Ice Caps Melting

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

What scientific evidence are you three fellers basing what you just supported on?
I mean, you must have some kind of base for your beliefs.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

What scientific evidence are you three fellers basing what you just supported on?
I mean, you must have some kind of base for your beliefs.

Ice + Heat = Water.

'Nuff said.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

What scientific evidence are you three fellers basing what you just supported on?
I mean, you must have some kind of base for your beliefs.

:roll: It's just a comment on the fact that there is no hard, definitive, conclusive science available on the issue.

 

[Czar]

what would people consider hard, definitive, conclusive science about global warming?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

What scientific evidence are you three fellers basing what you just supported on?
I mean, you must have some kind of base for your beliefs.

:roll: It's just a comment on the fact that there is no hard, definitive, conclusive science available on the issue.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like one, what is it then?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Czar
what would people consider hard, definitive, conclusive science about global warming?

The fact that the atmosphere has been steadily warming since our industrialisation took on the big pace?

Goodnight peoples.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Czar
what would people consider hard, definitive, conclusive science about global warming?

Short of mearurements that show the world is a little warmer than it was a few hundred years ago we know very little about why or how.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Czar
what would people consider hard, definitive, conclusive science about global warming?

The fact that the atmosphere has been steadily warming since our industrialisation took on the big pace?

Goodnight peoples.

A perfect example of bad science. Correlation does not equal causation my friend.

Scientific method:

1. Observe something
2. Formulate a theory as to what you've observed (This is where a lot of so-called GW science ends and politics begins - and where your comment stopped)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Some people make it this far - Kyoto is based right here)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (People conducting honest science on the subject are in this stage right now)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (We're not here yet)

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: sunzt
WTF? The Ice Caps are NOT melting. Global warming does not exist!! It's just a NATURAL PHASE of Earth's climate!!! We have no scientific proof!!

I know you're being sarcastic... but you're also right.

:thumbsup:

What scientific evidence are you three fellers basing what you just supported on?
I mean, you must have some kind of base for your beliefs.

:roll: It's just a comment on the fact that there is no hard, definitive, conclusive science available on the issue.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like one, what is it then?

Duck-billed Platysaurus?

 

[MicroChrome]

I bet when the ice caps do melt... and raise the water and destory thousands of homes you will really see the christains come out of the wood work. Hell, you mey see one of the crazy's building an ark right now saying it's comming!!!


Hurry get your bibles out now!!! You might be saved!

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: MicroChrome
I bet when the ice caps do melt... and raise the water and destory thousands of homes you will really see the christains come out of the wood work. Hell, you mey see one of the crazy's building an ark right now saying it's comming!!!


Hurry get your bibles out now!!! You might be saved!

Afterall, only Christians don't think that global warming is the result of human activities. :roll:

 

[Codegen]

Well, I personally think that if it gets hot enough to melt the ice caps I think you're going to have to worry about more than them melting.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KK
now if water expands when if freezes, wouldn't that mean that we wouldn't see no change if the caps melted. take a small iceberg and stick it in a bathtub, wouldn't most of it stick under the water. I would think if that melted, the amount that sticks out of the water would make up for the expansion that the water had when it was ice. Therefore everything would even out. Am I missing something here?

Wow, why am I going to be the first to answer this post correctly more than 8 hours later? What is wrong with you so-called geniuses? Saltwater does NOT expand like freshwater when frozen. That's elementary school science. Polar icecaps are frozen saltwater. Icebergs are frozen freshwater.

Originally posted by: Czar
what would people consider hard, definitive, conclusive science about global warming?

Warmer weather. Duh. Odd that hasn't happened.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Czar
what would people consider hard, definitive, conclusive science about global warming?

The fact that the atmosphere has been steadily warming since our industrialisation took on the big pace?

Goodnight peoples.

A perfect example of bad science. Correlation does not equal causation my friend.

Scientific method:

1. Observe something
2. Formulate a theory as to what you've observed (This is where a lot of so-called GW science ends and politics begins - and where your comment stopped)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Some people make it this far - Kyoto is based right here)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (People conducting honest science on the subject are in this stage right now)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (We're not here yet)

You're right. Since global warming science isn't at the sacred level 5 of the scientific method we can throw all of it out the window. There are also discrepancies with newtonian physics as you approach c, so should we disregard that??

So are all the scientists and scientific organization metioned here practicing dishonest science?? After all, they all agree that:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue

But you say correlation != causation. All these people must be wrong. The IPCC, NAS, AMS, and AGU are all wrong!! See correlation does not equal causation!! These scientists have no idea what they're talking about and are all dismissed in 5 easy steps.

