Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2012, 05:47 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(20-03-2012 08:34 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(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?



(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.

He is an idiot. He only understands this issue on a political level, because that is the only forum he gets his information from, politics. He believes anything Ron Paul says, as much as the xtian believes his preacher.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 05:41 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2012 07:19 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(20-03-2012 08:34 AM)germanyt Wrote:  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.

I'm ignoring the politics since it has nothing to do with science. eg: co2 molecules don't care whether you are liberal or republican. Neither should gravity care.

(20-03-2012 08:34 AM)germanyt Wrote:  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.

"It's just as likely to be water vapor. A much stronger greenhouse gas."

Really?




"There is no way for a climatologist to tell me how much CO2 it takes to alter the temperature."
At about 5:40 if you want to skip the bit about how greenhouse gasses work:




(20-03-2012 08:34 AM)germanyt Wrote:  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?

What makes you think that 100 years of recorded weather patterns is the primary piece of evidence considered?

The Last 65 Million Years:




You know this kinda reminds me of the tobacco lobby... The scientific consensus was that cigarettes cause cancer and it was known for over 20 years before the class action lawsuit was finally won. They were saying "You can't PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that cigarettes cause cancer."
Then they settled with the American tax payer to the tune of $13 billion.

Do you smoke by any chance? Tongue Big Grin

I just see the crap propagated around the internet as a delaying tactic used by the fossil fuel industry lobbies. Political sites would be rife with that kind of propaganda. With science its allot harder to make up bullshit and get away with it. It always ends up biting you in the ass.

AGW is standing on very solid ground and over the last few years the new data coming in is just making the case stronger.

I do hope you actually watch these since I go through the trouble of tracking down the relevant videos etc.


Another example of propaganda from 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' if anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24

“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
22-03-2012, 06:59 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(22-03-2012 05:41 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  You know this kinda reminds me of the tobacco lobby...
Pretty much. Even some of the same people involved.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 07:36 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
The same crap is propagated by tree hugging liberals who's ideological addiction to clean energy most certainly motivates climate change science. Right now we are just on two sides of the same fence.

“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
22-03-2012, 06:01 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(22-03-2012 07:36 AM)germanyt Wrote:  The same crap is propagated by tree hugging liberals who's ideological addiction to clean energy most certainly motivates climate change science. Right now we are just on two sides of the same fence.
I have quotes from you up there that are demonstrably false and all you have to say is: "The same crap is propagated by tree hugging liberals who's ideological addiction to clean energy most certainly motivates climate change science."

Fucking lame... What does politics have to do with science? ffs... knock knock... is anyone home?
Yep.. you have moved beyond simple ignorance into a mindset likened to young earth creationism... Or the flat earth society.

Hopefully after the election once Ron Paul loses by a landslide your 'everything is politics' meme will deflate back to more realistic proportions and you'll be able to see the hands in front of your face.

“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
22-03-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(22-03-2012 06:01 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  Hopefully after the election once Ron Paul loses by a landslide your 'everything is politics' meme will deflate back to more realistic proportions and you'll be able to see the hands in front of your face.


Don't hold your breath. This bias is strong in this one.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
22-03-2012, 11:22 PM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
Steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect. As stated above, it's not something we cannot really stop or pause.

"My nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time. I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish our mission. I am never out of the fight." - Marcus Luttrell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2012, 03:24 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2012 03:34 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(22-03-2012 11:22 PM)Misenhelter Wrote:  Steam accounts for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds are all water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the next time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can ask them about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect. As stated above, it's not something we cannot really stop or pause.

Tell ya what.. go here: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...3#pid94463

Play the first video about water vapour, learn something, educate yourself. Then come back here and make a fool of yourself. Not the other way around.

Come back when you can explain why climate scientists say water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.

Maybe then we can talk about "patchouli-scented hippies" or whatever.. Rolleyes though that would have nothing to do with science.

Maybe my patience DOES have limits. Especially when it's just after the germanyt experience...

“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
23-03-2012, 07:15 AM
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
I can't watch the video 'evidence' you posted because I'm on a computer with YT filtered so unless it addresses this issue then it's not worth watching.

How does a climate change scientists know that rising temps are associated with greenhouse gases and not simply normal Earth cycles of climate change? I merely suggest that the increases of both gases and temps is coincidental. Temps are rising because of solar activity and natural cycles that have occured hundreds or thousands of times in history. If you have a video that can show natural causes completely ruled out of possibility then I have no reason to watch any of them.

“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
25-03-2012, 02:15 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2012 05:09 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: Himalayan glaciers maintaining size over past decade.
(23-03-2012 07:15 AM)germanyt Wrote:  I can't watch the video 'evidence' you posted because I'm on a computer with YT filtered.
Explains allot. Confused

(23-03-2012 07:15 AM)germanyt Wrote:  Unless it addresses this issue then it's not worth watching.
Frusty
Seriously? What videos did you think I posted? Teletubbies? It's pretty clear the videos are addressing the issue at hand.
(23-03-2012 07:15 AM)germanyt Wrote:  How does a climate change scientists know that rising temps are associated with greenhouse gases and not simply normal Earth cycles of climate change? I merely suggest that the increases of both gases and temps is coincidental. Temps are rising because of solar activity and natural cycles that have occured hundreds or thousands of times in history.
"Temps are rising because of solar activity and natural cycles that have occured hundreds or thousands of times in history." Laughat





In summary, we have been watching what the sun is doing and we also know what the earth is doing, solar irradiance, etc.

(23-03-2012 07:15 AM)germanyt Wrote:  If you have a video that can show natural causes completely ruled out of possibility then I have no reason to watch any of them.
I'm having trouble making sense of this statement. Science doesn't work like this and you of all people should know that. There is no 'completely ruled out of possibility' since that is not science.

It's possible that evolution is wrong but best evidence and data suggests that it isn't. It's the same with man-made climate change. Best explanation we have is that our actions are effecting earth's climate.

Debunking your claims one topic at a time is different and really quite easy, as demonstrated in the above short videos thoroughly picking apart each of your quotes with science.

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: