If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   This week's librul media fear mongering: Estimated date of complete loss of Arctic sea-ice bumped up from 2040 to 2012. Good thing we all just read that link explaining that greenhouse warming is a myth   (customwire.ap.org) divider line 491
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

7852 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2007 at 7:08 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



491 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-12 10:51:15 AM
Noam Chimpsky: I'm guessing that they intend to scramble these stories up with typos so that people can't accidently stumble upon these inconvenient facts.

so Incnvnient fo thm nw THAT they refuse spell teh WORDS correctly and just drop WURDS COMPLETELY.


Do you actually believe this is a conspiracy?
 
2007-12-12 11:03:27 AM
Noam Chimpsky:

Here ya go:

Nope.

We know Switzerland's glaciers receded in the early 20th century; there was warming then.

They've receded faster in the later 20th century, as have most world glaciers which are sensitive to temperature changes. Some have not, of course, due to either local cooling or snowfall.

Oerlemans' temperature reconstruction from Alpine glaciers agrees pretty well with the instrumental global temperature record, actually, including a warming period before 1950, a cooling period around 1950, and accelerated warming around 1980. (This is lagged about 10 years from what the instrumental record shows. I'd actually expect a longer lag given the typical response time of a glacier, but Oerlemans' method did try to deconvolve that lag out of the signal.)
 
2007-12-12 11:03:49 AM
soy_bomb: Don't tell the midwest about Global Warming (new window)

/I call bullshait on 2012
//More fearmongering
///Follow the money trail


Just as dumb as the day is long, ain't cha?
 
2007-12-12 11:08:11 AM
yakmans_dad:

"... we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in palaeoclimate data.

I wouldn't rely on Hansen. I'd go to an actual cryosphere guy. Hansen is known for taking extreme views on ice sheet collapse.

The IPCC report is more conservative: "Except for remnant glaciers in the mountains, the Greenland Ice Sheet would largely be eliminated, raising sea level by about 7 m, if a sufficiently warm climate were maintained for millennia; it would happen more rapidly if ice flow accelerated." They refuse to speculate as to how much more rapidly it could happen (less than one millennium?) with accelerated ice flow.
 
2007-12-12 11:09:13 AM
Jon Snow: Arctic sea ice disappearance is more concerning due to its role in albedo than raising sea levels. Concern over sea level rise has to due with thermal expansion of the ocean and the collapse of ice sheets on land, such as Greenland's and the Western Antarctic.

The ocean's coefficient of linear expansion will have a noticable percentage increase? Really? I read it takes hundreds of years for the mean water temp to rise and even if it matched, the predicted mean global temp spread, the percentage increase would be really small wouldn't it? In fact I understand that the ocean drives our temps more any other factor. I can't say much about Ice melting on land. I guess you are basing that most of this would not be captured inland forming lakes etc?
 
2007-12-12 11:14:20 AM
Rik01: The car companies are starting to push fuel cells for power for cars along with forms of hydrogen fuel. The selling point is no pollution, just water vapor. Clean, efficient, easily obtained fuel.

So, what will happen when say, a million cars in New York City all start pumping out maybe 5 gallons of water a day as vapor?


They already do. Burn a gallon of gas, and you make about 20 pounds of CO2, and 8 pounds (about a gallon) of water. All dumped straight into the atmosphere. It raises the humidity by an imperceptible amount. Eventually, like water vapor from any other source, it condenses out as dew, or rain, or snow.

New York City gets an average annual rainfall of 42 inches, which works out to (new window) something like 900 million cubic meters, or something like a quarter of a trillion gallons. That's about two thirds of a billion gallons per day. Five million additional gallons of water a day is less than 1% of that volume. And remember, unlike CO2, excess water gets cycled out of the atmosphere very quickly.

And, finally, if you are reluctant to emit the additional steam, it would be dead easy to condense and collect it. Run it through a radiator, and collect it as clean water.
 
2007-12-12 11:18:32 AM
TechieZero:

The ocean's coefficient of linear expansion will have a noticable percentage increase?

No. It will stay the same, but the oceans will get warmer.