Do the global warming denyers realize that they are on the intelluctual level of intelligent design?? Just point out a few inconsistencies in the theory without providing any alternative explanation and voila, years of scientific progress gone. The ID's throw their hands up in the air and say "some intellngent being designed humans and life. It cannot be explained or studied any other way," just like the global warming skeptics say "its all natural climate variation, we can know no more." A perfect example of this is this quote:

Short of mearurements that show the world is a little warmer than it was a few hundred years ago we know very little about why or how.

hmmm, that sounds alot like an IDer saying "show me a complete lineage of organisms from chimp to human or I'm not buying evolution business."
Never mind that we can study the climate (study evolution). We can study climate systems, model climate and retrieve (from climate proxies going back thousands of years) and model past climate (going back millions of years).
But don't mind the thousands of scientists who know way more about the subject than you do. Disregard the fact that all the major scientific organizations agree that anthropogenic climate change is occuring. Just say the its all natural variation (despite the mountain of evidence saying its not) and pretend that it isn't happening.

 

[Vic]

Nah, we should run media smear campaigns against those scientists who dare to speak out against the consensus. Burn them at the stake, damnit!! Filthy heretics!! Text

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Czar
what would people consider hard, definitive, conclusive science about global warming?

The fact that the atmosphere has been steadily warming since our industrialisation took on the big pace?

Goodnight peoples.

A perfect example of bad science. Correlation does not equal causation my friend.

Scientific method:

1. Observe something
2. Formulate a theory as to what you've observed (This is where a lot of so-called GW science ends and politics begins - and where your comment stopped)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Some people make it this far - Kyoto is based right here)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (People conducting honest science on the subject are in this stage right now)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (We're not here yet)

You're right. Since global warming science isn't at the sacred level 5 of the scientific method we can throw all of it out the window. There are also discrepancies with newtonian physics as you approach c, so should we disregard that??

So are all the scientists and scientific organization metioned here practicing dishonest science?? After all, they all agree that:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue

But you say correlation != causation. All these people must be wrong. The IPCC, NAS, AMS, and AGU are all wrong!! See correlation does not equal causation!! These scientists have no idea what they're talking about and are all dismissed in 5 easy steps.

Do the global warming denyers realize that they are on the intelluctual level of intelligent design?? Just point out a few inconsistencies in the theory without providing any alternative explanation and voila, years of scientific progress gone. The ID's throw their hands up in the air and say "some intellngent being designed humans and life. It cannot be explained or studied any other way," just like the global warming skeptics say "its all natural climate variation, we can know no more." A perfect example of this is this quote:

Short of mearurements that show the world is a little warmer than it was a few hundred years ago we know very little about why or how.

hmmm, that sounds alot like an IDer saying "show me a complete lineage of organisms from chimp to human or I'm not buying evolution business."
Never mind that we can study the climate (study evolution). We can study climate systems, model climate and retrieve (from climate proxies going back thousands of years) and model past climate (going back millions of years).
But don't mind the thousands of scientists who know way more about the subject than you do. Disregard the fact that all the major scientific organizations agree that anthropogenic climate change is occuring. Just say the its all natural variation (despite the mountain of evidence saying its not) and pretend that it isn't happening.

FYI: you know jack fscking sh!t about science except that it is your religion. Text

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KK
now if water expands when if freezes, wouldn't that mean that we wouldn't see no change if the caps melted. take a small iceberg and stick it in a bathtub, wouldn't most of it stick under the water. I would think if that melted, the amount that sticks out of the water would make up for the expansion that the water had when it was ice. Therefore everything would even out. Am I missing something here?

Wow, why am I going to be the first to answer this post correctly more than 8 hours later? What is wrong with you so-called geniuses? Saltwater does NOT expand like freshwater when frozen. That's elementary school science. Polar icecaps are frozen saltwater. Icebergs are frozen freshwater.

Well I never claimed to be a genius.

Here's a interesting read. howstuffworks


So basically the artic cap could melt causing no increase, since it floats. In Antartica, most parts never get above freezing so there is no real worry there. The main thing it looks like that would cause the oceans to rise would be the temperature of the water rising and glaciers melting and not the polar caps.

