The North Pole Is Now a Lake

Outamyhead said:
Oh no it's pretty simple, Bill Nye showed how carbon Dioxide increases the heat of the planet, it's on Youtube somewhere, now since America doesn't make much of anything anymore, that only leaves US coal burning power plants, and China (Because they make everything).
Click to expand...
Except he was wrong about some things... Climate change is a completely natural phenomenon that would happen regardless of human contributions. Humans are definitely not helping by contributing to the greenhouse effect, and it needs to be addressed, but it just pisses me off when it's treated like the sole cause of global warming.
 
cptnjarhead said:
"The relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic in nature — that is, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it absorbs less and less additional energy to produce correspondingly less and less additional warming. At some point, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t significantly change atmospheric temperature."

i know, its all crap!
Click to expand...
What isn't sinking into your head here, and something that he and other deniers somehow forget to mention, is that the level where CO2 stops having a significant effect on temp. increases is so high you'd probably have a hard time trying to function. Its something like 1000 ppm IIRC.
 
mesyn191 said:
That climate change is happening and is due to human activity. Virtually no scientist worth a damn disputes this and the only questions they have now are: how quickly is it going to change?, how much exactly will the temp. go up? and: is there anything we can do to mitigate it before things get truly awful?


Why yes it pretty much is. Or rather to be more precise (you do get some stuff factually wrong, ie. "commonly-used range of estimates of CO2’s impact", the scientific consensus is already that we'll see around a 2C avg. global temp increase with current CO2 levels FYI) the conclusions you're drawing are, which BTW are pretty much denier propaganda BTW. We know this because we can see the actual effects on the earth which have already been mentioned before and if what you were saying is correct than none of that would be happening. QED.
Click to expand...

ah yes.. "the scientific consensus" and who is on that list?
We cannot argue with the "the scientific consensus"
 
cptnjarhead said:
ah yes.. "the scientific consensus" and who is on that list?
Click to expand...
Pretty much all of them:


That "chart" is correct as of late 2012 IIRC. I think its only gotten more lopsided since then so it'd be more practical to start with who doesn't agree with the consensus.

cptnjarhead said:
We cannot argue with the "the scientific consensus"
Click to expand...
Not unless you've got some damn good evidence, which deniers don't, so no you don't get to argue with them since that means by default your arguments have no merit.
 
Monkey God said:
Venus says what?
Click to expand...

That sun if freakin' hot!

Venus' orbit places it almost 40% closer to the sun. Since the relative 'solar flux' is inversely related to the distance squared, essentially, they get over 2.5x more solar energy hitting them.
 
Who'd a thunk that so many climate "experts" hang out at [H]...

If anyone wants a fun read, check out Fallen Angels.

It's a nice twist on the oh-my-God-the-world-is-ending hysteria.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Well, climate change isn't the only thing that the Green Movement is about ... humanity creates lots of waste (much of which is burned, buried, or thrown in the ocean) ... humanity consumes large amounts of natural resources (not all of which are renewable) ... in many ways we do seem to treat the Earth as if we had another planet to live on when we destroy this one ... personally I don't think Climate Change is the most important thing from a Green perspective (Pollution and Waste Management are) ... I just find it interesting that some of the non-Green folks arguments against the changes are "if it kills us, it kills us ... something else will replace us" ... I am more in the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure camp (or gram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure for our metric participants )
Click to expand...

I dunno. I used to be far more sympathetic to the green movement. The issue is how much prevention = how much cure. It sure SOUNDS good to say that an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. In reality its likely an ounce of prevention is just that - one ounce.

World population is GROWING. The amount of '1st world' stuff in the world is GROWING. So how can any amount of conservation overwhelm that growth? And why should the new guys be the ones to go without electricity or cars?

It seems to me - and I doubt I am the first person to think this. The only kind of 'prevention' that could make the green movement work would be massive population reduction. I think I prefer dirty to that at this point..

Think of the math here. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Its already over 400ppm. To get it back down to 1950 levels what would we need to reduce our C02 output too? How long would it take a ZERO output?

No we are better off doing something more radical like using Sulphur Dioxide to block the sun..or putting mirrors in space. Crazy sure - but conservation seems hopeless once you start to play around with the math.
 
if you pay attention for the past say 16 years.

the temps- as they figure the "global average" (whatever that is) per all 3 major temperature "charts"

hasn't moved all that much, a bit warmer in summer, a bit cooler in winter, but overall... the temp's has plateaud.

does this mean that global climate change is false? no, the climate is always changing, but it does mean that -possibly- more of the variation in temperature is Naturally occuring and not caused by man.

current climate scientists cannot say what caused the last 2 temperature rises (late 1800's and again from ~1920ish through 1945ish) yet THOSE temp rises are similar in length and depth as the current one. Maybe, just MAYBE...the scientists are....wrong about C02.

over the past several years, climate sensitivity papers- by the "experts" have all come down in the temp rise per doubling of co2, it was 4-6 degrees centigrade. the latest paper (not that crap piece by nasa i just read about which is...WAY out there) have it more in the -depending on the paper 1.5=4c range and the longer the temps go -per the major indexes- with no increase, the worse the case gets for co2 caused warming.

now about the arctic.

every year the north pole area turns into a lake- 1-2feet in depth, every single year..for a month, then it freezes. we are about a month-month and a half from the low of the arctic

ARCTIC sea ice, could melt and frankly we would not see one iota of an increase in sea level height because it is all floating already (picture ice in a cup of water, ice melts, does the water height increase? nope.

greenland ice if all that melts, we'd be in trouble but we are at a MINIMUM 50 thousand years from that happening unless something drastic happens,

the ANTARCTIC melting would devastate us. but you know, no one ever mentions the antarctic when saying sea ice loss, i wonder why that is....could it be that the sea ice for the arctic is not declining?
let us look...oh look sea ice for the antarctic is...higher than average...

net global sea ice is,,,pretty damn average(plus or minus a million square kilometers) and has been for the past several years..arctic has been low while antarctic has been high, this year- barring a storm that blows out a lot of sea ice like last year (which caused the record low btw- otherwise it would have been...average) i think we are heading for the highest "low" since 2005-maybe 2002.

but we'll see.
 
mesyn191 said:
Pretty much all of them:


That "chart" is correct as of late 2012 IIRC. I think its only gotten more lopsided since then so it'd be more practical to start with who doesn't agree with the consensus.


Not unless you've got some damn good evidence, which deniers don't, so no you don't get to argue with them since that means by default your arguments have no merit.
Click to expand...

oh the IIRC. and your little pie chart that shows who? no names just some numbers.

Here is some more science.. or in your case "crap"
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

And NASA.. i guess this is "crap" too?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/


and while this is not a nifty pie chart with bogus numbers.. here are just a FEW names of "crap" i mean scientist who do not agree with the IIRC.


Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[50]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[51]

i know.. it is "inconvenient"
 
Global warming deniers are hilarious and scary at the same time.

Thinking that any sort of exaggerated cold weather is purely an expression of the opposite of global warming is laughably ignorant. Climate science is a little more complicated than that. But leave it to the climate scientists, instead of Rush, Bill, Glen and the Koch Brothers payroll scientists. As someone pointed out in an info graphic, they all agree at this point. The debate is over.
 
GuyClinch said:
I dunno. I used to be far more sympathetic to the green movement. The issue is how much prevention = how much cure. It sure SOUNDS good to say that an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. In reality its likely an ounce of prevention is just that - one ounce.

World population is GROWING. The amount of '1st world' stuff in the world is GROWING. So how can any amount of conservation overwhelm that growth? And why should the new guys be the ones to go without electricity or cars?

It seems to me - and I doubt I am the first person to think this. The only kind of 'prevention' that could make the green movement work would be massive population reduction. I think I prefer dirty to that at this point..

Think of the math here. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Its already over 400ppm. To get it back down to 1950 levels what would we need to reduce our C02 output too? How long would it take a ZERO output?

No we are better off doing something more radical like using Sulphur Dioxide to block the sun..or putting mirrors in space. Crazy sure - but conservation seems hopeless once you start to play around with the math.
Click to expand...

As I said, I think climate change shouldn't be the primary focus area ... both the first and developing world generate lots of pollution (air, water, thermal, noise, etc) ... both generate massive amounts of waste (solid, liquid, etc) ... both consume massive amounts of natural resources (metals, wood, animals, water, etc), some of which are not easily renewed ... both are not above pissing in their own backyard (mercury contamination in fish, lead contamination in water, etc) ... I think there are plenty of changes that can be made with minimal impact to the average consumer (recycling, water optimization, energy optimization, etc) ...

unfortunately humanity is very good at kicking problems down the road ... since I think we can avoid extinction the main penalty of waiting until problems become more pronounced is that the costs of offsetting it go up ,,, if ocean levels do actually rise we can just do like Britain and build expensive billion dollar lock systems on our ports to protect our coastal cities ... the first world can easily afford these billions so the impact is more for developing nations who might not be able to spend the hundreds of billions to offset physical impacts of climate change ;)
 
nakedhand said:
Global warming deniers are hilarious and scary at the same time.

Thinking that any sort of exaggerated cold weather is purely an expression of the opposite of global warming is laughably ignorant. Climate science is a little more complicated than that. But leave it to the climate scientists, instead of Rush, Bill, Glen and the Koch Brothers payroll scientists. As someone pointed out in an info graphic, they all agree at this point. The debate is over.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to point out that the view of global warming alarmists being hilarious and scary at the same time is equally applicable. Ever watch An Inconvenient Truth?

And BTW, bringing in the names of Rush, Bill, Glen(n) and the Koch Brothers has shown that you are a typical self-righteous liberal ignoramous, so I just wanted to point that out as well.

Where I come from, we were "green" before "green" was hip and cool. It's hilarious and pathetic to watch how people have to watch a video to learn how to reuse a Cool-Whip container. But then again, it seems a lot of people living in the concrete jungles need to be told what to do and how to do it, or at least that's what it seems like looking from the outside-in.

Whole bunch of nonsense used to gin up political support from people who need a hobby or a job if you ask me.
 
mesyn191 said:
That "chart" is correct as of late 2012 IIRC. I think its only gotten more lopsided since then so it'd be more practical to start with who doesn't agree with the consensus.
Click to expand...
I have a few questions:

The chart lists 13,950 "peer-reviewed climate articles". Of these 13,950, how many are related — even tangentially — to recent climatological changes? The term "climate article" is grossly ambiguous.

Of those, how many directly address recent climatological changes?

Of those, how many conclude or otherwise state that recent climatological changes are man-made?

Of those, how many were wholly or partially funded by special interest groups or political action committees?

Thanks.
 
wonderfield said:
I have a few questions:

The chart lists 13,950 "peer-reviewed climate articles". Of these 13,950, how many are related — even tangentially — to recent climatological changes? The term "climate article" is grossly ambiguous.

Of those, how many directly address recent climatological changes?

Of those, how many conclude or otherwise state that recent climatological changes are man-made?

Of those, how many were wholly or partially funded by special interest groups or political action committees?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

how dare you question the "scientific consensus" .. its "science".. our feeble brains are the third the size of Al Gores.
 
Planet: "Oh, little pesky humans, you think you can pull all this crap and get away with it?
Humans: "Pfft.. wtfever, not worried, it's all propaganda... hey I need a new iphone"
Planet: "Heh, just wait"

100 years later

Humans: "oh shit, we r fucked"
 
for those that won't click that link

excellent website btw, very factual and -unlike some other "climate" websites posts both sides of the issue but tends to be more skeptical in nature...

that lake of the north pole has 2 problems

problem 1- it all froze again (similar to the greenland is melting bit last year- it was for a few days-then froze)

bigger problem is

it's SEA ice- sure the station STARTED at the north pole,but that station is now 300 miles from the north pole, that is not to say that the ice melt was there, it was, but in the intervening months, the ice moved the station from the north pole and is about to hit the fram strait. and wash out into the atlantic.
 
Monkey God said:
Venus says what?
Click to expand...

Venus isn't hot because of the ratio of CO2 to other gases; its because of the atmospheric pressures involved. If it were just CO2 and other greenhouse gases, then Mars would be MUCH warmer than it is.

Venus isn't a good example of a run away greenhouse effect.
 
Does anyone really think they know what the cycle of climate change is supposed to look like? My local weather isn't accurate more than 6 hours ahead.

Fact. It got warm enough to melt some snow.
Conclusion: It got warm enough to melt some snow.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
Meanwhile I sit here in the Great Lakes region and the temp today in the middle of summer is 66 degrees. This is the coolest July I have seen in years. The earth is not climate controlled. The temps can be anything at any time and will not be the exact same on the same date each year. They are trying to claim there is a man made problem that they can make me pay for. I am fed up with the scams. It is summer at the north pole. 6 months from now they will say ice is melting at the south pole, as it will be summer down there. Duh...
Click to expand...

The level of ignorance in this post is astonishing.
 
cptnjarhead said:
how dare you question the "scientific consensus" .. its "science".. our feeble brains are the third the size of Al Gores.
Click to expand...

rather sad you have no concept of what peer reviewed means in the context of the article being reliable.

Harping on some bias you hold towards Al Gore as a justification for dismissing actual data should be enough for you to realize your point of view on the matter is invalid.

See that's what "science" does, they try everything they can to remove bias to approach a situation with critical analysis to form valid conclusions. The peer review process helps to make sure bias doesn't play a role in "science."
 
Regardless of if humans are having as much of an impact as some say (we do have some impact, I don't think anyone can deny that), I think it is reasonable to do your part in doing SOMETHING. As a guy that enjoys fishing and hunting and camping and being outdoors - I am a firm believer in taking care of our environment. Not to the point of being a dick, like some people. I just do my part, save money and make it a better place so when my kids go fishing on the Columbia or hunting in the mountains, there is plenty of fish and game and in good health as well as a nice place to go. Go over to Portland, and you can't eat your fish because of sewage. Hell, there is a lot of worry around here due to Hanford (nuclear reservation - they created the Plutonium for the atomic bombs) and the leaking tanks getting to the river...

The planet will be fine. It has seen a lot worse. I just want to make sure it's a nice place for my kids and eventual grand kids to play.

You can drive your diesel truck, burning coal at every stop light, and all that jazz. I'm not going to bitch (although you look like an idiot). But, there are a lot of us that just want to keep things nice. Whether or not global warming is real is irrelevant. People do have an impact. Maybe not to the extreme some claim, but we do. I just want to minimize my impact. Reuse water, recycle, pick up trash, lower energy use, etc.. Saves money, helps a tiny (fraction of a tiny little sliver of a little bit) on the global climate, and keeps things nice.

Even if it's still a warming period after the last ice age, it's still doing something to help out in the grand scheme of things.
 
stealthy123 said:
rather sad you have no concept of what peer reviewed means in the context of the article being reliable.

Harping on some bias you hold towards Al Gore as a justification for dismissing actual data should be enough for you to realize your point of view on the matter is invalid.

See that's what "science" does, they try everything they can to remove bias to approach a situation with critical analysis to form valid conclusions. The peer review process helps to make sure bias doesn't play a role in "science."
Click to expand...


Obviously you have not read my previous post to the contrary. My sarcasm started after my civil attempt to inject my thoughts on the related article, where i quoted many different sources and articles with a counter to the "green house gas effect" that was called "denier propaganda" by person quoting "science"
So, maybe you should read all my previous post and make an educated... shall i say almost "scientific" approach.

See it was my understanding that "science" was about asking a question, doing research, gathering data, test your data, repeat your steps, check your controls, and triple check again. then draw your conclusions regardless of where the data takes you.

But the "scientific consensus" (IIRC) had already drawn their conclusions before the results, then doctored the results to fit their agenda.
thanks for clarifying about "science though"
 
cptnjarhead said:
See it was my understanding that "science" was about asking a question, doing research, gathering data, test your data, repeat your steps, check your controls, and triple check again. then draw your conclusions regardless of where the data takes you.
Click to expand...

You need to get with the times, this is the 21st Century!

Nowadays we draw our conclusions, pick and adjust the data as necessary to arrive at the conclusions, publish it in a scientific journal run by those who will gain from the publishing of it either socially, politically or financially, then if someone dissents against it, proclaim loudly it's "settled science" (which really doesn't exist, science is never settled!).
 
cptnjarhead said:
But the "scientific consensus" (IIRC) had already drawn their conclusions before the results, then doctored the results to fit their agenda.
Click to expand...

This happens quite a bit and it does separate the good from the bad scientists. It's just difficult to find those that will admit they had the wrong hypothesis or guessed wrong. I would rather be proven wrong and learned the right answer than proven wrong and alter the results/interpret them different to say I was right.

I'd rather have a scientist that is continuously proven wrong but through the scientific method provides the right answers.
 
mavrocket said:
You need to get with the times, this is the 21st Century!

