Nilanka wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything Climate Change
Collapse
X
-
So let's just get a few facts straight:
Climate change is occurring (artic ice is melting, can't argue with that fact) and the green house gas effect is real (just basic heat transfer, nothing to revolutionary there). If you disagree with these basic premises, I question your scientific literacy.
Humans add some level of green house gases to the atmosphere by releasing CO2 that was previously stored as oil: ipso facto, humans contribute, somewhat, to climate change. You can say that our contribution is small compared to other factors, and that may be true, but the reality is that the planet is getting warmer and it is at least partly due to more greenhouse gasses, due to the points mentioned above.
Everyone good so far?
So your options for what to do:
1. Cut back on Green house gas emissions to slow the progress of the change. It won't stop it, which is something no one talks about, this thing has already entered a flywheel effect with the ocean (acidification and rising temperature releases more CO2) and unless you start pulling CO2 (and all the other lovely gasses that cause the effect) out of the atmosphere this thing is just going to continue.
2. Do nothing. We talk about whether or not this is happening all the time, but realistically, what is the consequence if it is? Do we get wiped out? Do polar bears go extinct? Does it flywheel endlessly due to the solubility pump effect in the ocean and we turn Earth into Venus? What is the realistic consequence of no action and is that consequence serious enough to necessitate action. Basic risk management.
3. Learn how to engineer the climate. The only option that makes sense IMO. We have an issue with too much CO2? How about we figure out how to pull it out of the atmosphere more effectively. Ocean's getting hot? How much money would it take to build a cooling system? Can we scatter glass in the upper atmosphere the reflect light and cut inputs? Can we move Earth a few million km's? Can we blow up the moon (not sure how this would help but people like blowing things up and the moon s awful snooty up there)?
For some reason no one talks about our options it's all a debate about if it's real and if it is, well let's just shut down all this fossil fuel business to control emissions. No talk about the actual value to the climate associated with these cuts."Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
-Churchill
Comment
-
hateslosing wrote: View PostSo let's just get a few facts straight:
Climate change is occurring (artic ice is melting, can't argue with that fact) and the green house gas effect is real (just basic heat transfer, nothing to revolutionary there). If you disagree with these basic premises, I question your scientific literacy.
Humans add some level of green house gases to the atmosphere by releasing CO2 that was previously stored as oil: ipso facto, humans contribute, somewhat, to climate change. You can say that our contribution is small compared to other factors, and that may be true, but the reality is that the planet is getting warmer and it is at least partly due to more greenhouse gasses, due to the points mentioned above.
Everyone good so far?
So your options for what to do:
1. Cut back on Green house gas emissions to slow the progress of the change. It won't stop it, which is something no one talks about, this thing has already entered a flywheel effect with the ocean (acidification and rising temperature releases more CO2) and unless you start pulling CO2 (and all the other lovely gasses that cause the effect) out of the atmosphere this thing is just going to continue.
2. Do nothing. We talk about whether or not this is happening all the time, but realistically, what is the consequence if it is? Do we get wiped out? Do polar bears go extinct? Does it flywheel endlessly due to the solubility pump effect in the ocean and we turn Earth into Venus? What is the realistic consequence of no action and is that consequence serious enough to necessitate action. Basic risk management.
3. Learn how to engineer the climate. The only option that makes sense IMO. We have an issue with too much CO2? How about we figure out how to pull it out of the atmosphere more effectively. Ocean's getting hot? How much money would it take to build a cooling system? Can we scatter glass in the upper atmosphere the reflect light and cut inputs? Can we move Earth a few million km's? Can we blow up the moon (not sure how this would help but people like blowing things up and the moon s awful snooty up there)?
For some reason no one talks about our options it's all a debate about if it's real and if it is, well let's just shut down all this fossil fuel business to control emissions. No talk about the actual value to the climate associated with these cuts.
I stopped reading at the bold as it is in fact wrong.
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?
The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ing-after-all/
Comment
-
This is also interesting. An under water volcano melting ice caps....
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/82...arctic-ice.htmSunny ways my friends, sunny ways
Because its 2015
Comment
-
mcHAPPY wrote: View PostI stopped reading at the bold as it is in fact wrong.
Cherry-picking limited data to illustrate a point on climate change is not a compelling argument, whether it is done by those who advocate for a warming planet, or those who advocate for the opposite. Publications including arguments of this type either lack a basic understanding of science or are intentionally misleading in order to promote an agenda.
Indeed, the last time global sea ice ventured into positive territory for a more than a
few months (2008).
A similar article was published in the Washington Post declaring that there was no reduction in global sea ice. Soon after, the Washington Post Ombudsman published a letter suggesting
that the Post should avoid distorting facts to bolster arguments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...22702334.html?
Forbes and other media outlets would be well-served by following
the Washington Post’s advice on this.Last edited by Bendit; Wed Nov 25, 2015, 06:49 PM.
Comment
-
mcHAPPY wrote: View PostI stopped reading at the bold as it is in fact wrong.
Or from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Plus Bendit's post.
So yah, maybe go read the rest now ."Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
-Churchill
Comment
-
It is a good thing ice grew by 33% in 2013 and in 2014 there was 25% more than found between 2010 and 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654
It is cycles people.
Comment
-
Uncle_Si wrote: View PostI wonder what the collective carbon foot print is of all these global warming heroes flying to Paris.
Comment
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-plummet.html
Probably going to be begging for global warming in a few more years.
It is cycles.
Comment
-
slaw wrote: View PostOnce the people who keep telling me it's a crisis start behaving like it's a crisis I'll pay attention. For example, until David Suzuki sells his 5 mansions I'm not really interested in hearing from him on how we all need to cut back and do with less. So... yawn.
Comment
-
raptors999 wrote: View PostProbably won't impact my life so I really don't care. Future generation better learn to swim or start inventing crap, because its not looking good for them.
Because the ocean is rising due to melting ice caps? Nonsense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-FREE-now.html
Comment
-
mcHAPPY wrote: View PostIt is a good thing ice grew by 33% in 2013 and in 2014 there was 25% more than found between 2010 and 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654
It is cycles people.
Satellite observations have documented a decrease of around 40% in the extent of sea ice cover in the Arctic since 1980
The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year.
Beyond all this, the theory of more CO2 (or any gas that is radioactively active) in the atmosphere causing an increase in total heat is pretty rock solid, scientifically speaking. Just look at Venus, which is much hotter than Mercury due to the same effect, despite being further from the sun. So unless you are arguing that the amount of CO2 hasn't changed (others have posted graphs showing otherwise) you have no ground to stand on.
Now we can certainly argue the extent of the problem and like I mentioned earlier, what the actual consequences of this will be but there is no reason (short of assuming all these scientists fabricated their research) to just straight deny the phenomenon."Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
-Churchill
Comment
-
It's good exercise and there are too many fat, ugly kids running around
http://communitytable.parade.com/227...m-this-summer/
Nobody wants to see fat adults when global warming starts
Comment
Comment