I read it takes hundreds of years for the mean water temp to rise

It takes a long time for the mean temperature to rise, averaged over the entire vertical extent of the ocean. However, the surface waters can warm more quickly than that, with concomitant thermal expansion.

and even if it matched, the predicted mean global temp spread, the percentage increase would be really small wouldn't it?

Thermal expansion isn't trivial; it's about half of the rise in the 20th century.

In fact I understand that the ocean drives our temps more any other factor.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Right now the external radiative forcing imbalance is driving surface temperature trends.

I can't say much about Ice melting on land. I guess you are basing that most of this would not be captured inland forming lakes etc?

For ice sheets like Greenland and West Antarctic, much of it ends up in the ocean, although meltwater lakes do form.
 
2007-12-12 11:26:39 AM
TechieZero

The lag between deep ocean warming and surface warming is indeed pretty significant, which is again one of the concerns we've talked about previously in discussing negative consequences becoming basically "locked in" long before their effects are actually felt.

In response to greenhouse gas warming, sea level is expected to rise due to the thermal expansion of sea water as the ocean warms. Because the deep ocean will warm much more slowly than the upper ocean, the thermally driven rise in sea level is expected to continue for centuries after atmospheric CO2 stops increasing. To illustrate, Fig. 4 shows the increase of global mean sea level in the GFDL 4xCO2 coupled climate model experiment. Even though CO2 no longer increases after year 140, sea level continues to rise steadily well beyond year 500. The final equilibrium sea level change in the model is 1.9 meters for a CO2 doubling (not shown) which is roughly the level attained in the CO2 quadrupling experiment after 500 years. The equilibrium rise for the quadrupling experiment has not yet been simulated.

img91.imageshack.us

[The sea level rise projections in Fig. 4 are the expected changes due to thermal expansion of sea water alone, and do not include the effect of melted continental ice sheets.With the effect of ice sheets included, the total rise could be larger by a substantial factor.]

Source: NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

I can't say much about Ice melting on land. I guess you are basing that most of this would not be captured inland forming lakes etc?

Give me a minute to find sources on West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet melt. I'm in another thread about 2007 being on track to be the second hottest year on record that hasn't hit the Main page yet.
 
2007-12-12 11:32:20 AM
Magnanimous_J: Isn't 2012 when that Mayan Calender is supposed to end?

In all seriousness, I don't know what to believe, anymore. I know the conservatives are lying to protect their business. And I'm sure the Liberals are exagerating to make the conservatives look bad. And I'm sure the Scientists are stretching the truth to get grant money and attention.

/I'm not actually sure where I was going with that rant...


Try this:

1. List every armageddon scenarios and prediction of the end of the world from the beginning of recorded history until today.

2. Set N to the number of times they've come true.

3. If N > 0, then worry.

/b-b-b-but...science!!!!
 
2007-12-12 11:32:44 AM
Ambitwistor: yakmans_dad:

"... we find no evidence of millennial lags between forcing and ice sheet response in palaeoclimate data.

I wouldn't rely on Hansen. I'd go to an actual cryosphere guy. Hansen is known for taking extreme views on ice sheet collapse.

The IPCC report is more conservative: "Except for remnant glaciers in the mountains, the Greenland Ice Sheet would largely be eliminated, raising sea level by about 7 m, if a sufficiently warm climate were maintained for millennia; it would happen more rapidly if ice flow accelerated." They refuse to speculate as to how much more rapidly it could happen (less than one millennium?) with accelerated ice flow.



The IPCC is more conservative, but the lesson of 2007 is that conservative isn't all that good. GCMs have notoriously under-estimated feedbacks. And the IPCC itself noted that it wasn't really sure about melt. Hansen is less sanguine because he examined the one "model" where these factors have played out before: the geological record. If at no point in the past do you find millennial transitions, it doesn't make much sense -- in the face of more rapid heating than we've experienced before -- to take comfort in GCMs which posit millennial transitions.
 
2007-12-12 11:43:32 AM
Lunch Box Hero: Magnanimous_J: Isn't 2012 when that Mayan Calender is supposed to end?

