955, says Carroll. And he identifies the tactics used then as a “playbook” of science denial that is echoed in more recent struggles over evolution, vaccines and global warming:
1. Doubt the science:
[*=left]• “CDC statistics make clear that polio was disappearing anyway.”
[*=left]• “There is no real evidence that evolution is occurring; evolution is not science at all.”
2. Question the motivation:
[*=left]• “The vaccine manufacturers are just interested in profits.”
[*=left]• “Climate scientists are only interested in more grant money.”
3. Exaggerate normal scientific disputes:
[*=left]• Cite gadflies as authorities even though they are a tiny minority.
[*=left]• Insist on “balanced coverage” even when almost all of the experts are on one side of the issue.
4. Exaggerate the potential harm:
[*=left]• “We cannot control global warming without destroying our economy.”
[*=left]• “Darwin’s talk about the struggle for existence lead to the Nazi Holocaust and World War II.”
5. Appeal to personal freedom:
[*=left]• “Students should be able to opt out of classes on evolution.”
[*=left]• “We support each individual’s right to freedom of choice” on vaccines (American Chiropractic Association, 1998).
Montmorency
06-27-2012, 00:39
Thirty-one percent of Americans thought humans and other living things “have existed in the present form since the beginning of time.”
What the evolutionists don't tell you is that these people have come to accept the more plausible Lovecraftian Synthesis theory.
a completely inoffensive name
06-27-2012, 03:22
Now that you mention Polio http://whyfiles.org/2012/denial-of-science-science-of-denial/
This is absolutely wonderful. I friggen love you CBR.
I think we should have a rule where Frags cant state any platitude without at least 3 sources backing him up.
In acid rain case,
- there are no mass starvations
- there is no world war 3
- we didn't act right now
In acid rain case,
- there are no mass starvations
- there is no world war 3
- we didn't act right now
That is a list of claims. Now you need to find some sources to show that these claims are real and not just made up by you.
That is a list of claims. Now you need to find some sources to show that these claims are real and not just made up by you.
Ha. I was still at school when acid rain was imprinted, it was acid rain that was going to kill us all, if we do not act right now. Dead lakes in Sweden. All harvests useless. Mass migration. Mass starvations. Sounds familar doesn't it. I also was still at school when the hole in the ozon layer was going to give us all skin cancer, if we do not act right now.
Papewaio
06-27-2012, 08:05
Frag the Ozone hole above Antartica did shrink once Ozone depleting CFCs were removed. Much like lead levels in the atmosphere plummeted as we went to unleaded fuels.
Both CFCs and leaded fuel have something else in common apart from being atmospheric pollutants. Ten interwebs to the first correct answer.
Frag the Ozone hole above Antartica did shrink once Ozone depleting CFCs were removed. Much like lead levels in the atmosphere plummeted as we went to unleaded fuels.
Both CFCs and leaded fuel have something else in common apart from being atmospheric pollutants. Ten interwebs to the first correct answer.
It's still there. There is also one above Russia. But the green movement lost interest and moved on to another host
Papewaio
06-27-2012, 09:10
Yes there is, but it has reduced above Antartica with the reduction in CFCs.
Catiline
06-27-2012, 09:10
Frag the Ozone hole above Antartica did shrink once Ozone depleting CFCs were removed. Much like lead levels in the atmosphere plummeted as we went to unleaded fuels.
Both CFCs and leaded fuel have something else in common apart from being atmospheric pollutants. Ten interwebs to the first correct answer.
Thomas Midgley
Yes there is, but it has reduced above Antartica with the reduction in CFCs.
Ya sure, just like it growed in Russia it's 4 times as big covering just about the whole of Russia. But holes in the ozon layer aren't profiable anymore. Neither is acid rain. Not scary enough anymore, used up.
Ha. I was still at school when acid rain was imprinted, it was acid rain that was going to kill us all, if we do not act right now. Dead lakes in Sweden. All harvests useless. Mass migration. Mass starvations. Sounds familar doesn't it. I also was still at school when the hole in the ozon layer was going to give us all skin cancer, if we do not act right now.
But didn't we "act right now" to starve off the process? Thus we acted and "won", but since we did that, you are now calling it a hoax.
- Move from leaded to unleaded petrol.
- catalytic converters standard on all cars.
- Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol
- Flue-gas desulfurization
- Low-Sulphur Coal used in power-stations
There are even measures taken place all over to provide solutions to the issue. Whilst it hasn't gone away completely yet, it isn't a critical concern.
InsaneApache
06-27-2012, 12:48
We did indeed act in regard to CFCs and acid rain. It didn't involve taxing us back into the dark ages though, did it?
We did indeed act in regard to CFCs and acid rain. It didn't involve taxing us back into the dark ages though, did it?
The biggest increase has been because of the bail-outs given to the banks and sectors of the economy. Internal leaning from the Bank of England to businesses has been 13 times the size of the Greek debt. The government has spent absolutely nothing in comparison in terms of the environment.
ICantSpellDawg
06-27-2012, 12:57
I was just thinking about this for some reason. I think that it is clear that the current climate is changing (although when in history was it not?). I think that I am also inclined to believe, based on the evidence that I've read, that we may have something to do with this most recent bout of changes. Now, I have not read any experts opinion that suggests we can fix the problem at this point in time. This leaves us with 3 options that are practical:
1. Adapt. Find better and more sustainable ways of cooling ourselves, growing more resilient crops and irrigation measures, preserving drinking water and pushing de-desalinization methods.
2. Alter our methods of powering our civilization. More for cost saving, pollution reduction, national security, and grid stabilization reasons than limiting carbon emissions; we need to develop more sustainable and varied ways of powering our lives. The increased global temperatures will put greater strain on our current networks. Correcting our current usage issues will have the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions which will satisfy the people who are obsessed with that stuff just to get them off of our backs.
3. Colonize other planets. Push the development of the moon and mars and eventually actualize Wall-E/Cowboy Bebop type stuff. For some reason preservation of the species is something that we care about, so we should be trying to do that long after the sun burns out or we collide with another galaxy.
Any thoughts?
I apologize for the generally Euro-centric figures:
I already gave a link to a report that showed the considerable reductions of NOx and SO2 in Europe (post from August last year in this thread) but I'll post the graph from that PDF here along with newer numbers:
5948
Then the new stuff and remember that these are now for 27 countries and not 15. Nonetheless the trend is clear.
5949
5950
For CFC:
5951
Yes, I guess all those fancy graphs shows "We didn't act now" But it does show considerable reductions and therefore one should also expect some type of effect. For acid rain the effect is quick but for CFC it takes a while as the lifetime for the gases seems to be anywhere between 45 to 100 years.
It is therefore no surprise that there is a still an ozone hole. If the media in general does not write a lot about it, is hardly a big surprise either. It is no longer big news nor can we do much about it but wait.
Any thoughts?You forgot #4: Wait until the next large high-sulfur volcanic event.
Greyblades
06-27-2012, 16:19
I wonder if a cotroled release of volcanic gas into a series of wind turbines could be used to power a city?
InsaneApache
06-27-2012, 22:16
Now that's creative thinking.
Tellos Athenaios
06-27-2012, 22:38
Actually something similarly is already being done in Iceland, just not with wind turbines (steam turbines). Trouble is, if you don't have an proper, active and preferably punctual geiser handy you're pretty much out of luck. Volcanoes either tend not to be very cooperative for 24x7 power or alternatively a bit too giving (destroying your equipment in a blaze of volcanic power aka eruption).
Greyblades
06-28-2012, 01:19
Now that's creative thinking.
I'm a dwarf fortress player, its in my nature to harness deadly substances, that the construction will likely kill off half the workforce doesnt matter if it keeps me in running water and thinking trinkets are worth collecting..
Actually something similarly is already being done in Iceland, just not with wind turbines (steam turbines). Trouble is, if you don't have an proper, active and preferably punctual geiser handy you're pretty much out of luck. Volcanoes either tend not to be very cooperative for 24x7 power or alternatively a bit too giving (destroying your equipment in a blaze of volcanic power aka eruption).
If you dig deep enough you can have thermal power here as well, it costs you 30.000 euro or so. It isn't really worth it, but it's possible. It's only for warming up water of course.
Furunculus
07-10-2012, 13:06
flombayed legionarries:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InsspuvAmBs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
To the credit of the Church of Global Warming though, Rome fell
It is funny to see how tree rings suddenly are cool (get it?) when they produce the data people like to see.
