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.

(Live Science)   Antarctic sea ice reaches record high levels. Scientists round up the usual suspect   (livescience.com) divider line 6
    More: Interesting, Antarctica, NASA Earth Observatory, sea ice, Antarctic Peninsula, ice shelfs, weather satellites, Ice Data Center, ozone holes  
•       •       •

2747 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Oct 2012 at 4:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-13 04:34:27 PM
2 votes:

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: FTFA:The record ice pack is likely due to stronger winds caused by warming temperatures in the Antarctic, according to a NASA statement.

And this, this right here is why people are going to shout shenanigans. It isn't an untrue statement, it's just ambiguous because of the word 'warming'. If the temps are 1 degree higher than last year or 10 degrees higher over a century, say so. Because laymen reading this article are going to think of strong winds at 70 degrees as warming temperatures. "How the hell you gonna tell me that hot wind makes more ice? Huh, answer me that, Scientist!"


The most valuable thing these threads have taught me is that laypeople have no intention of actually learning anything about a subject like this. It's just one more completely political issue that exists outside of the rest of reality, used only to score points in a political game. They already have their mind made up about the issue, so why bother to actually learn anything about it? That takes effort. It's much easier to just take any soundbite handed down from a journalist with zero scientific background and use it as ammunition in the endless political dick-waving contest.

There's simply no way to inject actual, topical conversation into the fight, because the fight ultimately isn't about whether or not humans are changing the climate. It's just a surrogate for the same old fight about who belongs in the White House for the next four years. I really wish they would just find some other arena to fight that battle in and leave this one for the people who are actually interested in the subject at hand, but that isn't going to happen.
2012-10-14 01:59:41 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: I guess what I should have said is that we should extinguish the human species, just to be sure. If our population is zero, then our environmental impact would be minimized. You'd agree with that, right?


The desired outcome is maximum human and ecological well-being at the least cost. So no, I don't agree.

Also, painting those realistic about the future cost to humanity of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions as anti-human is so amusing coming from people who (implicitly or explicitly) advocate the continued burning of coal and dung for fuel and the enormous negative health consequences that follow.

Please don't take this as an actual response to you. I know that you're just trolling. I'm responding for those who might mistakenly think your arguments have merit.
2012-10-14 11:55:33 AM
1 votes:

MarkEC: The big difference is there were replacements for the gasses ready to go and keep the refrigerators and car air-conditioners in production. No such replacement is ready to go to replace carbon.


That's wrong. DuPont (who produced the replacement chemicals) did not have a market-competitive alternative ready to go. Rather, the threat of regulation made chemicals that had been previously seen as too expensive to pursue look like plausible alternatives. It's a bit like saying that solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies now are not viable because they can't compete economically with fossil fuels. With regulation properly pricing in the externalities of fossil fuel use, existing potential alternatives seen as too expensive now would become viable.

SevenizGud: far and away the number one factor affecting any detriment humans may be to the environment is population growth.


Consumption habits + population are far more important than population growth. If everyone alive ca. 2005 (~6 billion) consumed like Americans, it would exceed the net terrestrial productivity of the entire earth. 9 billion people consuming less has far less of an impact.

Educating women and giving them control over their reproductive health will slow population growth and is absolutely something considered in mitigation plans. It's just not that big of a potential GHG savings compared to transitioning to a cleaner energy global infrastructure.
2012-10-13 09:05:10 PM
1 votes:

Ready-set: Ahhrrghhgh!!! The hole on the ozone layer!!!

Oh wait, that was the BS in the 80's. What are we pretending at now? Any hippie types want to make a difference, stop eating red meat. Cow gas is THE major cause. Or is that not 'sexy'...


Actually, the depletion of the ozone layer is a great example of a problem that was solved through sensible international cooperation and regulation.

It is believed that if the international agreement is adhered to, the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050.[1] Due to its widespread adoption and implementation it has been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation, with Kofi Annan quoted as saying that "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol".[2]
2012-10-13 05:36:05 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: [img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]


www.skepticalscience.com
2012-10-13 11:17:34 AM
1 votes:

notmtwain: This proves global warming.


Actually, it does. Moisture content increases exponentially with temperature. Since the average temp in Antarctica is still far below freezing, but increasing, snow and ice is building up at a higher rate.
 
Displayed 6 of 6 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report