Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 01:17am PT
|
Chiloe, where are you at 79 north, and what are you up to? There can be relatively open seas in that latitude around and east of Svalbard, as far as Franz Josef Land, but maybe you're elsewhere.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 01:19am PT
|
This whole environment debate is interesting, to say the least.
Whether it's happening or not, is not my point at this time.
I like to look further. I'll venture to say the climate change debate, is but a stepping stone to a bigger agenda. Depopulation, in a word.
The overpopulation debate and the climate change debate, will eventually meld. People must die, in order for the earth to live. Some people deserve to live more than others, right? It's a humanistic approach.
Baby steps, folks. That's how their agenda is being brought about.
First comes *voluntary* abortion, euthanasia, and sterilization. Then mandatory, as is today the case in China and North Korea. And don't think it wouldn't happen here. If it's for the earth, and the earth is dying (or in peril), people must controlled!
NOW! Let's see a show of hands!?
Plus, who's all getting their flu shots, come fall season?!
And here come the kooks...
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 05:32am PT
|
first, there was global warming; then, it became clear the globe wasn't warming so, now, we have climate change despite the fact that the globe's climate has been changing since long before there any people
when the weather is unusually cold or just pleasant, skeptics like to mock the agw promoters who promptly reply, "weather is not climate" until the weather turns severe, in which case, weather is more proof of agw/climate change
and thus:
"The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.
As many as one in five people reported ''emotional injury, stress and despair'' in the wake of these events."
maybe this explains al gore's delusions
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 09:42am PT
|
Mighty Hiker, that wasn't me at 79N (wish it was!), I posted a webcam photo from the USCGC Healy. Along with the Canadian icebreaker St Laurent, the Healy (a research icebreaker) has been cruising the Arctic Ocean this month taking measurements. Yesterday, approaching 86N, note the slushy appearance of the ice:
The scientific results have not yet been reported, but from the Healy's cruising speeds, ice measurements and the webcam photos, it appears that the icebreakers are encountering ice much thinner than had been estimated from satellite data. So the satellite-based estimates of extent and area may have been too optimistic about how much ice is left in the Arctic.
And yet, those satellite estimates were already pretty low. As of 8/29, the area of Arctic sea ice appeared close to its lowest point ever:
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 09:55am PT
|
There can be relatively open seas in that latitude around and east of Svalbard, as far as Franz Josef Land, but maybe you're elsewhere.
That's true now more than ever, you could sail widely around Svalbard today without encountering ice. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route have been open for weeks. There even are some stretches along the north (!) coast of Greenland and Ellesmere Island where you could sail without hitting ice. Or, traveling north from Siberia, it appears that a careful captain could reach 85N in an un-reinforced boat today.
From Uni Bremen 8/31/2011 (full-resolution version here):
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 10:21am PT
|
Hottest August on record here in NM. Not by tenths of a degree.... by FIVE degrees.
You got a cite for that? Assuming you're talking average temp over the month, my BS meter is getting pretty high.
(It's apparently been the hottest Aug on record in Denver-it's just the FIVE degrees I'm wondering about.)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 31, 2011 - 11:35am PT
|
first, there was global warming; then, it became clear the globe wasn't warming ...
 bookworm
Bookie, pardon my French (and don't take this personally), but this statement gives the impression that you're an idiot who doesn't know how to comprehend what he reads. Hopefully you can find a way to remedy that.
But keep fighting the good fight, ol' man, the world needs more like you.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 12:51pm PT
|
--have you bought any Carbon Credits yet Warmists? Feeling better?
In medieval Europe, corrupt clergy raised money through the sale of what
they called indulgences. These were certificates of forgiveness sold to
sinners as an alternative to eternal damnation. The beauty of it was that
eternal damnation was promoted by the same people who sold the indulgences.