Another fail from Lewis Page. Not that it is a big surprise though, but funny nonetheless. This headline: Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now. Andthat is based on Northern Scandinavian data only. Wow how more local can you get while still making bold statements. Heck there is more silliness in his article, but why waste more time on him than I have to.
From the comments it shows that he doesn't convince many. Heck, you will get more science from the comments than from the actual article. For some science and thoughts about the study, check here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/
The Roman and medieval warmth are well known way before The global-warming hoax was invented by the Green Khmer. Any historian can tell you that.
Tellos Athenaios
07-10-2012, 21:54
If you believe the IPCC and co are "biased" or "selective", then by contrast L. Page is positively a top DC spinmeister for a presidential election or budget campaign of your choice. ~;)
Furunculus
07-10-2012, 22:07
It is funny to see how tree rings suddenly are cool (get it?) when they produce the data people like to see.
Another fail from Lewis Page. Not that it is a big surprise though, but funny nonetheless. This headline: Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now. Andthat is based on Northern Scandinavian data only. Wow how more local can you get while still making bold statements. Heck there is more silliness in his article, but why waste more time on him than I have to.
From the comments it shows that he doesn't convince many. Heck, you will get more science from the comments than from the actual article. For some science and thoughts about the study, check here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/
Interesting link, cheers. Particularly the comments.
Furunculus
07-10-2012, 22:08
If you believe the IPCC and co are "biased" or "selective", then by contrast L. Page is positively a top DC spinmeister for a presidential election or budget campaign of your choice. ~;)
Page is a shocking defence correspondant!
Tellos Athenaios
07-10-2012, 22:33
~:) He does tend to keep banging on and on about the same point, doesn't he?
Although it's a fair point that the UK is probably better off with actual planes on actual carriers rather than, say, lots of tanks.
Papewaio
07-11-2012, 00:06
Well tanks on aircraft carriers wouldnt be as useful methinks... Mind you you could convert it into a short range artillery emplacement perfect for roughing up at short range.
The Roman and medieval warmth are well known way before The global-warming hoax was invented by the Green Khmer. Any historian can tell you that.
And the data for the Northern Hemisphere still show them, so what is the problem?
And the data for the Northern Hemisphere still show them, so what is the problem?
Indeed what's the problem. It isn't all that bad that the earth is cooling down, we are doing just fine.
Indeed what's the problem. It isn't all that bad that the earth is cooling down, we are doing just fine.
Cooling down? Oh yeah, the graph shows a trend of -0.31 C per 1000 years. A trend that stops around 1900, which is also where the dotted line stops.
6263
Even the hockey stick shows a cooling trend, although the value varies a bit depending on what study it was. So no big surprise there...
Yeah it's cooling down, flaggalism is fun I suppose. Why do people insist on us being able to change he climate? Should have sticked to christianity, also stupid but not that stupid
Why do people insist on us being able to change he climate? By using methods that you are incapable or unwilling to ever understand or accept.
By using methods that you are incapable or unwilling to ever understand or accept.
It's just impossible mia muca, we can't change the orbital pull that is responsible for all that with all these planets surrounding us. Sometimes earth is closer to the sun, sometimes a little further of it. It has the precision of a rolex watch if you look for not a 100 years but for millions.
Orbital pull??
That is why them scientists wants to find that Higgs boson (actually, how do we know such a thing exist? Oh yeah the scientists told us) as they can then control gravity and change the orbital pull.
Orbital pull??
That is why them scientists wants to find that Higgs boson (actually, how do we know such a thing exist? Oh yeah the scientists told us) as they can then control gravity and change the orbital pull.
All about the money, there is a lot of money in doomsday. Global-warming is just another one. Fall for it fine, but I don't.
Yes it is all about the money of course. The scientists have an eye on the more than $500 billion used globally on subsidies for fossil fuels. They also know they can't keep on convincing everyone about fusion power, which always seem to be just a few decades away (they claim)
Luckily, as seen in Madrid (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/11/spanish-coal-miners-protest-madrid) the people are starting to see the truth. Just how stupid do the politicians and scientists think we are?? We want cheap and affordable fossil energy, paid by taxes.
Yes it is all about the money of course. The scientists have an eye on the more than $500 billion used globally on subsidies for fossil fuels. They also know they can't keep on convincing everyone about fusion power, which always seem to be just a few decades away (they claim)
Luckily, as seen in Madrid (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/11/spanish-coal-miners-protest-madrid) the people are starting to see the truth. Just how stupid do the politicians and scientists think we are?? We want cheap and affordable fossil energy, paid by taxes.
