Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2012, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2012 03:24 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Ok GermanyT. I'll help you find sources of info other than your precious 'Fox News Website'

News websites generally don't represent science accurately. The guy whose video I'm embedding does good layman's summaries on this topic.

All these videos talk about CO2 and address different bullshit that seems to be floating around the internet. They are about 5 mins each and very well presented.













His channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610/videos

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 12:44 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 12:52 AM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(16-03-2012 07:30 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(15-03-2012 08:59 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  @ the OP

So someone published a paper in Nature saying data from the Grace satellite indicates glacial melt in the Himalayas is lower than expected. I’m curious as to your thought process before you pronounced this paper another nail in the coffin of anthropogenic climate change. Did you check the peer reviews? Did you compare the Grace data to other sources to see if it is in line with what other sources say is happening with the glaciers in the Himalayas? No? I didn’t think so.

Well here is little of what you missed. The peer review process isn’t going well. This paper tells a story quite a bit different than the one found in the glacier by glacier mapping found in the GLIMS and ICIMOD databases. Grace has problems with small glaciers. As a result the conclusions presented in this paper need to be validated, and so far that validation is not working out for the conclusion presented on the glaciers in the Himalayas.

Even so. Melting glaciers is not indicitave of 'man made' climate change.

When he didn't read it, then it obviously proved climate change wrong. Now that others read it for him, he indicates that it is just a meaningless piece of data. The people obsessed with only one side of politics are just a member of a religious cult. Explaining something like climate change to him is like explaining evolution to a YEC. Information flows off them like water off a ducks back, and they just believe whatever BS they were told.

I was wrong when I called you a complete moron, that was far too polite. You are a Ron Paul zombie, that will believe any right wing horse shit that's feed to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 07:20 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(19-03-2012 12:44 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  When he didn't read it, then it obviously proved climate change wrong. Now that others read it for him, he indicates that it is just a meaningless piece of data. The people obsessed with only one side of politics are just a member of a religious cult. Explaining something like climate change to him is like explaining evolution to a YEC. Information flows off them like water off a ducks back, and they just believe whatever BS they were told.

My hypothesis is that they put something in the water in Libertopia that causes conformation bias.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 07:57 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
LOL'd at 'precious Fox News'. It's a fuckin shame when you're so far left you view libertarianism as facism. But you all keep watching MSNBC and good luck in your carbon tax credit goals in 2012.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 05:47 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
A libertarian free market approach to anthropogenic climate change.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

Quote: This essay has argued that if FME advocates truly take property rights seriously, and reject utilitarian justifications for violating property rights, then they should reconsider their approach to global climate change policy. The focus on net welfare and other concerns in the context of climate change by many FME advocates represents a rejection of the libertarian principles upon which FME is based. There is nothing inconsistent with FME about opposing draconian emission-reduction policies or other mitigation measures that are unlikely to address the threat of climate change. But identifying policies to oppose is no substitute for identifying policies to support. While continuing to oppose global regulatory schemes, which may pose their own threats to property rights and individual liberty, FME adherents should consider the viability of various international compensation or indemnification mechanisms. An international liability regime, for instance, might come closer to realizing FME principles than the status quo.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 11:43 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2012 02:37 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(19-03-2012 07:57 AM)germanyt Wrote:  LOL'd at 'precious Fox News'. It's a fuckin shame when you're so far left you view libertarianism as facism. But you all keep watching MSNBC and good luck in your carbon tax credit goals in 2012.
What do carbon tax credits or your political stance have to do with whether or not AGW is solidly supported by scientific fact?

My post had nothing to do with politics and I didn't mention it once. This is the science forum after all.

re: 'precious Fox News'
My main point was that news websites in general aren't the place to go if you want an accurate and detailed understanding of any kind of science.
You seemed to have missed that.

Personally I care about things like whether or not things like AGW is a real issue that needs to be dealt with. That knowledge would influence my political stance on the issue, but this is not the politics forum.

I thought we were talking about the science behind AGW and the misinformation being propagated around the internet.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 05:12 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Oh, and I don't view your stance germanyt as 'facism'. I see it more as misinformed and unwilling to take any action.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 07:37 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2012 07:41 AM by germanyt.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(19-03-2012 11:43 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 07:57 AM)germanyt Wrote:  LOL'd at 'precious Fox News'. It's a fuckin shame when you're so far left you view libertarianism as facism. But you all keep watching MSNBC and good luck in your carbon tax credit goals in 2012.
What do carbon tax credits or your political stance have to do with whether or not AGW is solidly supported by scientific fact?