Nowadays we draw our conclusions, pick and adjust the data as necessary to arrive at the conclusions, publish it in a scientific journal run by those who will gain from the publishing of it either socially, politically or financially, then if someone dissents against it, proclaim loudly it's "settled science" (which really doesn't exist, science is never settled!).
Click to expand...

Don't forget about making a movie with a big hockey stick graph, then start a climate exchange consortium that controls the carbon credits, trades them and makes billions.
Man you gotta love science. :D
 
cptnjarhead said:
Obviously you have not read my previous post to the contrary. My sarcasm started after my civil attempt to inject my thoughts on the related article, where i quoted many different sources and articles with a counter to the "green house gas effect" that was called "denier propaganda" by person quoting "science"
So, maybe you should read all my previous post and make an educated... shall i say almost "scientific" approach.

See it was my understanding that "science" was about asking a question, doing research, gathering data, test your data, repeat your steps, check your controls, and triple check again. then draw your conclusions regardless of where the data takes you.

But the "scientific consensus" (IIRC) had already drawn their conclusions before the results, then doctored the results to fit their agenda.
thanks for clarifying about "science though"
Click to expand...

again, you clearly don't grasp what is involved in the peer review process. There is no such thing as scientific consensus relative to the process. An article either has scientific merit and can be considered factual, or it doesn't have merit and isn't considered factual.

After being peer reviewed and published, it becomes a part of the "scientific consensus" as a whole. There is no "consensus" prior to publication. What you are explaining is conspiracy, not science.
 
Ur_Mom said:
This happens quite a bit and it does separate the good from the bad scientists. It's just difficult to find those that will admit they had the wrong hypothesis or guessed wrong. I would rather be proven wrong and learned the right answer than proven wrong and alter the results/interpret them different to say I was right.

I'd rather have a scientist that is continuously proven wrong but through the scientific method provides the right answers.
Click to expand...

You know, i watched an old interview with Steve Jobs, im not a fan by any means, but he said. "I don't care if I am wrong, just as long as we get it right" now I'm sure it was hard to convince him that he was wrong, but it sounds like getting it right was more important than who was wrong.
 
stealthy123 said:
again, you clearly don't grasp what is involved in the peer review process. There is no such thing as scientific consensus relative to the process. An article either has scientific merit and can be considered factual, or it doesn't have merit and isn't considered factual.

After being peer reviewed and published, it becomes a part of the "scientific consensus" as a whole. There is no "consensus" prior to publication. What you are explaining is conspiracy, not science.
Click to expand...

"again".. your "grasp" astounds me.
 
As I said, I think climate change shouldn't be the primary focus area ...
Click to expand...

The problem is even at ZERO CO2 production for DECADES we would still have extremely elevated C02 levels. We are taking absolutely no serious steps to reduce C02 production on a world wide scale. At best countries are limiting their increase in CO2 production. But even Civil War levels of CO2 would make the CO2 levels rise.


both the first and developing world generate lots of pollution (air, water, thermal, noise, etc) ... both generate massive amounts of waste (solid, liquid, etc) ... both consume massive amounts of natural resources (metals, wood, animals, water, etc), some of which are not easily renewed

... both are not above pissing in their own backyard (mercury contamination in fish, lead contamination in water, etc) ... I think there are plenty of changes that can be made with minimal impact to the average consumer (recycling, water optimization, energy optimization, etc) ...
Click to expand...

Most first world countries try to avoid polluting their own backyard. But there is no winning. If you say drive a hybrid you encouraging the mining of nickel which is horrendous for the environment in countries that allow nickel mining. If you drive a electric car you fund 'rare earth' minerals - and these rare earth minerals are equally horrible on the environment because they are found widely dispersed in small quantities..

Its hard to be 'green' without being anti-human. I am serious. As humanity surges towards the 10 billion mark the environmental damage is going to grow. Because fossil fuels are cheap we are going to burn all of it on earth, IMHO. It's a matter of when - not if.

Part of the problem is that the green movement has rejected Nuclear power which is the only realistic way to generate the baseline power we need without fossil fuels.
 
Cmustang87 said:
Not quite sure what else would be expected from a (sadly) controversial topic.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The worst thing to consider is that even among an enthusiast forum where people often get a long quite well .. common ground appears to be improbable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top