Global warming scam exposed!

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Russians are the third largest emitter in the world, the treaty won't do much good if they don't sign it, not that it would do much good regardless. I also thanked him for getting us involved in an obvious scam to steal our money.

[mkreku]

I've never said anything idiotic, only an idiot would think that.

Help help, the irony is stabbing me in the face with a knife!!

[Calax]

The Russians are the third largest emitter in the world, the treaty won't do much good if they don't sign it, not that it would do much good regardless. I also thanked him for getting us involved in an obvious scam to steal our money.

*sigh* Ok captain partisan. obviously you have no idea of rationality.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I still don't get how people can say global warming isn't happening. Just look at the melting glaciers and ice caps. If that is not caused by global warming then what is causing it.

[Rosbjerg]

All right everyone - let's make sure that we are discussing the topics rather than the posters!

 

-

 

I still don't get how people can say global warming isn't happening. Just look at the melting glaciers and ice caps. If that is not caused by global warming then what is causing it.

 

I think most of the "doubters" simply question whether or not it's man-made, which is a fair question imo .. as long as it doesn't overshadow the fact that the Earth is warming and hinders us in trying to do something/anything to prevent it.

[taks]

Just look at the melting glaciers and ice caps. If that is not caused by global warming then what is causing it.

sigh... i suppose i should finally post something.

 

a) the nifty thing about ice is that it melts at 32 F, so once it is warm enough to melt ice in some particular area, it will melt whether temperatures continue to rise or not (as long at it remains above freezing). i.e., melting ice is evidence of warmer, not warming.

b) we only monitor a very small percentage of the known glaciers on the planet (like under 1%), and only about half are receding (not to be confused with melting).

c) the glaciers began melting at the end of the last ice age, loooong before humans had any chance of a noticeable impact. in other words, once it was warm enough, glaciers affected began to melt.

d) of those that are receding, not all of them are doing so because of warming. kilimanjaro, al gore's favorite example, is receding because of a drought at the base which is exaggerated by land-use changes (so man made, yes, but not warming).

e) the icecaps are not both melting. the arctic ice extent is decreasing, but it is actually a combination of wind pattern changes and warming. antarctica is actually gaining mass and only a very small portion, the west antarctic ice shelf, has exhibited any decline. other than the peninsula that sticks out into the southern pacific, antarctica is never above freezing, so it can't melt.

f) greenland is also gaining mass.

g) overall, global sea ice is increasing.

 

i realize you're getting your information from the news, but you need to take a deeper look at what they really say in these articles, or follow the references. the bit about the arctic/antarctica, for example, is always tucked into the details of the stories, or the story will only focus on the artic sea ice.

 

the NSIDC has all the information on these things, btw.

 

taks

Edited December 9, 2009 by taks

[Walsingham]

It would seem your contribution is overdue, taks.

[taks]

It would seem your contribution is overdue, taks.

people tend to get all bent out of shape when i post facts, so i've been quiet.

 

taks

[Slowtrain]

It would seem your contribution is overdue, taks.

people tend to get all bent out of shape when i post facts, so i've been quiet.

 

taks

 

 

Pls post more.

 

k thanks.

[Fenghuang]

It would seem your contribution is overdue, taks.

people tend to get all bent out of shape when i post facts, so i've been quiet.

 

taks

 

 

Yo taks, opinions on the Gulf Stream shifting/underwater Methane Hydrates?

[Purkake]

Also, how would you describe the Great Pacific Garbage Patch's effects on both the local and global wildlife?

[Tigranes]

I like how we interview forumites now.

 

taks, can you give an answer regarding allegations that you've been cavorting with young outspoken Australians?

[Zoraptor]

a) the nifty thing about ice is that it melts at 32 F, so once it is warm enough to melt ice in some particular area, it will melt whether temperatures continue to rise or not (as long at it remains above freezing). i.e., melting ice is evidence of warmer, not warming.

True, but totally irrelevant. Unless the debate has devolved to simply restating scientific principles, in which case climate change people win by default as more CO2 and methane= warming by basic scientific principle.

b) we only monitor a very small percentage of the known glaciers on the planet (like under 1%), and only about half are receding (not to be confused with melting).

