Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it will depend on whether we have to bail out Al Gore's carbon credit company. Global Warming could be true but carbon credits is a hypocritical joke that says it's okay to be an energy pig if you can buy your way out of it.
Also, people are REALLY going to hate cap and trade. Right now, the magician is making you believe that the only thing that will go up is your utility bills but when cap and trade hits businesses they are going to pass those costs onto you in your purchases of their products and services. Add to that, a Value Added Tax...hopefully, there will be no statues to pull down.
False, and this has been shown consistently. It is "believed" to be the cause by some, it is not scientifically evident. This is a fact. You confuse the issue between the two due to either an appeal to authority, or a position of ignorance.
An appeal to reason and logic doesn't work with deniers and conspiracy theorists and, so there isn't really much choice in the matter. They'll ignore the overwhelming evidence on the matter, and therefore it must be impressed upon them that there is near-unanimous acceptance of the theory of global warming.
Quote:
Hypothesis. Seriously, can you please learn science before you come into a thread ignorantly spouting off political lines.
No, every reputable source I've seen has referred to it as a theory, and contrary to what climate change deniers (and their intellectual bretheren, young earth creationists) say, a theory is different from a hypothesis.
Show me a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal that refutes current mainstream understanding of climate change if you desire to prove that the evidence is on your side.
I think what you are stating is that according to the chart indicated for the one month of March 2010 they returned to the average loss of 2.6% per decade so that is significant? The prior record was set in 2006 with a new loss that increased by an area the size of Texas. But that is just one small piece of the pie, if you read through all the other charts on that page I just don’t see how you can come up with any other conclusion other that there is a dramatic warming of the artic. I would certainly not be comfortable with even a 2.6% loss but it is far greater.
2.6% loss is the consistent pattern of loss, with a deviation of 4.1%. You keep focusing on the loss of 2006, but you seem to be ignoring the gain in 2008-2010. That is, it is back up to its normal pattern of loss and we don't know if it may continue to gain. Why is the loss significant and the gain not? Note you are narrowly focusing on the loss and ignoring the over all. The numbers are what they are, the loss in 206 while significant is not dramatic when we consider the larger picture. What is important is the trend and the standard deviation between melt and growth. Overall, this isn't dramatic unless we are to claim that this is unprecedented which in that case, we have to refer to historical records which do not support the claim that it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12
The yearly maximums, minimums, averages are declining between 4 to 10%. The sea ice is declining at a rate of 11.2% since 2000, most people would say that is dramatic. Remember that ice reflects light while sea water absorbs so you would expect the process to become more pronounced.
Look at the overall data from 1979-2010. Look at the arctic roos link I gave you, it has a list of all the assessments of minimum and maximum. Look at the trend, it isn't as dramatic when you look at the entire trend. Unless, you specifically target a year and focus on it, it has been an even loss with a balanced growth in its return. I see one specific year as fairly large in loss, but as is constantly repeated, weather is not climate. That is, using one seasons loss and ignoring gain is... well.. devious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12
If you don’t trust NASA why do you trust their data? NASA has nothing to gain by creating a false alarm, but if there is an organization that can dispute their statistics let them have at it. It would have to be one of the biggest hoaxes in the world; the higher temperatures, melting glaciers, reduction in the polar ice caps?
I don't always, especially when it deals with surface stations. Why do you think there have been so many FOI requests to NASA? Why do you think the CEI is in suit with them over it? Why do you think the CRU was basically destroyed by the issue of raw vs value added data? We don't trust their data unless they are willing to provide the raw data and their methodology.
In this case though, their assessments of the data aren't matching what the data is saying. This is the objection to their play on words, the use of truncation to imply causation, the emphasis on insignificant to promote significant. That is, their own conclusions do not match the data they provide. /shrug
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMlost12
The truth is that the energy lobby, particularly coal does stand to gain and is attempting to discredit scientific facts.
And yet it is only the various climate science institutions who have been found negligent and disingenuous in their handling of the science. You have been keeping up on the CRU, IPCC, NASA and the GISS problems as well as the current discussion in the scientific corners of the field haven't you? Honestly, it is a bit odd that you would resort to such a speculation when evidence is to the contrary currently.
An appeal to reason and logic doesn't work with deniers and conspiracy theorists and, so there isn't really much choice in the matter. They'll ignore the overwhelming evidence on the matter, and therefore it must be impressed upon them that there is near-unanimous acceptance of the theory of global warming.
No, every reputable source I've seen has referred to it as a theory, and contrary to what climate change deniers (and their intellectual bretheren, young earth creationists) say, a theory is different from a hypothesis.
Show me a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal that refutes current mainstream understanding of climate change if you desire to prove that the evidence is on your side.
If you haven't noticed, I have been discussing civilly and logically with IMLost12. We disagree on some things, but he can properly support his opinion on the issue while you have yet to do so.
Your responses are that of an ignorance to the issue. You use talking point claims, never deal with the science, and spend most of your time speculating on the motives of those you contest.
Again, either enter the discussion or run along. Your arguments are politically motivated and supported. There is no point in contesting such because it finds no foundation in science.
If you like, comment on our sea ice extent discussion, otherwise run along and troll someone who has no understanding of the issue. You are wasting valuable discussion with your diatribe.