In all seriousness, I don't know what to believe, anymore. I know the conservatives are lying to protect their business. And I'm sure the Liberals are exagerating to make the conservatives look bad. And I'm sure the Scientists are stretching the truth to get grant money and attention.

/I'm not actually sure where I was going with that rant...

Try this:

1. List every armageddon scenarios and prediction of the end of the world from the beginning of recorded history until today.

2. Set N to the number of times they've come true.

3. If N > 0, then worry.

/b-b-b-but...science!!!!



WW1 & WW2.

Worry.
 
2007-12-12 11:44:23 AM
There seems to be a striking resemblance between the man made global warming debate and a creationist debate. I see lots of people who seem to want to believe we are causing global warming. I suggest to everyone who is interested in having an opinion about the topic to do a little research into it. Don’t be dogmatic about the issue.
 
2007-12-12 11:48:33 AM
Richard Pye: Why does anyone distrust the experts? They know more about it than you do.

The experts that say that something bad may be happening but they can't be sure about the cause or the effect, and they don't really know for sure what the Hell is going on?

Experts my ass.

My problem with the issue of Global Climate Change is that it is now such a political issue it's impossible to know who is telling the truth. Apparently even the IPCC report is biased according to some. This whole thing is dumb.


Including people WHO ARE PART OF THE IPCC. Climatologist John Christy, who is on the IPCC, has been expressing skepticism about anthropogenic global climate change for years. However, since he published his latest article in the Wall Street Journal, leftist partisans can safely ignore it.
 
2007-12-12 12:01:53 PM
Lunch Box Hero:

Climatologist John Christy, who is on the IPCC, has been expressing skepticism about anthropogenic global climate change for years. However, since he published his latest article in the Wall Street Journal, leftist partisans can safely ignore it.

"Leftist partisans" aside, his WSJ article can be safely ignored because it presents no scientific challenges to the consensus view.

Assuming you're speaking of his Nov. 1 article (I don't know of a more recent one by him in the WSJ), he raised precisely one scientific objection to "alarmist theory":

"As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.) "

If by "alarmists" he means the IPCC or Al Gore, they do not disagree with his UAH data: the 20th century warming trend was actually less than 2.5 F/century.

The concern is about accelerated warming due to increasing CO2 concentrations. The UAH data do not refute that concern, and in fact support the consensus estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 increases.

The rest of his article is mostly just vague talking points, like "climate is complicated", "natural climate changes have occurred in the past", etc., none of which refute or even address either IPCC or "alarmist" claims.
 
2007-12-12 12:04:04 PM
Now wait a minute. Ice is less dense than water. (Ice cubes float in water, right?)

Now, the arctic ice cap is mostly sea ice. Doesn't this mean that, when it all melts (becoming more dense), volume will *decrease*? Doesn't this mean that sea levels will actually *recede*?

Someone point out the flaw in my logic!
 
2007-12-12 12:17:58 PM
blockhouse: Now wait a minute. Ice is less dense than water. (Ice cubes float in water, right?)

Now, the arctic ice cap is mostly sea ice. Doesn't this mean that, when it all melts (becoming more dense), volume will *decrease*? Doesn't this mean that sea levels will actually *recede*?

Someone point out the flaw in my logic!


It's the ice on land that they're talking about raising sea levels. When it melts, it flows off the land, into the sea. A little thing called Greenland being a major problem. That's water added to the sea, not ice in the sea melting.

No idea on your logic though.

To everyone denying we're the cause to climate change: Cop on and buy some new lightbulbs. It's us, look up the facts because the rest of us are tired of repeating them. You're ignorant of the situation. Deal with it by learning something.
 
2007-12-12 12:18:11 PM
Elemental79: Don't be dogmatic about the issue.

QFT. Finally, someone with some sense.

It is getting warmer, regardless of what is causing it.

It will also get cooler at some point.

Someday, Sol will fade and supernova.

The last one is a ways off to get worked up about: the point remains we need to have some strategies developed to attend to these problems and keep our cities from disappearing underwater.

I am not a climate expert, nor an expert on ecosystems or meteorology. All I can go on is what is put out there to research and the experience of those around me. What I can say is that many of my patients in their 60's, 70's and 80's who are Amish (i.e. no TV, little-to-no sense of current political debate or arguments about global warming) and have lived in this town their whole lives frequently talk to me about wearing show shoes on Memorial Day when they were kids, and how each year when hunting or farming they have had less and less need for snow clothes and have increasing agricultural challenges caused by warming.

They've got more experience than I do....
 
2007-12-12 12:34:53 PM
Jon Snow: Do you actually believe this is a conspiracy?

There is all sorts of conspiring going on amongst the Warmie crackpots. Al Gore won a Nobel Prize...the Warmists aren't opposed to Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize...therefore, the Warmist "scientists" concur with Gore's contentions or at least like the idea of Gore's contentions influencing popular opinion. If that doesn't qualify as "conspiracy", nothing does.
 
2007-12-12 12:35:47 PM
blockhouse: Now wait a minute. Ice is less dense than water. (Ice cubes float in water, right?)

Now, the arctic ice cap is mostly sea ice. Doesn't this mean that, when it all melts (becoming more dense), volume will *decrease*? Doesn't this mean that sea levels will actually *recede*?

Someone point out the flaw in my logic!


OMG! Thousands of researchers with doctorates in physics must have overlooked this!

I need to do a "Bob the Angry Flower"-style cartoon pointing out that this little-known and much-overlooked fact really isn't that little-known or much-overlooked.
 
2007-12-12 12:36:07 PM
blockhouse:

Now, the arctic ice cap is mostly sea ice. Doesn't this mean that, when it all melts (becoming more dense), volume will *decrease*? Doesn't this mean that sea levels will actually *recede*?

Melted sea ice, being fresh water, decreases the density of the ocean. It doesn't turn into salty sea water and increase density.

The density change does alter sea level, but it's very small. Sea ice melting does very little to sea level, in contrast to land ice melting and running into the ocean.

For a careful discussion of the effects of density on sea ice melting and sea level rise, see here and here.

It turns out that there is actually a small rise (not drop) in sea level due to density differences between sea ice and sea water; meltwater is 2.6% greater in volume than the sea water it displaces.
 
2007-12-12 12:40:03 PM
wibwib: Also, I love polar bears, and don't want them to become extinct :(

That would be terrible, indeed.

Maybe we can transplant polar bears and the seals that they eat to Antarctica?

/That'd sure f**k with their heads
 
2007-12-12 12:44:45 PM
Ambitwistor: The rest of his article is mostly just vague talking points, like "climate is complicated", "natural climate changes have occurred in the past", etc., none of which refute or even address either IPCC or "alarmist" claims.

Classic straw man...
"My opponent (IPCC) claims X. X is clearly false, therefore my opponent has no credible argument."
(Meanwhile, the opposing argument is actually Y, not X)
 
2007-12-12 01:06:01 PM
bolzy: There are prophecies and oracles from around the world that all seem to point to December 21, 2012 as doomsday. The ancient Mayan Calendar, the medieval predictions of Merlin, the Book of Revelation and the Chinese oracle of the I Ching all point to this specific date as the end of civilization. A new technology called "The Web-Bot Project" makes massive scans of the internet as a means of forecasting the future... and has turned up the same dreaded date: 2012. Skeptics point to a long history of "Failed Doomsdays", but many oracles of doom throughout history have a disturbingly accurate track record. As the year 2012 ticks ever closer we'll speculate if there are any reasons to believe these doomsayers

Let's not forget that in 2012 there is also going to be an alignment of our sun and the Galactic Center.

www.aztlan.net
 
2007-12-12 01:16:52 PM
fatassbastard: cdharding: because the mercury in the bulbs is a known carcinogen? (another example of unintended consequences)

No. (new window)

"Mercury emissions from power plants get into rain clouds and come down in lakes and rivers, poisoning fish and the people who eat them, which has been the contributing factor the recent new recommendations from Health Canada for fish consumption. Coal-fired power plants in the US are the largest source of mercury emissions, spewing 50 tons a year into the air, about 40 percent of the total US mercury emissions. By installing CFL bulbs, you should reduce your mercury emissions from electricity by 14%. If the USA as a nation completely installed CFLs, this should lead to a 7 tonne reduction of mercury emissions per year. Each CFL should last 5 years on average. So that would equate to 35 tonnes of mercury emissions avoided, it would take 8.75 billion CFLs being disposed to landfill to equal the US mercury savings over the same time frame or 30 per US citizen, an almost impossible feat to achieve even with serious neglect."