(1) The vast majority of monitored glaciers are either static or receding. (2) Receding is the same as melting for all practical purposes (yes, some can be receding but gaining mass and vice versa, but in the long term if a glacier gains mass it advances, if it loses mass it recedes). (3) What you should have done is combine it with c as "The reasons for that may not be anthropogenic but a progression of the natural inter glacial warming cycle" which is pretty much the only credible defence available.

d) of those that are receding, not all of them are doing so because of warming. kilimanjaro, al gore's favorite example, is receding because of a drought at the base which is exaggerated by land-use changes (so man made, yes, but not warming).

(1) Historic drought is not evidence of climate change? (2) How do changes in land use at the bottom effect snow/ice at the top? (3) Kenya has warmed.

e) the icecaps are not both melting. the arctic ice extent is decreasing, but it is actually a combination of wind pattern changes and warming. antarctica is actually gaining mass and only a very small portion, the west antarctic ice shelf, has exhibited any decline. other than the peninsula that sticks out into the southern pacific, antarctica is never above freezing, so it can't melt.

Antarctica will 'always' gain mass in its center (and shed it on its edges), and has done since it reached the pole. Ice shelfs on both sides of it are now thought to be melting. Also, again, changes in wind pattern and warming not evidence of climate change?

f) greenland is also gaining mass.

No it isn't, it's losing it.

 

OK, there's a roughly 5% chance that it may very marginally be gaining mass. Of course, the reverse is that there's a 5% chance it's losing it at a rate of near 100 km^3 a year too...

g) overall, global sea ice is increasing.

No it isn't.

 

The only relevant questions are (1) Are we causing climate change? (2) Is there anything we can do about it? (3) What will its effects be?

The warming part itself is pretty indisputable.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Zoraptor

[Blank]

I'm basically not a fan of sensationalism. I feel that the topic of "global warming" is handled this way too often, whether for or against it. My favorite way to approach issues like these is with rationalism. For example, I believe it is wise for people in any subject to be good stewards of their resources.

 

In the long run, this approach is always cost-effective and morally appreciated. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other about "global warming", should we not already be seeking to temper the wasteful use of resources and production of pollution?

 

So when I hear people freaking out about what is true and what is not about "global warming", I say quit acting like diarrhetic pigs. Let's continue to assess the facts of "global warming" and make practical changes to things we already know need to change as we look to see if more drastic measures need to be taken in the near future.

 

P.S. I'm mostly referring to major media sources that discuss the issue.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Blank

[Hiro Protagonist]

When looking at sea levels, you need to look at the broad scale of sea-level changes. Sea levels go up and down all the time. Eastern England is falling, Scotland's rising. Scandinavia's rising, Holland is sinking. So we're getting the land go up and down, we're getting sea levels go up and down. We've got this wonderful measuring station in Port Adelaide where sea level was measured here, and people have claimed sea level has actually risen. But in fact, the measuring station has fallen.

 

We've had some fiercely hot weather in eastern Australia in the last couple of days. On the other hand, we had some fiercely cold weather in eastern Australia earlier in April this year. Some people might be tempted, "Oh, that's proof of climate change". It isn't - it's a normal variability. The evidence to show that the planet has been cooling is the same body of evidence that comes out to the major meteorological centres in the world. We are currently in a cooling phase, before that we were in a warming phase. From 1940 to 1976 we were cooling. So we go through regular cycles of cooling and warming. The planet is dynamic, just because we're alive today doesn't mean that we are influencing the planet. It changes.

 

The Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that global warming stopped in 1998. That's one of the four centres that put out climate data, and the Hadley Centre use a slightly different database from some of the American centres, they use temperature based on thermometer measurements - some of the others use satellite and balloon. And it's interesting that there is a rough correlation, but in detail there isn't a correlation, that is one of the four centres.

 

The Hadley figures that the years 1998 to 2006 include the hottest, the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth hottest years in recorded history, has been widely criticised across the world. Those figures are not in accord with what we get from the other climate centres, and the second thing is that the British meteorological society has actually withdrawn those comments. Now, we know from 1959 the Royal Society of meteorologists in the UK argued that the variable climate was due to the atom bomb. In the 1970s, they argued that it was due to global cooling. Now they are arguing that we're all going to fry. So science is married to evidence - that evidence constantly accumulates and changes.