An appeal to reason and logic doesn't work with deniers and conspiracy theorists and, so there isn't really much choice in the matter. They'll ignore the overwhelming evidence on the matter, and therefore it must be impressed upon them that there is near-unanimous acceptance of the theory of global warming.
No, every reputable source I've seen has referred to it as a theory, and contrary to what climate change deniers (and their intellectual bretheren, young earth creationists) say, a theory is different from a hypothesis.
Show me a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal that refutes current mainstream understanding of climate change if you desire to prove that the evidence is on your side.
watermelon rat, I’ve been insulted by some of the best but this is about as good as I've seen. "deniers" are on par in your mind with conspiracy theorists. nice.
not true but clearly it shows everyone else what kind of thinker you are.
I have posted links to peer reviewed material.
Material that shows paleo-climatology without tree rings that proves the MWP was global.
I have provided links to peer reviewed material that shows corn being grown above 3000M in Peru during the MWP. Proof again that it has been warmer than today in the past.
links that prove there is no link between hurricane frequency or intensity and AGW
Links that prove the surface temperature record is shoddy at best and might very well be tampered with at worst.
Links that prove there is NO sea level rise that is outside of the average 200 year trend.
Others here have provided even more than I have.
We have provided plenty of scientific evidence that at the very least provides enough evidence that there is a valid debate about AGW. That the side that is skeptical has valid scientific points.
and yet your view is we are "deniers". "crazy people"
Yet we count world class scientists among us. Men who clearly have spent their lives studying climate.
But Watermelon Rat has decided we are all deranged lunatics. Well Watermelon Rat, clearly you aren’t exactly someone who is willing to dialog so why even open these threads…WatermelonRat.
And one more point related to the local Watermelon Rat who stated... and I quote:
"There has never been a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal that has put forth a refutation of current scientific understanding of global warming."
There is clear evidence that Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt and a handfull of others have worked OVERTIME to keep all scientific papers that challenge their belief in AGW OUT of the peer review process and out of the major journals.
That evidence comes in the form of their own (undenied) email exchanges.
Why is this still an issue?? THE DATA WAS FUDGED!!!!!!!! THEY WERE BUSTED!!
You know why this is still out there?? The liberal media are still giving legs to this crap!!!!! They are still propping up these phonies on CNN and MSNBC!!
Oh really? And what data was fudged? You aren't talking about those leaked emails, are you?
Oh really? And what data was fudged? You aren't talking about those leaked emails, are you?
The emails are valid, have been shown to be so, granted under a forced acceptance of such by whitewashed investigations, but they have reluctantly admitted to the fact that they do show evidence of tampering be it deliberate or through allowing bias to creep in their methodology and the display of their results.
The evidence also shows they did as the investigation likes to claim "act poorly" in putting pressure on journals to not publish material that did not meet the AGW acceptance.
They were also found guilty of violation of FOI requests regardless of the fact that the violations timed out due to a short legal limit.
If you are discounting the emails, then that would be you, those accused of them (and even they have accepted them to an extent), and the fanatics supporting the bias. The scientific community has already accepted them, acknowledge they are valid, and agree that they are a sore spot for the reputation of the field.
These emails are also responsible for turning up a large amount of findings concerning the IPCC and its failure to follow its own policies for peer reviewed literature and proper process of review of its own assessment reports.
Again, if you are dismissing them, you are arguing talking points that few even contain in their trash bins these days. That is, you are sorely out of the loop.
I am not just focusing on the 2006 loss but the continued loss over the last 3 decades, still the loss for 2006 is still dramatic. The main concern is the consistent loss over 30 years and monthly fluctuations. Sea ice is critical and any loss can speed up the melting process since it acts as a reflector of heat. Their conclusions don't match their assessments of data, I disagree. What would be an acceptable loss of sea ice, 5% per decade, 10%? What would be an acceptable carbon level, 400 ppM? Looking at all the information, sea ice loss, rising sea levels, increased temperatures and CO2, their conclusions seem valid.
2006 isn't a significant loss when we account for the significant gain of growth.
As for what is an acceptable loss? What is an acceptable gain? What is normalized over the course of 50, 100, or a 1000 years? A hill may look big from close up, it may seem as if it is the largest you have ever seen, but if you aren't looking at the range of mountains, how would you even know?
What was the temp of the Arctic in the 1920's? Historical records suggest it to be as warm as it is now or warmer. And observational records through various eye witness and journal accounts describes it in much a similar fashion as we hear now concerning its "devastating" losses.
You mention Co2 levels, but do you consider the fact that even the research that shows it back as far as 800 years or more doesn't have Co2 coinciding with temperature? That is, they have no idea if it precedes or postcodes Co2 levels.
You mention sea level rise, but as Ferd pointed out, its change is not outside of normal trends either.
The problem with NASA and like agencies is that they are chasing a bias in their assessment of the information. There is much in the way of objections concerning the data collection and the methodology of the field. There is no consensus as official organizations would have you believe and those that have attempted to solidify such claims have honestly been caught with their hand in the cookie jar (IPCC has been found on numerous accounts to have used gray literature for support, some of it ridiculously unscientific).
I would show you arguments that point out such problems with NASA, NSIDC, GISS, etc... using their very own records to point out the flaws in their methodology, their narrowed view of the issue to purport a leaning bias, and many other issues with the field, but will you simply disregard them with a source objection, even when all of the data being assessed is there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