So, reading comprehension is not one of your strengths, I take it. My question is based on the requirement embodied in California Proposition 65, which mandates that areas that have substances known to cause cancer have signs posted warning anyone that enters of the fact. CFLs contain mercury, a known carcinogen, which requires posting the signs. Those signs are not free (TANSTAAFL) the businesses have to pay for buying and posting them, and usually pass the costs on to the consumers, thus the unintended consequences of increasing prices on everything.
 
2007-12-12 04:09:07 PM
Well, it's obvious what is going on here: Al Gore is somehow melting the polar ice caps to show his theory is correct thus making more money.
 
2007-12-12 04:12:58 PM
This is our way of waging economic war against the middle east, through the guise of this debatable science...
 
2007-12-12 04:52:44 PM
I know it's 16 hours too late, but .. wow I can't believe you actually don't even see that what you wrote goes against your argument

CaptFun: And where was that carbon before we dug it up???? In the atmosphere that plants sucked up and got buried millions of years ago.

Yep. Slowly. There are fossilized ferns in Antarctica. No one is denying that it was once warmer than it is today. All we're saying is that human activity is causing the current cycle to go too fast for nature to adapt properly.

Are we releasing it any faster than a comet hitting a buried coal bed or a vast undersea asteroid strike?

Probably not, but you're not setting your expectations very high..."Hey at least, we're not as bad as the Yucatan Meteorite!"

This being said, the greenhouse effect of whatever CO2 the explosion of the meteor released was more than offset by the amount of dust and water vapor that the explosion created.

How much CO2 did Pinatubo puke out in 1991? Millions of times more than all of the anthropormorphic generation in the entire industrial age. SO2 ?? Much more than that and that is only ONE volcano.

Nope.

I'm not asking you to believe in the FSM only to do the math....

I am doing the math.

CaptFun: Let's try something more simple:

Me Engineer : You liberal


Oh.. and by the way...

Me too engineer : Me too liberal.
 
kgf
2007-12-12 05:05:27 PM
TrollieMcTroll
...To everyone denying we're the cause to climate change: Cop on and buy some new lightbulbs. It's us, look up the facts because the rest of us are tired of repeating them. You're ignorant of the situation. Deal with it by learning something.

There is no proof that humans are causing climate change, there is only limited evidence. But there is also plenty of evidence that the Earth has undergone many drastic climate changes in the past. My guess is that you don't really understand most of what you've been told about climate change, and I don't mean to insult you. Most reputable scientists readily admit they don't fully understand it either. All I know is that I have read and seen enough "counter-evidence" to at least make me skeptical. Frankly, intuitively I can't see a tiny variation in CO2 levels making such a big difference, but when I think about the amount of HEAT we release into the atmosphere, that's what worries me. But nobody talks about that. Just from oil, we're taking billions of barrels of hydrocarbons and releasing their stored energy as heat. It can't all radiate into space.

/see Laws of Thermodynamics - Cliff's notes version: all energy eventually ends up as heat
//everything you do results in heat released into the atmosphere
 
2007-12-12 05:44:20 PM
did rush limbaugh or some other conservative asshat recently mention the 70s and global cooling?
this global warming debate has been going on forever and only now are people refuting it with global cooling in the 70s. someone big must have mentioned it to the tinfoil hats and now it's all i hear......

3 years ago there was a debate about global warming.
umm...it's over. everyone update your bookmarks please!
 