It was the perfect racket until that pesky Martin Luther came along and
spoiled everything.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2008/09/carbon-credit-sales-scheme-a-con-artists-dream/
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 02:23pm PT
|
Wow corniss, your response has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. Very persuasive. Keep up the good work.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 04:08pm PT
|
"These cities have recorded temperatures this year that exceeded any temperature on record for any month."
what about last year? or the year before? or the decade before? and why isn't today hotter than june 15? why do you have to go all the way back to the 1800s if the globe has been warming since 1900 (or whenever the agw hysterics claim it started)? and what about the global cooling that spawned the coming ice age hysterics in the 1970s?
hmmmm...nature magazine--you know that anti-environmental right wing rag--says any warming might just be the result of that big yellow ball in the sky:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
|
|
gonzo chemist
climber
Crane Jackson's Fountain St. Theater
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2011 - 05:01pm PT
|
"hmmmm...nature magazine--you know that anti-environmental right wing rag--says any warming might just be the result of that big yellow ball in the sky:"
Actually Bookworm, your statement is inconsistent with the report in NatureNews. The primary author himself, Jasper Kirby, said (of their experiment) "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."
The original journal article that was published in Nature (yes I ACTUALLY read it) sought to investigate the effect of cosmic rays on ammonia-induced nucleation rates of sulfuric acid in the boundary-layer.
Kirby and coworkers' conclusions: "We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation."
In other words, the jury is still out as to the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of clouds, as pertains to the involvement of boundary-layer ammonia and sulfuric acid. They did not investigate the role of boundary-layer VOCs. Much more research will need to be conducted...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Dingus, I agree that Ed's patient, factual responses add up to brilliant and irreplaceable contributions to this forum.
But calling his antagonists here "google scholars" gives them too much credit. My guess is that they're not googling up Nature etc. articles on their own, but just pushing along links and spin that other sources feed them. It doesn't matter that Ed debunks each claim, they shrug and go back to the well where there's an endless supply of new claims to throw out.
The value of Ed's work is not in the impossible job of teaching ideologues about science, but making reasonable presentations of how scientists work and think for the benefit of others reading these threads.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
From the Limbaugh letter to your eyes, courtesy 'bookworm' (lol).
Indeed! An avatar created on Supertopo apparently for no other purpose than to push his ideology and social anger.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 2, 2011 - 01:09pm PT
|
A favorite passage of mine from this thread, courtesy of Ed:
bworm - you have the bad habit of not looking at the stuff you're citing...
Such modest understatement. Priceless.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Breaking news (not about ice, for a change) ... remember that Forbes headline, “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism,” which itself was a work of fiction, based on a very weak modeling study that did no such thing? The editor of the journal Remote Sensing, which published the Spencer & Braswell study, has just resigned with this editorial.
Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613
Wolfgang Wagner
Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.
Full text here:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Ed - the editor is kowtowing, hoping for future employment. Tunnel vision
affecting you razor sharp incite today?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Corniss Honey, seems you are THE prototypical White Christian Male:
Why do white guys think climate change is a bunch of baloney?
Via Chris Mooney, here's the summary of the data on conservative white males, or CWM:
— 14% of the general public doesn’t worry about climate change at all, but among CWMs the percentage jumps to 39%.
— 32% of adults deny there is a scientific consensus on climate change, but 59% of CWMs deny what the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists have said.
— 3 adults in 10 don't believe recent global temperature increases are primarily caused by human activity. Twice that many – 6 CWMs out of every ten – feel that way
It's not exactly shocking news, if you've ever taken a moment to consider that white men seem to make up the majority of the audience for Fox News, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. The authors boil it down to a few psychological explanations: "identity-protective cognition," or seeking out and believing that which affirms the beliefs or values one already holds, and "system justification," or a motivation to defend the status quo.
--
In other words Corniss, you are one rigid thinking, scared as hell, ignorant little fuk.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Obama and his EPA zealots forced to kowtow to America!
A major victory over Liberal insanity! Party on!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!