Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on April 28, 2009, 03:09:41 PM
-
(http://kristinnp.blog.is/users/54/kristinnp/img/c_documents_and_settings_user_my_documents_my_pictures_global_news_warming_423123.jpg)
-
I suppose they consider their current diet to be bland? ;)
-
Unfortunately scientist say the earth is cooling now. Only the medicine show types that make money off fear are still pushing global warming.
-
Where on earth did you see that? Anyway, the SUN is being odd and not following it's pattern. The sun's output is now very low.
-
Unfortunately scientist say the earth is cooling now. Only the medicine show types that make money off fear are still pushing global warming.
Link please (not FOX) ;)
-
Nilsen, there is a big GW conference going on now in Tromsö, right?
The latest news I have is that the SL rising is 3 times more than before anticipated. AFAIK some part of the conference is comparing predictions (from before) with today's data.
Anyway, melting leading to SL rising is a very good gauge on what is happening, and very much more true than air temp figures and computer models. Maybe just me, but if I drop my egg on the floor and it breaks and somebody tries to convince me that it's not possible, then..... :pray
-
Takes time after the warmup for the sea to cool back down so that its no longer melting ice at the faster rate.
In effect the ocean is a big heat sink, storing and moderating temps. Takes time to heat it up, and it takes time to cool it back off. While its cooling off it will continue to melt ice, and raise levels.
The fact is we have just begun to explore exactly how the larger picture looks and works.
No one person has all the answers. And anyone who says they do should be ignored for 10 years till they are proven right or wrong.
-
What Ghosth said. Where facts are few..experts are many.
<S> Swoose
-
Common sense dictates that if you change something that is in balance by such gigantic proportions as we have over the last 100 something years something is gonna change.
It happenes with everything else, why not nature? Yes nature is robust and can adapt to a certain degree, but there is a limit. It doesnt take very many degrees in either direction either to have a very noticeble effect on the planet and the creatures and plants that live here.
Common sense people.
(http://drunkparadise.pbwiki.com/f/ying-yang_20424130_std.jpg)
-
Where on earth did you see that? Anyway, the SUN is being odd and not following it's pattern. The sun's output is now very low.
So does this mean laz was right?
:D
IT'S THE SUN STUPID
:lol
-
10 m of seawater over the globe contains about the mass of the entire atmosphere. A nice big sink, that's for good.
However, the ocean temp cannot explain the glacial melting that occures. Glacial melting basically goes with the air temp, while both affect the sea ice. But melting sea ice does not raise SL.
So, glacial melting is also a very good indicator on temperature development in our hemosphere. Either way, the result is the same, - warming.
Now this is happening at a time when the sun has a cold. So higher up in the atmosphere, we do have a cooling. AFAIK.
You may say, "well, it's colder than last year or before", that may be true, since many a record was broken in 2007. New records were not to be made, so the graph goes down, but it's still in it's place, don't let the perspective confuse you.
-
So does this mean laz was right?
:D
:lol
If it was JUST the sun (as Lazs suggested), we'd have a nice ice-age by now. We'd be in an ice-age on a cold day actually.
-
"You know, there are a lot of people many of them in your industry may who you probably know who say that global warming is not a big problem," Pelley said.
"It's my judgment it is a problem," Rogers said. "We need to go to work on it now. And it's critical that we start to act in this country."
Like a reformed tobacco executive, Rogers says we can't survive the emissions his industry creates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/23/60minutes/main4964301.shtml
Not to mention all of the worlds coal power plants that do nothing to clean there emissions
-
emissions.. does this mean I need to fliter my farts when I eat mexican food?
-
without being political - I'll just say "CAP & TRADE" ... the end
-
I'll decline to get involved in this again.
As for global cooling..... :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Just read the news about the Tromsö conference.
One big issue on the conference is the impact of GW on the Northern area, and how to try to minimize problems and exploit new possibilities, which are already there and expanding. Those relate to new oil grounds being found where there was ice before, the possibilities of a pacific connection (on a regular basis) by ships over the polar area, and new opportunities in agriculture on the colder areas.
Doesn't look particularly much like some GW hype, this is dealing with real cirkumstances, which are there and carry on to some destination.
