Get your mind out of the gutter Lily.
I'm talking glaciers. Are they shrinking? Yes. Are they growing? Yes.
Like everything else on the planet, it depends on what the sun is doing. I know the donkey just went over this in his last post, but i think it's a good idea to address it again since an anonymous commenter thought i needed an explanation on glaciers. I didn't and don't, but i do appreciate the attempt to educate me.
So once again, i want to point out that there is NO CONSENSUS on global warming, and in fact if you just ask the scientists who are not affiliated with any government agency or corporation, the clear majority believe that anthropogenic global warming is a myth. In the past i've linked to the petition that has over 30k signatures of U.S. based scientists who agree with that statement. The IPCC is less than 3000 "scientists" who signed on to a study that was written by politicians. Clearly they have an agenda, and Al Gore is just a jackass with no scientific credibility at all, but even if they truly believed what they say, they have no proof. The main argument that they use is the rapidly shrinking glaciers. Originally it was the glaciers at the north pole that were going to melt and cover the world with water, but then a kid in 3rd grade did a science fair project with a glass of water and disproved that theory, so more recently, as "anonymous" pointed out in the comments of the last post, it has changed to the glaciers in greenland and the antartic. Now i agree, if those were to rapidly melt it would probably cause some serious problems...... but they'r not melting.
Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now. This was a period of rapid glacier shrinkage world-wide, followed by at least partial re-expansion during a colder period from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. Of course, we don’t know very much about how the glacier dynamics changed then because we didn’t have satellites to observe it. However, it does suggest that large variations in ice sheet dynamics can occur from natural climate variability. The problem arises in thepossibility that, due to anthropogenic warming, warm phases will become longer and more severe, so that each time the glaciers go through a period of retreat like this, they won’t fully grow back and they will retreat farther the next time.
I linked to this story for a reason. This guy believes in APG, but still doesn't say anything definitive. He says there's a "possibility" that there can be a problem due to APG. Let me spell that out again for you very clearly. IF APG is real there COULD be a problem way off in the future IF the glaciers don't grow back to their original size.
Clearly the writer also believes in APG and therefore didn't bother to ask what would happen if APG isn't real. But I think we all know the answer to that...... WE DON'T KNOW! More importantly we can't change it, we can't affect it, and we certainly shouldn't destroy the world economy trying to keep a glacier from melting that isn't melting because it may or may not melt at some point in the distant future. I'm thinking we should at least wait to see if the glacier gets back to the size it was in the 1930's and then if it comes back again before we start panicking and spending billions of dollars on windmills, solar panels, and other "green" technology that clearly doesn't work.
8 comments:
Truth be told It was so cold in NYC this week I lost about an inch myself. The good news is that Ive applied for TARP money and with the right stimulus my package will be back bigger and better than ever. Well at least until I spin off some toxic assests that is...
I miss you guys.
(CNN) -- Between 1.5 trillion and 2trillion tons of ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted at an accelerating rate since 2003, according to NASA scientists, in the latest signs of what they say is global warming.
www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/16/melting.ice/
"Originally it was the glaciers at the north pole that were going to melt and cover the world with water, but then a kid in 3rd grade did a science fair project with a glass of water and disproved that theory..."
Do you have any idea how moronic that is?
For the last time, there is a consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity, and yes there are some skeptics. But the IPCC, the Royal Society, the AAAS, the National Academy of Science, the equivalent scientific societies in all the industrial nations, etc, does constitute a consensus. You might as well argue that there is no consensus on the theory of evolution because of a handful of "creation scientists." I suggest that instead you argue that the consensus is wrong.
You are missing the point Gary. Noone is arguing that ice doesnt melt. The Aurora will concede that ice melts.
Are you honest enough to admit that water freezes? That Greenland was once virtually ice free? That it has thawed and frozen countless times since the dawn of man? Can you at least admit those truths to be fact?
If you cant, dont even bother replying.
Our point is that there is zero proof, zero, that mankind has a significant impact (or any at all) on the current melting pattern (if true) and that the alarmist agenda has more to do with scaring people into allowing them redistribute wealth as it does with "saving" the planet.
Alarmists such as yourself try to cloud the issue by making emotional arguments to distract from the fact that the carbon output of humans has virtually no effect on short or long term weather patterns. Its always about the starving babies, dying polar bears, north pole is melting, sky is failing type of garbage with you people.
Case in point, you just show up, blabber about consensus then disappear. You have no valid argument and that is why, for example on the last post you chose to ignore the actual scientific discovery of a magna hotspot to explain any melting that may be occuring on Greenland. It doesnt jibe with your agenda so you ignore it.
In other words, you are full of shit.
However, in the spirit of debate I will concede one more point you made. There is definetely consenus among alarmists that man is to blame for the recent warming cycle. Its about the only thing you knuckleheads can agree on, well besides taxation being the solution for all the earth's ills.