 

[Vic]

My favorite is when people talk about the melting glaciers at Glacier National Park (I backpacked it earlier this month... probably the best vacation of my life btw, how many of you environmentalist types actually leave your house?). Hello, people... those glaciers were more than 2 miles thick (higher than the mountaintops) just 10,000 years ago...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KK
Here's a interesting read. howstuffworks


So basically the artic cap could melt causing no increase, since it floats. In Antartica, most parts never get above freezing so there is no real worry there. The main thing it looks like that would cause the oceans to rise would be the temperature of the water rising and glaciers melting and not the polar caps.

Warmer weather would be nice. I hate winter personally. But then again, winter here is 7 straight months of 40F and rain. Yuck. It's late August and I'm already thinking about it. 6-7 more weeks and it starts. *sigh*

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KK
Here's a interesting read. howstuffworks


So basically the artic cap could melt causing no increase, since it floats. In Antartica, most parts never get above freezing so there is no real worry there. The main thing it looks like that would cause the oceans to rise would be the temperature of the water rising and glaciers melting and not the polar caps.

Warmer weather would be nice. I hate winter personally. But then again, winter here is 7 straight months of 40F and rain. Yuck. It's late August and I'm already thinking about it. 6-7 more weeks and it starts. *sigh*

I rather it be cold than hot. The humidity down here in GA sucks, I can't wait til winter rolls around. If I lived back in my home state of PA, I'd probably feel the opposite though.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Vic
Nah, we should run media smear campaigns against those scientists who dare to speak out against the consensus. Burn them at the stake, damnit!! Filthy heretics!! Text

Is that supposed to be a media smear campaign against the oregon state climatologist?? There's no problem speaking against the consensus, but its not a smear campaign to point out that this guy is full of shiite and his ideas hold no scientific weight. The facts are out to get him! But he does hit upon some common rhetoric employed by global warming skeptics.

"I believe the effect of greenhouse gas is a relatively minor one," Taylor told the committee. "I really believe natural variation and natural factors are a bigger cause of climate change than you and I."

There it is again!! Natural variation. Something that is never defined. Something that has no defined climate mechanisms behind it. There are known natural variations in climate that we can define and we know the effects of, but this must be some unknown natural (but quite significant) climate variation. Perhaps the flying spaghetti monster is behind these natural variations.

Anyways, this guy, should he have some scientific merit behind his ideas, he surly has this publised in literature, right??
There's this

He has written more than 200 research papers, plus several articles for industry-funded websites Tech Central Station and CO2 Science.

ok 200 research papers plus some writing on oil industry websites - a bastion of credible science.
But he has all these research papers, there has to be some in climate journals, right??

Like other global-warming deniers, Taylor has never submitted his opinion for peer review by actual climate scientists because those scientists would reject his ideas out of hand

oops. Quite some scientist this guy is. Nobody is saying this guy is a heretic, but if he wants his ideas taken serioulsy, why doesn't he submit his work to peer review - afterall that is how science works.

you say:

FYI: you know jack fscking sh!t about science except that it is your religion.

Care to elaborate?? I don't like to confuse science with religion, they are two seperate things. Its best left up to IDers.


you say:

My favorite is when people talk about the melting glaciers at Glacier National Park. Hello, people... those glaciers were more than 2 miles thick (higher than the mountaintops) just 10,000 years ago...

You should submit your ideas to techcentralstation. They're always looking for reasoned sound analysis like this. Using just the current rate of change of the glaciers (melting) and their size 10000 years at one location cleary demonstrates that - hello people- we have nothing to worry about.

 

[zugzoog]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KK
Here's a interesting read. howstuffworks


So basically the artic cap could melt causing no increase, since it floats. In Antartica, most parts never get above freezing so there is no real worry there. The main thing it looks like that would cause the oceans to rise would be the temperature of the water rising and glaciers melting and not the polar caps.

Warmer weather would be nice. I hate winter personally. But then again, winter here is 7 straight months of 40F and rain. Yuck. It's late August and I'm already thinking about it. 6-7 more weeks and it starts. *sigh*

No, warmer weather would NOT be nice. The effects of global warming are being felt here in Australia already link

Effects on runoff are potentially serious as evidenced by a 50% drop in water supply to the reservoirs supplying Perth since the 1970s and near-record low water levels in storages in much of south-eastern Australia in 2002-03 due to low rainfall and high temperatures in the south-east since 1996.

Also note that the Australian Government, in the last month has accepted that Climate change is a reality while it maintains its stance with the US to not to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

You get a "slightly milder" winter, but our primary production industry is wiped out. I guess that is a fair trade-off.

If you hate winter, move to Florida.....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Care to elaborate?? I don't like to confuse science with religion, they are two seperate things. Its best left up to IDers.