Same here, I have been exploiting GW for some years now, so the cooling preachers just make me laugh :devil
-
http://climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing (http://climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing)
Check the links at the bottom. Info is available all over the internet. You don't have to go to any of the so called news shows.
I have trouble trying to listen to someone like gore speaking of something he has no training in. He also tells me to drive an electric car... probably so he can keep poluting with his private jet going all over the place.
-
...He also tells me to drive an electric car...
Don't people realize a lot of the energy created for those, "green" electric vehicles comes from coal and nuclear power-plants? In my opinion, it's more of a downer.
-
The conversion actually does not loose energy. BTW, a conventional car looses about 80% of the fuel energy anyway.
The difference will be pollution control rather than "energy from nowhere".
However the true green vehicles would be running on methane for instance, or bio-diesel.
You can NEVER claim that the production of such fuels consumes more energy than given back, since it does not work. Economically. Get the point?
Electricity in pure form can also come from more sources than fossile fuel burning, i.e. Hydro, Wind etc, while fossile fuels only are ... fossile fuels.... :devil
-
Electricity in pure form can also come from more sources than fossile fuel burning...
There's a new lightning rod car coming out in 2010, that can only be driven in storms. :aok
-
Glacial melting basically goes with the air temp, while both affect the sea ice. But melting sea ice does not raise SL.
So, glacial melting is also a very good indicator on temperature development in our hemosphere.
And those same glaciers have been melting essentially since the end of the end of the last ice age. They re-build somewhat during cool periods, but the pattern for thousands of years is that they are shrinking. So what?
I find it funny that events like finding the "Ice Man" in the Alps is occasionally trotted out as evidence of global warming. "Wow, this guy was buried in ice for thousands of years, and now we can find him because of global warming." Which, ironically (although lost on MMGW advocates) actually only proves that these cycles are natural.
After all, when the ice man died -- there was no glacier there -- ergo, the world was warmer then, too.
-
I am fully aware of the natural cycles. And now it is warming, natural or not. The northern people have realized that and are looking at the two sides of the coin, the good and the bad. Thinking business-wise.
-
Don't people realize a lot of the energy created for those, "green" electric vehicles comes from coal and nuclear power-plants? In my opinion, it's more of a downer.
I think you may find nuclear plants don't put out many greenhouse gases, or any pollutants for that matter. Not many cleaner or safer forms of energy, especially considering how much they output...
-
Angus, your obviously a global warming believer and truth be told I have no problem with that, but I have to ask.
Do you think people can actually do ANYTHING to stop the earth from changing? Marine fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains, the Alps, they've even found them on Mt. Everest. That's proof that at one time all those places were under water. There is geological evidence in Central Park that proves that at one time a glacier more than a mile thick sat on top of New York City. The planet constantly changes. Sometimes slowly, sometimes in the blink of the eye. Here's an excample, in 1883 the island of Krakatoa vanished in seconds when it exploded, sending ash into the atmosphere that stayed there for years and contributed to cooling the global climate. Evidence of this has been found in ice core samples from around the world. That island is back again and is now called Anak Krakatau and it's erupting all the time. What's going to happen when it blows it's top?
I agree polution is a bad thing and should be reduced whenever possible, BUT, to say that mankind is causing all these changes we see everyday in the enviroment just doesn't make any sense. The entire planet, the land, the oceans, the atmosphere, everything, is ALWAYS in a state of flux, constantly changing, and there is nothing that we can do as a species to stop it. We will either adapt as the planet evolves and changes or we will die as a species like the dinosaurs did.
I just can't support a theory that says people are causing the planet to change, when there is historical evidence of the same changes happening in the past when people couldn't have been the problem. In the great sceme of things, considering how long this planet has been around, and how long it's going to be around, we (you and I) are only living on this rock for a nano second. What can we do in such a short period of time? Nothing. We will not make anything better or worse over the long haul of the planet.
-
There's a new lightning rod car coming out in 2010, that can only be driven in storms. :aok
Will it take you "Back to the Future"? Will it be as successful as the Delorean?
