Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
Brando70 wrote:I think it's a plot by the cows to get us to eat more chicken.Teal wrote:Yet another reason why 'climate change' is bullshit political theater-now how long, exactly, have cows been around? And NOW, just now, they're hurting the environment?!?
http://www.businessandmedia.org/article ... 65231.aspx
So the solution is to bankrupt dairy farmers and cattlemen??
That article talks about global sea ice levels, before claiming that Arctic sea ice made a "substantial recovery" in 2008. This recovery began in October and ended in early November:Teal wrote:And another entry from 'The Boy who Cried Wolf':
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
So why should I care that the Dept. of the Interior puts polar bears on the endangered list, when they cite 'shrinking of Arctic Ice' as a reason, again?
Since records began.....which is only 30 YEARS AGO! How can 30 years of data be enough to have any idea what is really "average" on the planet? 30 years ago these same scientists were screaming about another ice age.Feanor wrote: So the Arctic sea ice, where the polar bears live, is still well below the 1979-2000 average according to the NSIDC as 2008 was the second worst year since records began:
The fact that satellite imaging wasn't available till the late 70s doesn't change the fact that the Arctic Ocean is heading towards being ice-free for the first time in human history. That isn't average.There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false.
The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.
How can it be heading towards being ice-free when there is more ice than last year?Feanor wrote:The fact that satellite imaging wasn't available till the late 70s doesn't change the fact that the Arctic Ocean is heading towards being ice-free for the first time in human history. That isn't average.
30 years wouldnt even be a good sample if the earth began with Adam and Eve...I will however score one for the intelligent design people here as it seems scientists are agreeing with them on when the earth began.matthewk wrote: Since records began.....which is only 30 YEARS AGO! How can 30 years of data be enough to have any idea what is really "average" on the planet? 30 years ago these same scientists were screaming about another ice age.
.
No more than you are perpetuating the myth of the 21st century Global Warming Scientific Consensus...Feanor wrote: Or are you just perpetuating the myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus?
Given that criterion, Chelsea Clinton is qualified to be director of the CIA. They may as well add "stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night" as justification.A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has not direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant. The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House.
I do. This guy was elected on a promise of a tidal wave of change, yet there seem to be quite a few familiar faces from the Clinton Administration in Obama's Cabinet.RobVarak wrote:Edit: I don't begrudge him this orgy of recycled Clintonites, but he should at least match them up with the right jobs!
Because that's a slight rise amidst a steady downward trend.matthewk wrote:How can it be heading towards being ice-free when there is more ice than last year?Feanor wrote:The fact that satellite imaging wasn't available till the late 70s doesn't change the fact that the Arctic Ocean is heading towards being ice-free for the first time in human history. That isn't average.
And because most computer models predict an ice-free Arctic ocean between 2040 and 2100, with one claiming it will happen as soon as 2013.Satellite data from the SMMR and SSM/I instruments have been combined with earlier observations from ice charts and other sources to yield a time series of Arctic ice extent from the early 1900s onward. While the pre-satellite records are not as reliable, their trends are in good general agreement with the satellite record and indicate that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining since at least the early 1950s.
Except that is not a myth.Teal wrote:No more than you are perpetuating the myth of the 21st century Global Warming Scientific Consensus...
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. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise". The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue".
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. 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".
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.
There is also no evidence that we are the cause, so no, that is not enough historical data for me.Feanor wrote:Because that's a slight rise amidst a steady downward trend.matthewk wrote:How can it be heading towards being ice-free when there is more ice than last year?Feanor wrote:The fact that satellite imaging wasn't available till the late 70s doesn't change the fact that the Arctic Ocean is heading towards being ice-free for the first time in human history. That isn't average.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
And because most computer models predict an ice-free Arctic ocean between 2040 and 2100, with one claiming it will happen as soon as 2013.Satellite data from the SMMR and SSM/I instruments have been combined with earlier observations from ice charts and other sources to yield a time series of Arctic ice extent from the early 1900s onward. While the pre-satellite records are not as reliable, their trends are in good general agreement with the satellite record and indicate that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining since at least the early 1950s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
And there is no evidence of a seasonally ice-free Arctic going back over 700,000 years. Is that enough historical data for you?
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/ ... OS2005.pdf
Except that last year the average temperature decreased.Feanor wrote:Except that is not a myth.
The basic conclusions of the IPCC that most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. That's scientific consensus, and it doesn't stop being scientific consensus because you've come to a different conclusion for ideological reasons.
Of course, it's just a coincidence that the Arctic sea ice is projected to disappear this century after being around for close to a million years. It couldn't have anything to do with the seven billion people on the planet.matthewk wrote:There is also no evidence that we are the cause, so no, that is not enough historical data for me.
Even without your crutch about 70s scientists to fall back on, you can keep banging the "no evidence" drum, but I think the IPCC has a little more credibility than you on the subject. Just a little.The way you interpret one year of slightly more sea ice (and only by extent, not volume) and one year of lower global temperature (still the ninth-warmest year since 1880) as evidence of the reversal of a long term trend rather than a fluctuation around a long-term trend is bizarre, except that it fits your pattern of blithely dismissing any data that doesn't conform to your ideology. After all, you are the guy who even on election day morning was predicting a close vote because of all the quiet Republicans who don't respond to polls. I guess there was "no evidence" that Obama was going to win comfortably.The IPCC, which brings together the world’s leading climate scientists and experts, concluded that major advances in climate modelling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists “very high confidence” – at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct – in their understanding of how human activities are causing the world to warm. This level of confidence is much greater than the IPCC indicated in their last report in 2001.
Today’s report, the first of four volumes to be released this year by the IPCC, also confirms that it is “very likely” that humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have caused most of the global temperature rise observed since the mid-20th century. The report says that it is likely that effect of human activity since 1750 is five times greater than the effect of fluctuations in the sun’s output.
Susan Soloman, co-chair of the IPCC working group that produced the report, said records from ice cores, going back 10,000 years, show a dramatic rise in greenhouse gases from the onset of the industrial era. “There can be no question that the increase in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity.”
Yes, because a local TV station said it would rain on the weekend and it was only cloudy, science like this should just be ignored and dismissed out of hand. That makes perfect sense.matthewk wrote:I love how we should rely on computer models to predict things that *may* happen in 2040, but we can't tell what the weather will be like 5 days from now.
Arctic ice cover in summer has seen rapid retreat in recent years.
The minimum extents reached in 2007 and 2008 were the smallest recorded in the satellite age.
"The sea ice is entering a new state where the ice cover has become so thin that no matter what happens during the summer in terms of temperature or circulation patterns, you're still going to have very low ice conditions," she told the meeting.
Theory predicts that as ice is lost in the Arctic, more of the ocean's surface will be exposed to solar radiation and will warm up.
When the autumn comes and the Sun goes down on the Arctic, that warmth should be released back into the atmosphere, delaying the fall in air temperatures.
Ultimately, this feedback process should result in Arctic temperatures rising faster than the global mean.
I do think we have too many people on this planet. I'm also not against finding ways to not pollute and waste like we do. That doesn't mean I have to go so far as to say we are responsible for climate change.Feanor wrote:Of course, it's just a coincidence that the Arctic sea ice is projected to disappear this century after being around for close to a million years. It couldn't have anything to do with the seven billion people on the planet.
Feanor wrote:...except that it fits your pattern of blithely dismissing any data that doesn't conform to your ideology.
I think this is your best argument for GW yet.Feanor wrote:After all, you are the guy who even on election day morning was predicting a close vote because of all the quiet Republicans who don't respond to polls. I guess there was "no evidence" that Obama was going to win comfortably.
I'm not dismissing the science. I believe that their measurements of sea ice are correct. What you continue to fail to comprehend (or accept) is that this does not automatically mean that we are responsible. You just can't seem to be able to separate the data from your conclusions.Feanor wrote:Yes, because a local TV station said it would rain on the weekend and it was only cloudy, science like this should just be ignored and dismissed out of hand. That makes perfect sense.matthewk wrote:I love how we should rely on computer models to predict things that *may* happen in 2040, but we can't tell what the weather will be like 5 days from now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786910.stm
Arctic ice cover in summer has seen rapid retreat in recent years.
The minimum extents reached in 2007 and 2008 were the smallest recorded in the satellite age.
"The sea ice is entering a new state where the ice cover has become so thin that no matter what happens during the summer in terms of temperature or circulation patterns, you're still going to have very low ice conditions," she told the meeting.
Theory predicts that as ice is lost in the Arctic, more of the ocean's surface will be exposed to solar radiation and will warm up.
When the autumn comes and the Sun goes down on the Arctic, that warmth should be released back into the atmosphere, delaying the fall in air temperatures.
Ultimately, this feedback process should result in Arctic temperatures rising faster than the global mean.
I agree, it's a surprising pick, and I would have nabbed someone with intelligence or at least military experience (like he did with Dennis Blair). I worry that Penetta will run into the kinds of problems Woolsey and Deutch did during Clinton's first term. However, I can also understand bringing in an outsider if they want to change the direction of the agency. The CIA also has had a number of DCI's who had little or no real intelligence experience outside of being in government posts that "consume intelligence." Bill Casey, as controversial as he was, was one of the more "successful" directors and he was Reagan's campaign manager. He hadn't done any intelligence work since his stint in the OSS.RobVarak wrote:To his credit it's taken longer than I expected, but Obama has finally done something that is downright stupid. Understandable given the litmus test imposed by his campaign and transition team with respect to the way to conduct war, but stupid nevertheless.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 5444.story
My favorite part:
Given that criterion, Chelsea Clinton is qualified to be director of the CIA. They may as well add "stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night" as justification.A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has not direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant. The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence when he was at the White House.
Epic fail to use the parlance of the day.
Edit: I don't begrudge him this orgy of recycled Clintonites, but he should at least match them up with the right jobs!
Is there anything that could change yours?GTHobbes wrote:Matt, just curious, what kind've studies or evidence would it take for you to accept that humans are mostly (or even partly) responsible? Is there anything that could change your mind on this?
They're not my conclusions, they're the conclusions of the IPCC. The IPCC by the way, has faced significant criticsim for being too conservative in estimating the dangers and risks of global warming. Their 2001 report actually underestimated the rate that temperatures and seal levels would rise.matthewk wrote:I'm not dismissing the science. I believe that their measurements of sea ice are correct. What you continue to fail to comprehend (or accept) is that this does not automatically mean that we are responsible. You just can't seem to be able to separate the data from your conclusions.
It's not an argument for anthropogenic global warming, just a good example of how you ignore data (like the pre-election polls) that don't agree with your political positions.matthewk wrote:I think this is your best argument for GW yet.Feanor wrote:After all, you are the guy who even on election day morning was predicting a close vote because of all the quiet Republicans who don't respond to polls. I guess there was "no evidence" that Obama was going to win comfortably.
As do you.Feanor wrote:It's not an argument for anthropogenic global warming, just a good example of how you ignore data (like the pre-election polls) that don't agree with your political positions.matthewk wrote:I think this is your best argument for GW yet.Feanor wrote:After all, you are the guy who even on election day morning was predicting a close vote because of all the quiet Republicans who don't respond to polls. I guess there was "no evidence" that Obama was going to win comfortably.