It's of no use to be arguing about religion with the religious, and it really comes to that really. They need their apocalypse I can't help that.
Oh it's religion AND they want your money? A bit like Scientology then.
Oh it's religion AND they want your money? A bit like Scientology then.
Not just a bit
As Americans are discovering that plants need more than just CO2 to grow, I bet they would love some of that Greenland meltwater (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SuJ1sFn_B0&feature=player_embedded)
But if course it is all not disasters as Greenland does indeed look quite nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUKvq1ynz9Y
Greenland being green who would have thought, there was plenty of agriculture there during he medieval warmth
1. Adapt. Find better and more sustainable ways of cooling ourselves, growing more resilient crops and irrigation measures, preserving drinking water and pushing de-desalinization methods.
2. Alter our methods of powering our civilization. More for cost saving, pollution reduction, national security, and grid stabilization reasons than limiting carbon emissions; we need to develop more sustainable and varied ways of powering our lives. The increased global temperatures will put greater strain on our current networks. Correcting our current usage issues will have the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions which will satisfy the people who are obsessed with that stuff just to get them off of our backs.
3. Colonize other planets. Push the development of the moon and mars and eventually actualize Wall-E/Cowboy Bebop type stuff. For some reason preservation of the species is something that we care about, so we should be trying to do that long after the sun burns out or we collide with another galaxy.
Any thoughts?
#3 is pretty fanciful and is gonna cost a helluva lot of money and will be for a few people only. Might as well build big domes in the deserts here on Earth.
Both #1 and #2 are needed. We have not seen the end of increasing temperatures, even if we were to stop pumping out CO2 tomorrow.
In the US the GOP seems to be on a collision course with reason and science, but at least some seems to be getting it: http://energyandenterprise.com/
Furunculus
07-23-2012, 13:10
worth another look:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100018956/governments-arent-taking-climate-change-seriously-otherwise-theyd-investigate-this-possible-solution/
iron fertilisation
Papewaio
07-29-2012, 22:55
http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-turn-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html
Skeptic think tank now agree that the globe has warmed over the last 250 years and that carbon is the most likely reason likely reason for this.
THE Earth's land has warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years and ''humans are almost entirely the cause'', according to a scientific study set up to address climate sceptic concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.
Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said he was ''surprised'' by the findings. ''We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds.''
worth another look:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100018956/governments-arent-taking-climate-change-seriously-otherwise-theyd-investigate-this-possible-solution/
iron fertilisation
The author of the blog seems to be pretty harsh on the inactivity of governments. Considering that the research results have just been published, so maybe let science do its thing and let them digest it first.
Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Ironside
10-15-2012, 09:30
Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
I've been mentioning that over a year ago. It's not hard to find out. Now it's worth remembering that they are a bit devious with the data, since it's only really working on year 1997. 1998 is too hot, any year before 1997 and 1999, 2000 too cold. The 0 line on that graph is also the 1901-2000 average. So it haven't been a warming up, but it's been consistantly warm.
I'll even admit that if the trend of stable (but still very warm temperature) temperatures continues or there's a significant cooling, you are right on this matter.
That's a problem with multifactor systems. It takes a long time to figure them out. You can easily have a mostly linear manmade global warming with a cyclic natural system. It would have fairly stable peroids combined with temperature bursts.
InsaneApache
10-15-2012, 12:04
This is why I changed my mind. I'm not hidebound by dogma.
This is why I changed my mind. I'm not hidebound by dogma.
You mean you had one ;) manmade global warming is so utterly rediculous that it baffles me this religion could ever get a hold on things. It's a friggin planet ffs. You can't just change climate and you especially can't change it in a century. Be ashamed, feel bad. Now.
7430
The El Nino and La Nina does mean temperatures varies a lot from year to year. 2010 was warmer than 1998, yet it did not have an El Nino as strong as in 1998.
7431
The increase in aerosols also seems to have offset the warming a bit. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html
Oh and when has steam from cooling towers suddenly become smoke. lolz
Furunculus
10-16-2012, 16:28
Oops http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
still feeling remarkably confident about my stated opinion on catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change:
a) the IPCC has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is principally responsible for what will be catastrophic climate change in the near future, or that the many claimed impacts which justify the title “catastrophe” are based on solid and sound science.
b) the IPCC climate change models that underpin this conclusion have insufficient data for long term projections, do not properly account for feedback mechanisms and thus fail to produce accurate projections, and contain too many errors to produce truthful projections.
c) the political solutions to the problem as presented by the IPCC are both staggeringly expensive for human society, and highly inefficient as a method achieving a non-catastrophic outcome, and thus require a large amount of certainty in (a) and (b) before implementing (c) becomes a sensible idea.
InsaneApache
02-22-2014, 13:22
What's that sound?
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
Is it wheels falling off a bandwagon?
:laugh4:
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 13:28
Fallacy fallacy. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy)
InsaneApache
02-22-2014, 13:36
Well if he couldn't even meet the low standards of a civil court, i.e. the balance of probabilities, I very much doubt he would be able to get past a rigorous investigation.
Still if you want you can always stick you fingers in your ears and shout la la la at the top of your voice.
It will likely be open season on Mann. Anyone may now freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 13:39
Well if he couldn't even meet the low standards of a civil court, i.e. the balance of probabilities, I very much doubt he would be able to get past a rigorous investigation.
Still if you want you can always stick you fingers in your ears and shout la la la at the top of your voice.
A fallacy fallacy is still a fallacy. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html)
Sure gorgeous. Can we move on to water shortages please, global warming is getting old.
What's that sound?
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html
Is it wheels falling off a bandwagon?
:laugh4:
I don't care who is right, I just like the idea of scientists suing eachother over who is right.
And yes, it seems like the pro-climate guy was the first to do it.
Principia scientific is also a horrible website that's incredibly biased, in case you did not know this.
The only website I trust is wikipedia.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 15:36
nvm.
nvm.
A very popular stance within the church of global warming. I kinda like the absolute silence of apocalyptoloco's really. You just can't decide the earth is warming up, it really has to be true, otherwise it isn't. Classical mistake.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 18:31
A very popular stance within the church of global warming. I kinda like the absolute silence of apocalyptoloco's really. You just can't decide the earth is warming up, it really has to be true, otherwise it isn't. Classical mistake.
I just love how you are able to spin a story like that without having the faintest clue of what post I deleted.
I just love how you are able to spin a story like that without having the faintest clue of what post I deleted.
It's just too examplary to resist, common reaction nowadays now that the flaggalants are wrong as usual, no global warming, no apocalypse of doom; nvm. So, time to move on I'd reckon. Water shortages is a contender, as it will lead to mass starvations, war, and of course totaldoom. If we do not act right now.
Fits like a glove. Soon on schools: 'How are YOU going to teach your parents about water shortages'? The apocalyptic religious always have a problem with not getting under anyones skirt.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 19:51
It's just too examplary to resist, common reaction nowadays now that the flaggalants are wrong as usual, no global warming, no apocalypse of doom; nvm. So, time to move on I'd reckon. Water shortages is a contender, as it will lead to mass starvations, war, and of course totaldoom. If we do not act right now.
Fits like a glove. Soon on schools: 'How are YOU going to teach your parents about water shortages'? The apocalyptic religious always have a problem with not getting under anyones skirt.
For your information, I posted a link I later found out contained a dead link. As I don't want to use secondary sources with no available primary source, I removed the entire thing and replaced it with a "nvm".
Enjoy your paranoid ramblings.
Enjoy your paranoid ramblings.
I am not the one who believes in the apocalypse of doom, that would be the greenies. Relax man, you will eventually die because of natural causes, have some patience.
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 20:03
I am not the one who believes in the apocalypse of doom, that would be the greenies. Relax man, you will eventually die because of natural causes, have some patience.
Keep going. Your ability to spin nonsense out of thin air is hilarious.
Keep going. Your ability to spin nonsense out of thin air is hilarious.
You know what's hilarious, a teacher in math who backs a theory made by people who claim that sea levels can rise more than two meters if the entire artic melts.
What did Al Gore say, 70 meter. Lololol, not enough ice
HoreTore
02-22-2014, 20:16
You know what's hilarious, a teacher in math who backs a theory made by people who claim that sea levels can rise more than two meters if the entire artic melts.
Allright then Fragsy, bring on your calculus:
Give me a mathematical proof how this is impossible. Constructed by you, of course.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.