-
After reading more i found out it's actually a modification which can fit any vehicle, and what's real cool is that it comes with an interactive aluminum steering wheel so you get a real 'feel' for the power. Go green!! :rock
-
So, glacial melting is also a very good indicator on temperature development in our hemosphere. Either way, the result is the same, - warming.
Glacial melt is NOT a good indicator. I've explained why to you previous, Angus. It may be proven in the future that climate shift is the causal agent, but glacier formation (and decline) is dictated by the amount and type of precipitation received the previous year, NOT on the average temperature. This would obviously change if the climate moved past 0 degrees C for the entire year at the glacial point, but that is extreme.
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2fgn3xZDtkI/SfMMkf8OftI/AAAAAAAACkc/O352yM9lenY/s1600-h/)
-
Glacial melt is NOT a good indicator. I've explained why to you previous, Angus. It may be proven in the future that climate shift is the causal agent, but glacier formation (and decline) is dictated by the amount and type of precipitation received the previous year, NOT on the average temperature. This would obviously change if the climate moved past 0 degrees C for the entire year at the glacial point, but that is extreme.
What is a good indicator?
I am a layman, yes. But as far as I can see, when worldwide glaciers on land melt enough to raise world's Sl over a period of some decades, it's a heck of a better long-range indicator than "it was a colder winter in Montana than the last 2 years".
I forgot the sea ice age though. Although that touches shorter periods, it getting younger and thinner rings the same bell.
It's tough to claim i's getting warmer when this is going on, and after all the type of precipation (snow vs rain) depends on air temp and will, as you claim, affect glacial formation.
What do you call a glacial point by the way?
-
Common sense dictates that if you change something that is in balance by such gigantic proportions as we have over the last 100 something years something is gonna change.
It happenes with everything else, why not nature? Yes nature is robust and can adapt to a certain degree, but there is a limit. It doesnt take very many degrees in either direction either to have a very noticeble effect on the planet and the creatures and plants that live here.
Common sense people.
(http://drunkparadise.pbwiki.com/f/ying-yang_20424130_std.jpg)
What we need to do is find some of the books that our ancestors left after the last ice age uh, what was it 10,000 yrs ago? Maybe they wrote someting about how they warmed the earth up back then.
I bet Fred Flinstone was pissed they made him quit driving his kickass car w/ his feet since that was melting the ice roads. :P
-
It has not been steadily warming for the past 10.000 years. We had ups and downs. But now we're having an up, in a sun-down. That's a bit on the odd side.
Oh, and Moray, I see two blunders in my post, - sorry.
One is the wording. Sea ice age should be age of sea ice.
And secondly "tough to claim it isn't getting warmer."
-
Oh, just bumped across an angle on GW here. Interesting.
http://www.kvikmynd.is/video.asp?land=&offset=9&id=6162
-
I wonder how expensive a thermometer was 10,000 yrs. ago. Hmm.
Did they hang it outside the cave, or could they incorporate it Feng shui style inside w/ the torches and Sabertooth rugs.
-
Angus, I've seen that before. I don't even know where to start with debunking his logic. His essential argument that we should do something because AGW might be real is totally spurious. Also his timescale is absurd.'Ten years' from now. How old is that video? We must be due some of the consequences now.
The more I look at climate change the more skeptical I become, apart from the fact that the warming has stopped and is reversing since 1998. Something that is an inconvenient truth for many people. Sure, you'll argue that the overall trend is warming and that cooling is merely a natural variation in the upward trend. But what if it isn't? What if this continues and we enter a cooling phase over the next few years. Is that going to be man made as well?
What about the fact that the Antarctic has resolutely refusing to fall into the consensus and now has more ice cover than ever. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/5200229/Antarctic-ice-cover-increasing-due-to-hole-in-ozone-layer.html Note the excuse given for this increase. That other great scare story 'The hole in the ozone layer'. So we are expected to believe that the hole in the ozone layer which we supposedly caused is actually holding back climate change. Frankly if it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable. According to all the experts, the ice should be melting in the Antarctic. It isn't so they desperately search for a reason that doesn't debunk their great theory. Doesn't any of this this raise any suspicion in your mind?