... and people like yourself. You shut down global warming theory's limited falsifiability using the argument of consensus. That's the testament of ignorance. The scientific argument of, we can't prove it, but everyone else believes in it so it MUST be true. And then you compare everyone who disagrees with your amazing leaps of scientific logic to those ridiculous ID'ers.
And if "natural variation" has never been defined, then just what were the Ice Ages?
They really need to shut off the internet access at your junior high school.


zugzoog, Kyoto wouldn't (won't) do anything anyway. It's like the large journalistic error in that article I linked above, where the reporter wrote, " ...a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. ...which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes." OBD-III does nothing of the sort. Modern OBD-II cars already run where greater than 99% of their emissions are CO2 and water and guess what? you cannot make a otto-cycle gasoline engine run any cleaner than that. It cannot be done. Basic Chemistry 101. All OBD-III is going to do is Big Brother everyone's cars with GPS and remote shut-off devices (it also would have increased vehicle costs by ~$1500 each). So I'm pretty damn glad that bill failed. What good is a bill that actually does nothing good, regardless of the hype?
And there are no other alternative fuel sources. The same environmentalist groups that are currently triumphing global warming as a means to curtail fossil-fuel usage are also the same that fought hydropower in the recent past, and fought nukes in the slightly more distant past. Solar panels and bio-fuels rely on oil for their manufacture/production. And guess what? We have nothing left. We have, at this time, 2 and only 2 choices: (1) burn, (2) dark ages.
Personally, I'm stocking up on suntain lotion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Care to elaborate?? I don't like to confuse science with religion, they are two seperate things. Its best left up to IDers.

... and people like yourself. You shut down global warming theory's limited falsifiability using the argument of consensus. That's the testament of ignorance. The scientific argument of, we can't prove it, but everyone else believes in it so it MUST be true. And then you compare everyone who disagrees with your amazing leaps of scientific logic to those ridiculous ID'ers.
And if "natural variation" has never been defined, then just what were the Ice Ages?
They really need to shut off the internet access at your junior high school.


zugzoog, Kyoto wouldn't (won't) do anything anyway. It's like the large journalistic error in that article I linked above, where the reporter wrote, " ...a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. ...which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes." OBD-III does nothing of the sort. Modern OBD-II cars already run where greater than 99% of their emissions are CO2 and water and guess what? you cannot make a otto-cycle gasoline engine run any cleaner than that. It cannot be done. Basic Chemistry 101. All OBD-III is going to do is Big Brother everyone's cars with GPS and remote shut-off devices (it also would have increased vehicle costs by ~$1500 each). So I'm pretty damn glad that bill failed. What good is a bill that actually does nothing good, regardless of the hype?
And there are no other alternative fuel sources. The same environmentalist groups that are currently triumphing global warming as a means to curtail fossil-fuel usage are also the same that fought hydropower in the recent past, and fought nukes in the slightly more distant past. Solar panels and bio-fuels rely on oil for their manufacture/production. And guess what? We have nothing left. We have, at this time, 2 and only 2 choices: (1) burn, (2) dark ages.
Personally, I'm stocking up on suntain lotion.

The choices are (1)dark ages or (2) dark ages.

Either way we are looking at increases in disease and famine, economic collapse and war.

Too bad we didn't start thinking when we knew we should have been back in the 70s after the first oil embargo. It was clear that a repeat of similar problems were inevitable. This is also an example of the utter failure of the so called free market. Markets respond to profits and losses as they occur. For the most part, they look to the next quarter, and the one after that will take care of itself. Unfortunately when projects requiring decades of massive investments, which is what we have in replacing fossil fuels vs profit gains in the nearer term, the second wins simply its all about money.

Cornelius Vanderbilt once said something to the effect of "the public be damned, I answer to the stockholders!"

Likewise the long term public interest is not something corporations are interested in to any great degree. If it is more profitable to build houseboats than save most of the arable land in 30 years, boats will be what you get. Of course at some point rescuing real estate will be worthwhile, but genius and omnipotence are inelastic. No amount of money will get you these in short notice.

What we need is that money being spent in Iraq to be put into a program like the space race, and with even more urgency, to get off of fossil fuels, and to actually determine what is going on with the climate.

 

[piasabird]

Lots of corporations are concerned about the planet we live on, but one corporation can not change the world by itself. A Corp. has to live or die within the rules of the business regulatory system that they are presently in. It will take some sort of national forced change to wean people off of using gasoline and fossil fuels. A corporation can do good as well as evil, but it is just a business entity trying to survive in our economical system.