cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 19, 2011 20:26:41 GMT -5
Are glaciers growing or retreating, what is the follow up data 2 years later?
Some Glaciers Growing Due to Climate Change, Study Suggests, the study in this case is from 2006, here 5 years later I am sure that newer studies can be found.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 20:29:50 GMT -5
Well, wise guy, I would suggest as far back as you can find reliable data to compare to the present. Maybe even take a close look at ice core samples.
We owe it to future humans and wildlife to take this seriously.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 20:30:56 GMT -5
Are glaciers growing or retreating, what is the follow up data 2 years later? Some Glaciers Growing Due to Climate Change, Study Suggests, the study in this case is from 2006, here 5 years later I am sure that newer studies can be found. Fine, show us some reliable data!
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 19, 2011 20:36:15 GMT -5
Well, wise guy, I would suggest as far back as you can find reliable data to compare to the present. Maybe even take a close look at ice core samples. We owe it to future humans and wildlife to take this seriously. Oh I agree take it seriously, but we owe it to future generations to make sure whatever legislation that is passed is not simply passed on to them, as we have been doing for many years. If you look at the evidence of evolution, there are hot periods of tie where increases of solar heat destroy portions of existence, then repairs itself then moves into a cooling period. We could simply be moving into the next stage of homosapien evolution. We could be nothing more than a parasite on a living organism that we we become a nuance will be scratched off. there are many could be's that we can look at, the for sure right now is we as a society can not afford to enact an legislation that is going to be an increase on the working class.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 19, 2011 20:36:31 GMT -5
Please do show the correlation between those that question global warming and their religious belief.
Which happens to be when scientists were calling for the next ice age. I prefer to study solar flare activity. The correlation seems much stronger than some BS science that hasn't been proven.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 20:38:36 GMT -5
In other words, you don't believe in real science.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 20:41:24 GMT -5
The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial 1. Global Warming doesn't exist. It's not happening.We've all heard people claim as fact, without citing sources (or at least not credible ones), that "actually, the Earth is cooling" and such things. Facts: Every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917. Here's a report by NASA with this choice cut about record-breaking 2005: "Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year." 2. Okay, it's happening, but humans are not causing it.Here we have all the "sun getting brighter" and "natural warming cycle" theories. They are all real possibilities, but have been discarded by scientists who looked at the evidence and concluded that they were not the causes of the current warming of the thin atmosphere of our planet. Facts: It's not the sun ("According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.") and it's not a natural cycle (if it was, it would be incredibly slower than what we're seeing now and it would still need a cause). Here is some evidence of a scientific consensus: "The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [...] In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: 'Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations' IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. [...] That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. [...] This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. 3. Okay, humans are causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it, we can't go back to the stone age, it would ruin our economy, it's worse to act than not to act, etc. Or in the words of the new anti-Kyoto Canadian "Environment" Minister Rona Ambrose: "that would mean that today we would have to take every train, plane and automobile off the streets of Canada. That is not realistic." What do these people think Global Warming will do to the planetary economy? We can't look into the future and know exactly what the consequences would be, but what we can deduct doesn't sound good: Potentially millions of eco-refugees, disruptions in food supplies, heat waves and weird climate phenomenons, stronger hurricanes, flooded coastal areas, the possible cascading of species extinction (remember, animals can't turn on the air conditioning - when their environment changes rapidly, they can't artificially "adapt" like humans, and if the bottom of the food chain is affected, it will have effects on everything above), major changes in oceans, etc. Acting now is clearly the cheaper and better choice and countries that took important steps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like Germany, are hardly "ruined". Some big businesses like insurance companies understand that, but a much broader consensus on action is needed among the powerful corporate players of the world. The Apollo Alliance has been pushing a plan to create cleaner infrastructures and systems and eventually eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. The Chicago Climate Exchange has been doing really good things too. Many others, like the folks at WorldChanging, have been putting together a vision of a "bright green future", working on solutions that would actually stimulate the creation of a better tomorow and improve things on most if not all levels of society. There are lots of good ideas and solutions available right now. We've waited long enough. Lets act. 4. Okay, it is possible with technology, efficiency/conservation and smart planning to do something about it, but it's going to hurt the bottom line of "dirty" corporations.Well, a