Ummm...About that Melting Arctic Ice....... (radical, myths, cost, vote)
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.
They are using the supposed scientific data to implement a world-wide agenda of wealth redistribution. You cannot separate the two - they are linked.
The only reason you see one ideology linked to it is because the progressives always address pressing issues first. They used government to end slavery and to end subjugation of women and to provide civil rights - all things that humans should do naturally. The same is happening today. You are part of the group dragging your feet as you would have been part of the group dragging its feet on slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc... - you would have claimed government is trying to control our lives and all the stuff you're claiming today about climate change.
If you don't want government, then create free market solutions. But, denying the reality of the problem is simply not an option any longer.
Quote:
OMG - are you serious? Wait for winter to arrive. The snow will be back, I guarantee it.
You REALLY don't understand how nature works. Your initial post was completely discredited (for obvious reasons), and your inability to see that those peaks used to have snowpack year-round is simply astounding.
Seriously. You're in way over your head on this issue.
Quote:
YOU made the claim that we are experiencing today an exponential escalation many, many, many times the levels anything nature has created. I should have realized that statement was nothing more than a bunch of bs and you are not able to back it up with ANY examples.
Come on, you must have some example in your little head that would corroborate your claim.
haha - all the facts I have presented that you have been unable to refute and you think you have your little "gotcha" moment. I was seriously giving you the opportunity to actually research unbiased sources to draw your own conclusion. I was not ducking the issue. But, have it your way. Humans simply can't survive outside of a certain range of temperatures, and our infrastructure has been built for a specific range.
The following changes show that we are advancing beyond that realm. Take it or leave it, but stop fighting this issue on political grounds.
There is debate over how much influence humans are having, but not over whether humans are having an influence on climate. But, ultimately, you're mixing politics with science.
People, such as the OP, are looking for any reason whatsoever to deny human-influenced climate change because they fear the political repercussions.
What measures may or may not be taken are for another discussion. This thread is focused on the science and the claim that it has been refuted by an article that explicitly states global warming has not been refuted.
We are welcome to deny the overwhelming evidence correlating the industrial revolution with a significant increase in greenhouse gases with warming global temperatures, but our motivations should be science.
As it is, I have yet to see anyone without a political ax to grind attempt to refute the evidence.
Well, in all honesty I am squarely on the side of no AGW. GW yes. Natural GW, and more than likely to be on the verge of a big reversal.
Not because of politics but because of science.
I was told the Hockystick proves Global warming
Then I find out the hockey stick has been debunked.
I was told this is the warmest it has ever been. then I find out they were growing wheat in Iceland a thousand years ago
(this is actual scientific reasoning by the way)
I was told CO2 was a leading indicator of warming trends.
Then I find out that Ice Core records show that CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of temperature.
I was told the seas or rising because of Ice Cap melt.
then I find out that the seas are rising because solids and liquids expand when they warm (physics which is also science)
I was told there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Then I find out that CO2 attracts heat in the same spectrum that water vapor does. Only there is thousands of times more water vapor than CO2.
But AGW scientists dont count Water Vapor
I was told the models say we are going to hell in a hand basket
Then I find out the models dont take into account Water Vapor.
I was told The sun doesnt play that big a role in AGW
Then I find out when the sunspots got quiet we had the little Ice Age.
It is the SCIENCE that makes me pause. NOT the politics.
It is the SCIENCE that makes me pause. NOT the politics.
Then you need to learn more about science. Science calls for an honest skepticism for claims from all sides. The data and analyses supporting global warming are extensive and rigorous. Those of the deniers are thin and simplistic. Believe who you will, but don't claim to be doing it out of any respect for science...
Well, in all honesty I am squarely on the side of no AGW. GW yes. Natural GW, and more than likely to be on the verge of a big reversal.
Not because of politics but because of science.
I was told the Hockystick proves Global warming
Then I find out the hockey stick has been debunked. Nottrue
I was told this is the warmest it has ever been. then I find out they were growing wheat in Iceland a thousand years ago No scientist ever said this was the warmest it's ever been. Wheat grown in Iceland was during the Medieval Warming Period, a regional not a global event.
(this is actual scientific reasoning by the way)
I was told CO2 was a leading indicator of warming trends.
Then I find out that Ice Core records show that CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of temperature.
CO2 can both lead and lag. As temperature increases CO2 sequestered in biomass may be released. Anthropogenic CO2 is come from man's efforts and it's production is independent of temperature, so it can certainly lead.
I was told the seas or rising because of Ice Cap melt.
then I find out that the seas are rising because solids and liquids expand when they warm (physics which is also science)
Both are true, but melting ice in places like Greenland is more significant that the expansion of water.
I was told there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Then I find out that CO2 attracts heat in the same spectrum that water vapor does. Only there is thousands of times more water vapor than CO2.
But AGW scientists dont count Water Vapor
Absolutely false. Water vapor is in all GHG models, but water vapor is not an independent variable. Water vapor is determined by temperature which makes it a dependent variable.
I was told the models say we are going to hell in a hand basket
Then I find out the models dont take into account Water Vapor. Absolutely false Water vapor is in all GHG models,
I was told The sun doesnt play that big a role in AGW
Then I find out when the sunspots got quiet we had the little Ice Age. Absolutely false, solar output is in fact the source of energy we are concerned with. Everything else is absorption, reflection and re-radiation. Solar output is in all GHG models.
It is the SCIENCE that makes me pause. NOT the politics. Your misconceptions about the science indicate to me that you've chosen your sources of information poorly. The only sources of information that are this poor are RW political sources. So once again we're back to the opposition to AGHG theory is purely political and has nothing to do with science.
I'm sorry an unpublished editorial by some obscure professor at a backwater college does not constitute even dissent in the scientific area much less a debunking. The so called hockey stick time track of historical temperatures has been refined and improved over time and is universally accepted as an accurate representation of global temperatures by all serious climate scientists. Even the skeptics of AGW like Richard Lindzen do not quibble with the temperature data. We will undoubtedly improve our understanding over time of the global temperatures from the past, but it's highly unlikely that the basic shape of the curve will change.
Keep trying, but you're looking a lot more political and not scientific at all when you post nonsense like this.
It's an interesting article, but it doesn't really rebut what RLChurch has told you.
For instance, they debunk the "hockey stick", but by replacing it with data that includes the Medieval Warming period, that seems to have been a localized phenomena. Even if Mann's hockey stick is statistically a zero, the new graph also is incomplete, because it's not really looking at a global picture. The author might be happy with warmer temperatures, and many people in North America might be happy with warmer temperatures (though not me!), but there are bigger issues involved, global issues.
It's an interesting article, but it doesn't really rebut what RLChurch has told you.
For instance, they debunk the "hockey stick", but by replacing it with data that includes the Medieval Warming period, that seems to have been a localized phenomena. Even if Mann's hockey stick is statistically a zero, the new graph also is incomplete, because it's not really looking at a global picture. The author might be happy with warmer temperatures, and many people in North America might be happy with warmer temperatures (though not me!), but there are bigger issues involved, global issues.
Since Mann published his original work on historical temperatures a huge amount of additional research has been done. There are ten or more independently derived estimates of historical temperature for the last 1000 years or so. All of them have been peer reviewed and all of them show substantially the same temperature track.
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.