 

In the 1930s, it was much hotter. We had from 1920 to 1940 far less arctic sea ice than now, much, much warmer temperatures.

 

If you look at a bracket of 10 years of time, that doesn't tell us what's happening to climate - that's telling us what's happening to the weather. And the second thing is that the Hadley Centre has been widely criticised, especially in the US, for those figures. NASA's claim that 2005 was the hottest in recorded history. NASA also gave similar figures, which they withdrew. NASA now states the four top years of high temperatures are in fact the 1930s. That was in 1930, there was a date in the 1920s, and one in the 1940s. The hottest US temperatures, not the hottest global temperatures.

 

Unfortunately, we have 30 years of satellite and balloon measurements of global temperatures. They are not in accord with the other ways we measure temperature, which is done with thermometers in areas where we've got a huge amount of heat given out by villages as small as 1,000 people. And so one set of data where we use a thermometer gives us a completely different story to when we use radioson balloons and satellites. And if we've got two separate data sets, to start making claims, as we've heard from many meteorological centres, is absolutely erroneous.

 

The first thing is that global temperature is a very difficult thing to measure. Secondly, we have a huge bias in the measuring station, and they are mainly in western countries, European countries - they're not in areas where we might get very high temperatures such as in the deserts.

 

Also, you have scientists in one area of expertise giving their opinions on things that they're not specialised in or haven't researched properly. eg. Barry Brook is a biologist. He's done some very good work on the mass extinctions of macro fauna in Australia. He's not a climate scientist, he's done no climate science. Professor Kurt Lambeck is a geophysicist who's done a lot of work on sea level changes. What he hasn't looked at is the broad scale of sea-level changes. He also has not done work on, say, Tuvalu, where the floor of the Pacific Ocean and there's little wonder that Tuvalu is getting a relatively high sea level and nowhere else in the world is. And again, his work is very narrow geophysical work, mainly in the Mediterranean.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Between global warming and global cooling I'll take warming any day of the week. Cooling would be far more fatal to life on this planet.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Taks, I don't mind one bit you posting facts. However I do think that we should take action to limit pollution, limit the use of fossil fuels, and push forward on renewable energies. Regardless of the Global warming , by doing this we will be able to sustain ourselves on this miserable little mudball a little longer. Until we develop FTL tech this is the only planet we can live on in such numbers.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Only problem is, taks's facts are false or misleading. He's basically talking out of his arse. Unless of course you want to prove those controversial claims, taks? And just saying that the proof is out there isn't enough.

[Purkake]

proof is out there

 

I want to believe.

[Humodour]

Between global warming and global cooling I'll take warming any day of the week. Cooling would be far more fatal to life on this planet.

 

Venus.

[213374U]

d) of those that are receding, not all of them are doing so because of warming. kilimanjaro, al gore's favorite example, is receding because of a drought at the base which is exaggerated by land-use changes (so man made, yes, but not warming).

(1) Historic drought is not evidence of climate change? (2) How do changes in land use at the bottom effect snow/ice at the top? (3) Kenya has warmed.

Droughts in Kenya are linked to "El Ni Edited December 9, 2009 by 213374U

[Lare Kikkeli]

a) the nifty thing about ice is that it melts at 32 F, so once it is warm enough to melt ice in some particular area, it will melt whether temperatures continue to rise or not (as long at it remains above freezing). i.e., melting ice is evidence of warmer, not warming.

already addressed, but very misleading and not about the subject at hand

b) we only monitor a very small percentage of the known glaciers on the planet (like under 1%), and only about half are receding (not to be confused with melting).

i'd like proof of these numbers. also if we're only monitoring 1% of all glaciers worldwide how can you make any counter-arguments to the claim that they're melting either? are you monitoring more glaciers than the scientific community?

 

c) the glaciers began melting at the end of the last ice age, loooong before humans had any chance of a noticeable impact. in other words, once it was warm enough, glaciers affected began to melt.

 

again misleading. sure the glaciers have been melting since the ice age (maybe because back then all of europe was under a glacier? ). the point is, the melting/receding seems to have accelerated a lot in recent times.

 

d) of those that are receding, not all of them are doing so because of warming. kilimanjaro, al gore's favorite example, is receding because of a drought at the base which is exaggerated by land-use changes (so man made, yes, but not warming).

deforestation and huge droughts are linked to global warming. weather patterns are changing and becoming more extreme because of global warming. thats the theory anyway.

 

e) the icecaps are not both melting. the arctic ice extent is decreasing, but it is actually a combination of wind pattern changes and warming. antarctica is actually gaining mass and only a very small portion, the west antarctic ice shelf, has exhibited any decline. other than the peninsula that sticks out into the southern pacific, antarctica is never above freezing, so it can't melt.

again i'd like to see some proof that either polar cap is gaining more mass than it's losing. i guess it's possible than the antarctice is gaining mass or is at least not losing any, but the north polar region is definitely losing its mass.

 

f) greenland is also gaining mass.

 

this is plain false unless you have some solid evidence that contradicts mine.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-...gaining-ice.htm

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7037

 

g) overall, global sea ice is increasing.

from the NSIDC:

 

1. Arctic sea ice extent for November 2009 was 10.26 million square kilometers (3.96 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.

 

[213374U]

also if we're only monitoring 1% of all glaciers worldwide how can you make any counter-arguments to the claim that they're melting either? are you monitoring more glaciers than the scientific community?

Irrelevant. The claim that glaciers are melting is used as a basis for climate change theories. If the validity of the the basis is contested (by pointing out how reduced the observed sample is), you don't need to make a counter-claim.

 

 

the point is, the melting/receding seems to have accelerated a lot in recent times.

Back to the previous point. Post some data that hasn't been carefully selected to push one theory or another. Again, it's difficult (if not impossible), because of the reduced amount of data available.

 

 

deforestation and huge droughts are linked to global warming. weather patterns are changing and becoming more extreme because of global warming.

Except when they aren't, as I showed.

 

 

again i'd like to see some proof that either polar cap is gaining more mass than it's losing. i guess it's possible than the antarctice is gaining mass or is at least not losing any, but the north polar region is definitely losing its mass.

Arctic ice masses are seaborne. Floating ice amounts to ~2% of all ice, pretty insignificant. Edited December 9, 2009 by 213374U

[Lare Kikkeli]

also if we're only monitoring 1% of all glaciers worldwide how can you make any counter-arguments to the claim that they're melting either? are you monitoring more glaciers than the scientific community?

Irrelevant. The claim that glaciers are melting is used as a basis for climate change theories. If the validity of the the basis is contested (by pointing out how reduced the observed sample is), you don't need to make a counter-claim.

first of all, i didn't say he needed to make a counter-claim, it's just that he did. i just want to know what he's basing his claims on. also i'd like to see where those pretty damn exact numbers are from. i suspect his arse.

 

the point is, the melting/receding seems to have accelerated a lot in recent times.

Back to the previous point. Post some data that hasn't been carefully selected to push one theory or another. Again, it's difficult (if not impossible), because of the reduced amount of data available.

i'm not sure i understand what you mean. i posted two articles, one by nasa. if you find something wrong with the data in the articles please point it out.

 

deforestation and huge droughts are linked to global warming. weather patterns are changing and becoming more extreme because of global warming.

Except when they aren't, as I showed.

yes, in those cases you are correct. i apologise.

 

again i'd like to see some proof that either polar cap is gaining more mass than it's losing. i guess it's possible than the antarctice is gaining mass or is at least not losing any, but the north polar region is definitely losing its mass.

Arctic ice masses are seaborne. Floating ice amounts to ~2% of all ice, pretty insignificant.

 

yes, and i'd like to see evidence that while floating ice is decreasing the total mass is increasing. couldn't find any myself.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Moose]

It's got steadily warmer where I live over the last 25 years.

 

I'd feel better if more people posted "it's been getting colder where I live over the last 25 years. Recently it's started snowing and it never used to before", but this never seems to happen.

 

I think we can all agree that global warming or not, the late snow season that hit Switzerland was most excellent. Nothing like having peoples skiing holidays ruined, rich bastards