2007-12-12 06:24:21 PM
lostincosmos: did rush limbaugh or some other conservative asshat recently mention the 70s and global cooling?
this global warming debate has been going on forever and only now are people refuting it with global cooling in the 70s.


Actually, "climate change science" was invented during the 70s to study the dreaded "global cooling". No branch of science has ever voluntarily put itself out of business so it is predictable that the newly established science of climate change would not have put itself out of business once "global cooling" fell through. "Beats flipping burgers at McDonalds", the climate change hoaxters would tell you.
 
2007-12-12 06:39:42 PM
Noam Chimpsky: Jon Snow: Do you actually believe this is a conspiracy?

There is all sorts of conspiring going on amongst the Warmie crackpots. Al Gore won a Nobel Prize...the Warmists aren't opposed to Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize...therefore, the Warmist "scientists" concur with Gore's contentions or at least like the idea of Gore's contentions influencing popular opinion. If that doesn't qualify as "conspiracy", nothing does.


The call of the loon in which concurrence equals conspiracy.
 
2007-12-12 06:42:22 PM
FarkingUpTheWrongTree: Ambitwistor: The rest of his article is mostly just vague talking points, like "climate is complicated", "natural climate changes have occurred in the past", etc., none of which refute or even address either IPCC or "alarmist" claims.

Classic straw man...
"My opponent (IPCC) claims X. X is clearly false, therefore my opponent has no credible argument."
(Meanwhile, the opposing argument is actually Y, not X)


And what is Y exactly? Christy doesn't deny Global Warming so it'll be interesting to hear what his argument is.
 
2007-12-12 07:01:53 PM
Wx Man: trofl
Seriously... you don't think the 70's was a cold decade... Are you sure? You should go look those climate records up again. I would print off the chart that I have but I am currently at work and I have the chart on my home computer.

There's a big difference between forecasting day to day weather and forecasting long term climate trends. The daily weather is like little wiggles on a sine curve. We can know what the climate will probably be like in a few years even though the weather is erratic.

I agreed with you up to this point... Are you sure we understand everything. For example, the effect of sun spots or lack there of. Or how about the effect of cosmic rays on our weather and atmosphere. Weather satellites have only been around since GOES 1 which was launched in 1975 I believe. Do you really think that in these past 30 years or so that we got a total understanding of the effects of these things on our atmosphere and our weather. Didn't they just recently launch a satellite to study the northern lights and NLCs (noctilucent clouds.) How about the effects of certain ocean currents and oscillations. If you ask me way to much is blamed or attributed to ENSO (el nino or la nina.) So are you entirely sure we understand everything???

It's not so much our understanding of the atmosphere that is at fault for models not doing well. It's that we don't have spatially resolute enough data to feed into them. Knowing how much shortwaves can affect a day's weather, models may not even see many of them because the radiosonde network is so spaced out.

I will agree with you here. We do not have nearly enough stations reporting nor do we have nearly enough radiosonde data.

That's why we know pretty well that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases and particulates have had a major role in causes the changes in global mean temperature over the last century.

I am not denying this. But are we the only thing attributing to these increases. I am pretty sure methane comes out of the ground naturally.

Water vapor isn't on there because it is so variable in space and time. You basically have to consider it a constant, which isn't so bad considering that the amount in the atmosphere is regulated by temperature. It is important to note that a warmer atmosphere is, of course, going to allow for higher specific humidities, so water vapor is a positive feedback to the warming. Other gases than CO2, like methane, are also important, but don't have the long residency times that CO2 has. The long residency time of CO2 is why there's a lot of warming "in the pipeline." It's easy to put in the atmosphere, but hard to get out.

Agreed again... I believe CO2s half life is like 10 years.

I had something else to say but I blanked... and I have some work to get done... Ill try to remember my other points


The first DMSP (new window) satellite was launched in 1965 but it was a classified project so there was no publicity about it like there was for GOES 1. I was assigned to and worked in the DMSP ground station operations and maintenance career field for the final 6 years of my Air Force active duty stint. The last 4 years were spent at Offutt AFB at the headquarters of the organization that operated the satellites, downstairs from AF Global Weather Central, so I am very familiar with DMSP operations and history.
 
2007-12-12 07:53:51 PM
yakmans_dad: Noam Chimpsky: Jon Snow: Do you actually believe this is a conspiracy?

There is all sorts of conspiring going on amongst the Warmie crackpots. Al Gore won a Nobel Prize...the Warmists aren't opposed to Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize...therefore, the Warmist "scientists" concur with Gore's contentions or at least like the idea of Gore's contentions influencing popular opinion. If that doesn't qualify as "conspiracy", nothing does.

The call of the loon in which concurrence equals conspiracy.


When there is more than one person participating in a hoax, it's a conspiracy. The alternative is that all of these gore-bots in positions of power are complete imbeciles. If I accepted that theory, I'd lose all hope with humanity.
 
2007-12-12 08:10:47 PM
Noam Chimpsky: all of these gore-bots in positions of power

Did/do you ever expect to be taken seriously when discussing this issue?
 
2007-12-12 08:55:39 PM
You know, it's not the honest skeptics that bother me. They'll eventually come around to the truth, anyway.

What bothers me are the handful of folks (like Chimpsky, there) who will come into these threads pretending to take the issue seriously and claiming to be interested in the science, only to ignore and dismiss each and every scientific argument that doesn't support their conclusion that global warming is a big leftie hoax.

These guys will present an argument that was totally and thoroughly debunked in previous threads as if they has just come across it. Even if they admitted in previous threads that the "evidence" they presented was bogus and inaccurate, they'll just turn around and use it all over again in the next thread in which they rail against "the warmists(tm)" for ignoring the data they know is suspect and obviously have very little critical understanding of, anyway.

The whole Muir glacier thing and, my personal favorite, the "ice breakers are responsible for all the sea ice retreat" meme, have been explained politely, repeatedly, and conclusively, but that doesn't really matter when understanding is actually contrary to the intentions of the original poster, as it clearly is here.

I don't believe in the usual conspiracies theories involving paid shills in political threads on Fark, but crap like this really, really makes me wonder sometimes.
 
2007-12-12 09:45:24 PM
Noam Chimpsky: yakmans_dad: Noam Chimpsky: Jon Snow: Do you actually believe this is a conspiracy?

There is all sorts of conspiring going on amongst the Warmie crackpots. Al Gore won a Nobel Prize...the Warmists aren't opposed to Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize...therefore, the Warmist "scientists" concur with Gore's contentions or at least like the idea of Gore's contentions influencing popular opinion. If that doesn't qualify as "conspiracy", nothing does.

The call of the loon in which concurrence equals conspiracy.

When there is more than one person participating in a hoax, it's a conspiracy.


You're much too easy on yourself.
 
2007-12-12 11:26:14 PM
Black Moses

Nice try, but that's 2112.

Until then it's all "willows in the park, swaying in the breeze..."
 
2007-12-12 11:44:53 PM
scalpod: Black Moses

Nice try, but that's 2112.

Until then it's all "willows in the park, swaying in the breeze..."


OK, I blew the lyrics and the joke.

I'll just shut-up now.
 
2007-12-12 11:47:10 PM
I always preferred "In the year 2525".
 
2007-12-13 10:33:15 AM
kgf:

Frankly, intuitively I can't see a tiny variation in CO2 levels making such a big difference,

A 35% variation is not really that "tiny".

but when I think about the amount of HEAT we release into the atmosphere, that's what worries me.

Assuming that human civilization uses 15 terawatts of power, that comes to 0.03 watts per square meter of radiative forcing averaged over the surface of the Earth. The greenhouse effect of increased CO2 concentrations has contributed something like 1.5-2 watts per square meter, so the CO2 warming is at least 50 times larger than the warming due to energy consumption. (That's assuming that energy consumption started at zero at the same time that CO2 levels started to increase.)

Larry Niven's Ringworld science fiction novel postulated an overpopulated species where all the planet's warmth was generated by industrial activity (the puppeteer homeworld), but the Earth isn't nearly at that level yet.
 
Displayed 41 of 491 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report