My post had nothing to do with politics and I didn't mention it once. This is the science forum after all.

re: 'precious Fox News'
My main point was that news websites in general aren't the place to go if you want an accurate and detailed understanding of any kind of science.
You seemed to have missed that.

Personally I care about things like whether or not things like AGW is a real issue that needs to be dealt with. That knowledge would influence my political stance on the issue, but this is not the politics forum.

I thought we were talking about the science behind AGW and the misinformation being propagated around the internet.


Let's not pretend that there isn't an overwhelming popularity of climate change agreers that are liberal. It's as much a political movement as a scientific one. And I'm not suggesting that the science doesn't support the theory. But, it doesn't prove that it's man made and there is as much evidence against as there is for. Even so, people who have an affliction for the environment (largely liberals) don't even look to see what the opposing research has to say. You hear 'save the planet' and that's pretty much all you need to motivate you into a thought process. So I guess what I mean is that you have an ideological commitment to global warming.
(19-03-2012 05:47 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  A libertarian free market approach to anthropogenic climate change.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

Quote: This essay has argued that if FME advocates truly take property rights seriously, and reject utilitarian justifications for violating property rights, then they should reconsider their approach to global climate change policy. The focus on net welfare and other concerns in the context of climate change by many FME advocates represents a rejection of the libertarian principles upon which FME is based. There is nothing inconsistent with FME about opposing draconian emission-reduction policies or other mitigation measures that are unlikely to address the threat of climate change. But identifying policies to oppose is no substitute for identifying policies to support. While continuing to oppose global regulatory schemes, which may pose their own threats to property rights and individual liberty, FME adherents should consider the viability of various international compensation or indemnification mechanisms. An international liability regime, for instance, might come closer to realizing FME principles than the status quo.

Noted. Let me know when man-made climate change science is proven definitively. Likewise when it's proven that man isn't causing climate change (it will happen eventually when liberal economic plan burys the American business in carbon tax credits, emissions standards that are unrealistic, and green energy that continues to drive deficits all while the Earth continues to get warmer) I'll be sure to post the paper/article.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 08:10 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(20-03-2012 07:37 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 11:43 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 07:57 AM)germanyt Wrote:  LOL'd at 'precious Fox News'. It's a fuckin shame when you're so far left you view libertarianism as facism. But you all keep watching MSNBC and good luck in your carbon tax credit goals in 2012.
What do carbon tax credits or your political stance have to do with whether or not AGW is solidly supported by scientific fact?

My post had nothing to do with politics and I didn't mention it once. This is the science forum after all.

re: 'precious Fox News'
My main point was that news websites in general aren't the place to go if you want an accurate and detailed understanding of any kind of science.
You seemed to have missed that.

Personally I care about things like whether or not things like AGW is a real issue that needs to be dealt with. That knowledge would influence my political stance on the issue, but this is not the politics forum.

I thought we were talking about the science behind AGW and the misinformation being propagated around the internet.


Let's not pretend that there isn't an overwhelming popularity of climate change agreers that are liberal. It's as much a political movement as a scientific one. And I'm not suggesting that the science doesn't support the theory. But, it doesn't prove that it's man made and there is as much evidence against as there is for. Even so, people who have an affliction for the environment (largely liberals) don't even look to see what the opposing research has to say. You hear 'save the planet' and that's pretty much all you need to motivate you into a thought process. So I guess what I mean is that you have an ideological commitment to global warming.
(19-03-2012 05:47 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  A libertarian free market approach to anthropogenic climate change.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

Quote: This essay has argued that if FME advocates truly take property rights seriously, and reject utilitarian justifications for violating property rights, then they should reconsider their approach to global climate change policy. The focus on net welfare and other concerns in the context of climate change by many FME advocates represents a rejection of the libertarian principles upon which FME is based. There is nothing inconsistent with FME about opposing draconian emission-reduction policies or other mitigation measures that are unlikely to address the threat of climate change. But identifying policies to oppose is no substitute for identifying policies to support. While continuing to oppose global regulatory schemes, which may pose their own threats to property rights and individual liberty, FME adherents should consider the viability of various international compensation or indemnification mechanisms. An international liability regime, for instance, might come closer to realizing FME principles than the status quo.

Noted. Let me know when man-made climate change science is proven definitively. Likewise when it's proven that man isn't causing climate change (it will happen eventually when liberal economic plan burys the American business in carbon tax credits, emissions standards that are unrealistic, and green energy that continues to drive deficits all while the Earth continues to get warmer) I'll be sure to post the paper/article.