However among the actual global scientific community there is no consensus. No consensus that the recent warming cycle is mans fault, in fact there isnt even consensus that the earth is warming anymore, with some notables making the argument that we are about to enter another mini ice age.
The debate is only over in the sense that your side has stopped presenting science to back your argument and it is the skeptic that is continually disproving the faulty man made junk science computer model the alarmists use to further their one world governance agenda.
Al Gore getting sunburned, ice melting, or polar bears swimming long distances for food does not prove that any warming or cooling pattern on this planet is due to mankinds activity and saying so doesnt change that.
Show proof or shut the fuck up.
If the NAS, the AAAS, the Royal Society, etc are not part of "the actual global scientific community" then what is? There is a scientific consensus with which you, and some scientists, disagree.
Also, see: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html which puts the percentage of believers in athropogenic global warming amoung climate scientists at 84%.
And yes magma might contribute to melting ice sheets in Greenland. See: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm
Greenhouse gases are certainly not the only factor in climate change.But the levels of c02 are rising; all theoretical models and the laws of physics suggest that this rise should cause global warming; the earth is warming as predicted; and most scientists think that a good part of this rise is manmade. You, however, are sure it's all a hoax.
Once again, the article i linked to quotes a scientist who believes in APG and he says the glaciers were bigger in the 1930's. He also says that there were expansions during the 50's and 80's. How much more co2 can we have since the 80's? I mean could it really be that in the last 30 years we've created so much co2 that we've basically doomed the earth to becoming a waterworld unless we increase taxes and give everyone their own windmill?
I realize that i'm no scientist and i admit i'm not a super genius, but it defies common sense. Yes, the glaciers were melting for a 3 year period from 2002-2005, and now they're growing. FACT.
Thank you Gary. You have more than aptly demonstrated the flawed argument of the alarmist mind. You acknolwedge then ignore the facts.
You say ...
"yes magma might contribute to melting ice sheets in Greenland."
but its still man fault
Dont you get it yet? Your theoretical models are just that... theory. Flawed, failed theory at that. The hockey stick is broken my friend.
NASA BACKTRACKS ON 1998 WARMEST YEAR CLAIM
The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the United States was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
According to NASA's newly published data:
The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998.
The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006.
Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940.
Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.
NASA's ground-based temperature records for the past 120 years -- which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions -- have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly. (Im lagging, Im lagging, Im cold cold lagging - Donk.)
Source: "NASA Backtracks on 1998 Warmest Year Claim," National Center for Policy Analysis, August 14, 2007
The earth's temperature is based on a plethora of factors (and pinatas), interesting how the only one that can be attributed to mankind (and taxable) is the one alarmists give the most creedence.
Here are some cold hard numbers.
CO2 represents just .0384% of Earth's atmosphere.
95% of that .0384% would remain if mankind disappeared from the face of earth tommorow. You do the math.
The average temperature during the Crustacean Period was appx 80 degrees.
The average temperature today is appx 60 degrees.
20,000 years ago you could have walked across the frozen Atlantic from New York to Belfast (in other words it was very cold).
Three millions years ago (before dirty coal, ExxonMobil, or General Motors) Greenland was practically ice free and CO2 levels were significantly higher than they are today leading one to conclude that if anything, CO2 levels are a lagging indicator. Im lagging, Im lagging, Im cold cold lagging
Im not saying man made global warming is a hoax, its more like a ruse.
Im saying that its a natural and cyclical part of this earth's climate. Just as cooling is. Im not saying C02 levels arent rising, they do in fact rise... and fall. Always have always will. Im saying that its not mathematically plausible that the most statistically insignifigant factor (CO2) is having the most impact. Im saying that variants such as the sun, natural decomposition, volcanic activity, the schools in South Africa and Iraqi people such as, natural decomposition, oceanic water vapor, and bovine flatulence all have a vastly greater impact on the temperature.
I am saying that your esteemed scientists know this, and choose to ignore it for fear of funding cessation or peer reviewed riducle.
I am saying that the movement's leaders could care less about any science behind this argument and are using the emotions of the argument to guilt the world into following their one world governance socialist agenda to redistribute the wealth from the industrialized to the third world.
I am saying that the followers choose to believe in agw because their lives are empty and it gives them a perceived sense of control over something more meaningful and greater than their empty and hollow self. "I may have lost the Presidency but Im saving the Planet" type of stuff.
I am saying you are all full of shit, every last common sense lacking consensus safety blanket clinging herd following one of you are full of fucking shit.
In short, I think you are all liars whether knowingly or ignorantly, and that the CO2 output of humans is not the sole or primary cause of any cyclical weather pattterns the earth may be experiencing.
Or as Chris Walken says in Joe Dirt "youre talking to me all wrong, its the wrong tone -- do it again and Ill stab you in the face with a soldering iron"
glad to see you guys continuing to bicker. just like in 'the good old days.'
and, healthy debate is good for the soul AND good for democracy.
happy new year to you all.
Happy New Year Anita.
Post a Comment