Then there's your favourite, the arctic ice cover which also increased recently even the overall trend is to decrease. What if that continues? In my opinion a lot of people are going to look pretty stupid in a few years time after buying into the whole man made climate change thing.
What is undoubtedly true is that we have had some climate change. That's clear, but as to whether or not we caused it. That's far from clear. Time will tell.
-
About his logic:
He also assumes that in the phase of doing something when not needed, it will catapult mankind into a great depression. However a side-effect there could be the contrary, since the measures taken tackle with alternative energy and waste management, which are in the long run very healthy for the economy.
His worst case scenario of no action and full MMGW is however not the worst case scenario (the Venus scenario), since he assumes that mankind will survive through some very bad times.
As for Antarctica, the latest news are that there is indeed some big things going on. But it's a heck of a chunk, and things there happen much slower than in the Northern hemisphere.
Now also bear in mind that the sun is now a bit on the cold side. Actually very much so.
Anyway, the IPCC has been forecasting SL rise WITHOUT including the two biggest chunks of Ice, Antarctica and Greenland. Both land-based. Now it turns out that the rise in SL exceeds their predictions 3 times.
"Glaciers can be difficult to use as indicators of change, in part because melt area is not direct a measure of change as the change in mass of glacier, but mass is more difficult to measure. Chenges in mass correspond to accumulation or loss of ice. Nearly all glaciers studied are decreasing in mass, sesulting in rising sea level as the water drains to the ocean. Excluding Antarctica and Greenland, the rate of sea level rise from glacial melt is estimated at 0,58 millimeters fer year from 1961 to 2005, with ağ higher rate of 0,98 milleters per year between 1993 and 2005. The largest contributors to this rise are glaciers in Alaska and other parts of the Arctic, and the hig mountain of Asia. By 2100, glacial melt may increase sea level further 0,1 to 0,25 meters."
You can also see how careful their prediction is. 0.1 to 0.25....not a lot. But it's a humongous volume in all... Anyway, the result it that one or both of those biggies is responsible for the increase. It's just harder to see.
BTW, the Greenland Glacier had it's fastest retreat in 2007, - the year when some (cough) on these boards claimed to be a record cold one.
Here is something about the reading of data...
http://loftslag.blog.is/blog/loftslag/
(scroll down to the Youtube linkie
Now, to the sun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
AFAIK our current solar cycle is a long one, it's still cooling after 12 years. No sunspot at the moment.
-
If you can get funding to research something that has this many different conclusions, woofriggenhooo. If you can make money with wild claims and theories, yippiekiyea.
Just make a website with a picture of a factory. Name it www.SEESMOKEBAD.com. And the people will both cheer and boo you.
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/754356724_5397681c4d.jpg)
srry if you actually clicked that link :D
-
"If you can get funding to research something that has this many different conclusions, woofriggenhooo. If you can make money with wild claims and theories, yippiekiyea. "
The point with the GW denialists being well funded may be that the funding has an economical point....
I have a cousin whose doctor degree is about the sexlife of trouts or something in that direction. May sound pointless, is never the less much more useful than a denialist funding. Now what a funding that is...
Anyway, I agree on the point that some research being funded is completely off.......
-
"If you can get funding to research something that has this many different conclusions, woofriggenhooo. If you can make money with wild claims and theories, yippiekiyea. "
The point with the GW denialists being well funded may be that the funding has an economical point....
I have a cousin whose doctor degree is about the sexlife of trouts or something in that direction. May sound pointless, is never the less much more useful than a denialist funding. Now what a funding that is...
Anyway, I agree on the point that some research being funded is completely off.......
Like any other issue this one is being taken advantage of by both sides.
Politics and Industry are both using actual facts that work for both sides of the argument.
Guess my point was that you can get funding to do studies on either side of the issue and come up w/ completely different outcomes if you are steering it toward the outcome your financial backers are lookin for.
And that's where we seem to be. No concensus.
Then there are the people on each side that say there is one in their favor.
-
So, at the end of the day, one must sometimes trust one's own nose I guess.
Mine says warming. Nice and steady in quite some area. And I benefit from it, must admit that.