pusher is never happy when an addict is trying to get rid of him, and the end of slavery hurt the bottom line of slave owners. But very few people will say that these aren't the right things to do. Frankly, we can live with a few big companies making less money, especially considering the alternative. The stone age didn't end because there was no stones left, and we didn't keep blacksmiths in business forever after they weren't needed anymore. But even the Exxons and Shells of this world have a choice: they have huge resources and could - if they wanted to - become pioneers in clean technology and profitably survive the transition our society now has to go through. We're not talking about investing 1% of their benefits in clean technologies and doing massive PR campaigns; we're talking about a real commitment, something proportional to their scale. But lets not wait for them to move... If they don't, others will fill that role. Conclusion: Global Warming is real and we have to deal with it. We can use this crisis as an opportunity to improve our society. The faster, the better. www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/4_stages_denial.php
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 19, 2011 20:49:31 GMT -5
www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20801Have a blast. Simple google search of the author will direct you to their papers that you can read. I'd suggest reading the paper itself and not some crack pot liberal site like ThinkProgress or any other Soros funded trash. Considering that the sun is at its most inactive state in over 150 years, it's not surprising that temperatures are decreasing. The last time it was this inactive, we kind of coined a term for the period called "the Little Ice Age". It's also questionable to trend data as it comes out of said "little ice age", be overly concerned that the trend might be increasing, and most importantly, build your estimation models with this very important flaw with the assumption that the trend line is indefinite. Either the conclusion has already been picked by the scientists, or the ones that fund them or potentially worse, are completely ignorant in the arena of statistics.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 20:50:58 GMT -5
Canada Free Press...?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 19, 2011 20:51:24 GMT -5
Come on - you seriously don't expect us to open and read a link from this site and believe it to be credible? Don't waste our time.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 19, 2011 20:52:26 GMT -5
I told you to: a) open the link b) search for the papers by the authors quoted c) read for yourself Obviously you'd rather stick to treehugger.com.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 19, 2011 20:53:53 GMT -5
I've actually read the various studies rather than believing bigliberalloser.com
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 20:56:27 GMT -5
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend. scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 20:59:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 21:08:10 GMT -5
Are glaciers growing or retreating, what is the follow up data 2 years later? Some Glaciers Growing Due to Climate Change, Study Suggests, the study in this case is from 2006, here 5 years later I am sure that newer studies can be found. They have all miraculously healed themselves! No cause for alarm! Go back to sleep!
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 21:22:58 GMT -5
Do global warming deniers hate Liberals more than they love the planet? YES, it appears they do!
For the sake of our planet, I can only hope that most global warming deniers aren't really as dumb as they seem.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 21:50:35 GMT -5
Global warming causing California glacier to grow, scientists sayThe glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say. "When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers. But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said. As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century. The three smallest of the Shasta glaciers are more than twice the length they were in 1950. Other glaciers in Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Pakistan were in the same position as Shasta, but are now shrinking because rising temperatures have more than offset the increased snowfall. As many as 90 percent of Earth's mountain glaciers are getting smaller, said Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State University. A U.S. government inventory found that, with one exception, Shasta's glaciers are the only ones growing on the U.S. mainland, said Andrew Fountain, a professor at Portland State University, who worked on the assessment. The exception is a small glacier that is shaded in the crater of Mount St. Helens, Wash. It's unlikely to continue to grow once it leaves the shade, scientists said. Four glaciers on the shady north and east sides of Mount Rainier, Wash., are stable. www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2008/07/09/shasta-glaciers.html
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 19, 2011 21:50:43 GMT -5
I like Romney's stance on global warming. If 90% or more of climatologists believe in it, it is probably true.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 19, 2011 21:54:40 GMT -5
I like Romney's stance on global warming. If 90% or more of climatologists believe in it, it is probably true. Agreed. I think Romney is the sanest one in the GOP stable.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jun 20, 2011 7:59:34 GMT -5
After all, there aren't any penguins in Alaska. Dammit people, can't you see that the pegnuins in Alaska are gone, how much longer are we going to let this global warming get before we loose more species.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 20, 2011 8:00:27 GMT -5
Well, you can at least compare actual photographs and satellite images of past and present, can't you...? Glaciers used to cover half the U.S. too...are they still here???
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 20, 2011 8:11:18 GMT -5
I like Romney's stance on global warming. If 90% or more of climatologists believe in it, it is probably true. Yes, let's believe the climatologists that don't get any research funding if they don't tow the global warming line, or lose their university jobs if they don't tow that line, or they get blacklisted by their peers if they don't tow the line... Yes, they all agree with AGW...and Saddam Hussein always received 99% of the Iraqi vote, too, so they must have all agreed on the way he lead the country!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2011 8:16:25 GMT -5
Who exactly is science-denier Steven Goddard?Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard's articles: "My apologies to readers. I'll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends" wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar… John Cook rebutted another of Goddard's idiotic WUWT posts here as well: www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up… Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it's not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110309123406AA1ne91Sooo, it appears this Steven Goddard is in NO WAY connected to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In other words AAA rated conservative primary source material.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 8:25:09 GMT -5
It has occurred to me that when people are Godless, they still need to believe in something bigger than themselves, hence a lot of liberals gravitate toward religion-like cults such as "global warming", "multi-culturalism" and "progressivism" which all require them to accept many articles of dogma on faith alone (like religion). I guess the only downside to that is that these false "religions" do not require the adherents to keep it separate from governing (like the church and state division that exists with legitimate religion), so we wind up with a bunch of zealots making laws and policies like Cap and Trade, affirmative action and carbon credits based on their wild "religious" beliefs...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2011 8:27:54 GMT -5
Yes, let's believe the climatologists that don't get any research funding if they don't tow the global warming line, or lose their university jobs if they don't tow that line, or they get blacklisted by their peers if they don't tow the line... Please explain why non agenda driven/university based climatologists would suddenly not get research funding- usually government grants- based on reasearch outcomes , and who is in charge of the 'global warming line.' Now explain why anyone should take the word of any scientist/group directly funded by the people who stand to lose the most by any laws curbing their pollution- aka externalities-aka the shit society has to pay for the damage they cause.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 8:29:54 GMT -5
Global warming causing California glacier to grow, scientists sayThe glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say. "When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers. But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said. As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century. The three smallest of the Shasta glaciers are more than twice the length they were in 1950. Other glaciers in Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and Pakistan were in the same position as Shasta, but are now shrinking because rising temperatures have more than offset the increased snowfall. As many as 90 percent of Earth's mountain glaciers are getting smaller, said Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State University. A U.S. government inventory found that, with one exception, Shasta's glaciers are the only ones growing on the U.S. mainland, said Andrew Fountain, a professor at Portland State University, who worked on the assessment. The exception is a small glacier that is shaded in the crater of Mount St. Helens, Wash. It's unlikely to continue to grow once it leaves the shade, scientists said. Four glaciers on the shady north and east sides of Mount Rainier, Wash., are stable. www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2008/07/09/shasta-glaciers.html Um, sorry...wrong. www.climatedepot.com/a/6574/Geologist-Declares-global-warming-is-over--Warns-US-Climate-Conference-of-Looming-Threat-of-Global-Cooling
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 8:32:37 GMT -5
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 20, 2011 8:36:11 GMT -5
So now rational people are Godless because mindless capitalist conservative crazies happen to be in the same extremist group with the religious zealots- the CINO's? I think worshiping money and the free market is rather cultish- and I don't think for a second God appreciates your views on dumping poison into his creation, or causing cancer clusters, birth defects, and the host of other horrors the free market cultists inflict on the least of their brothers. If anyone is Godless it is you folks- because you don't care about anyone but yourselves.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 8:40:00 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 20, 2011 8:40:40 GMT -5
So now rational people are Godless because mindless capitalist conservative crazies happen to be in the same extremist group with the religious zealots- the CINO's? I think worshiping money and the free market is rather cultish- and I don't think for a second God appreciates your views on dumping poison into his creation, or causing cancer clusters, birth defects, and the host of other horrors the free market cultists inflict on the least of their brothers. If anyone is Godless it is you folks- because you don't care about anyone but yourselves. There is NOTHING- not one thing- rational about a person still clinging to the climate change hoax as though it were real.
|
|