I am not really decided on whether it has been as effected by Man-Made sources although I enjoyed some of the links you posted awhile back. Actually the skeptic science one made a lot of cases for man-made influence.

But that will not in anyway prove that humans aren't effecting the climate change. If the source from mankind's CO2 emissions are making the impact the impact that already has been growing and will continue to build across the world wouldn't be halted entirely. There is also the whole idea of them having been build up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2012, 08:34 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(20-03-2012 08:10 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-03-2012 07:37 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 11:43 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  
(19-03-2012 07:57 AM)germanyt Wrote:  LOL'd at 'precious Fox News'. It's a fuckin shame when you're so far left you view libertarianism as facism. But you all keep watching MSNBC and good luck in your carbon tax credit goals in 2012.
What do carbon tax credits or your political stance have to do with whether or not AGW is solidly supported by scientific fact?

My post had nothing to do with politics and I didn't mention it once. This is the science forum after all.

re: 'precious Fox News'
My main point was that news websites in general aren't the place to go if you want an accurate and detailed understanding of any kind of science.
You seemed to have missed that.

Personally I care about things like whether or not things like AGW is a real issue that needs to be dealt with. That knowledge would influence my political stance on the issue, but this is not the politics forum.

I thought we were talking about the science behind AGW and the misinformation being propagated around the internet.


Let's not pretend that there isn't an overwhelming popularity of climate change agreers that are liberal. It's as much a political movement as a scientific one. And I'm not suggesting that the science doesn't support the theory. But, it doesn't prove that it's man made and there is as much evidence against as there is for. Even so, people who have an affliction for the environment (largely liberals) don't even look to see what the opposing research has to say. You hear 'save the planet' and that's pretty much all you need to motivate you into a thought process. So I guess what I mean is that you have an ideological commitment to global warming.
(19-03-2012 05:47 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  A libertarian free market approach to anthropogenic climate change.

In his paper TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, libertarian lawyer Jonathan H. Adler argues the point that the do nothing attitude about climate change currently favored by conservatives and libertarians is a serious transgression against the property rights of those who stand to lose the most economically from such change. In the paper he concludes that advocates of free market environmentalism (FME) need to adjust their thinking.

Quote: This essay has argued that if FME advocates truly take property rights seriously, and reject utilitarian justifications for violating property rights, then they should reconsider their approach to global climate change policy. The focus on net welfare and other concerns in the context of climate change by many FME advocates represents a rejection of the libertarian principles upon which FME is based. There is nothing inconsistent with FME about opposing draconian emission-reduction policies or other mitigation measures that are unlikely to address the threat of climate change. But identifying policies to oppose is no substitute for identifying policies to support. While continuing to oppose global regulatory schemes, which may pose their own threats to property rights and individual liberty, FME adherents should consider the viability of various international compensation or indemnification mechanisms. An international liability regime, for instance, might come closer to realizing FME principles than the status quo.

Noted. Let me know when man-made climate change science is proven definitively. Likewise when it's proven that man isn't causing climate change (it will happen eventually when liberal economic plan burys the American business in carbon tax credits, emissions standards that are unrealistic, and green energy that continues to drive deficits all while the Earth continues to get warmer) I'll be sure to post the paper/article.

I am not really decided on whether it has been as effected by Man-Made sources although I enjoyed some of the links you posted awhile back. Actually the skeptic science one made a lot of cases for man-made influence.

But that will not in anyway prove that humans aren't effecting the climate change. If the source from mankind's CO2 emissions are making the impact the impact that already has been growing and will continue to build across the world wouldn't be halted entirely. There is also the whole idea of them having been build up.

What I try to point out is that while Earth is getting warmer and emissions are up there is no way for a climatologist to tell me how much CO2 it takes to alter the temperature. They see temps rising and CO2 output up and connect the dots. That is all they have. There isn't really any indication that CO2 is the cause of it anyway. It's just as likely to be water vapor. A much stronger greenhouse gas.

On top of all that, Earth's climate has swung from one extreme to the other hundreds of times in recordable history. Before there were coal plants, SUVs, and oil drilling there were ice ages and volcanic ages. I also don't feel that we can get an accurate sample of climate when all we have is around 100 years of recorded weather patterns. How is 100 years out of a 10 or 20 thousand year cycle an accurate representation of Earths long term climate?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: