Some Rationality On Climate Change ...

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
Much of England was warm enough to produce excellent wine a number of times throughout history. The wine was considered better than that accross the channel.

Some of your points are right on, but I just disagree that temp fluctuations are abnormal.
I wasnt implying they were 'abnormal', I was however implying that they are becoming unpresidented in recent recorded history.:bigjoint:
 

medicineman

New Member
Global warming is real. One must only look at the reduction of the glacial ice fields as photographed from space to see that. The glaciers are calving at an unprecedented rate since records have been kept. The waters are raising in the pacific islands and some of them are actually under water in low lying spots. With all the human action on the planet, how can one not believe we are contributing to it. I think all you naysayers need to look elsewhere from Fox News.
 

tinyTURTLE

Well-Known Member
Global warming is real. One must only look at the reduction of the glacial ice fields as photographed from space to see that. The glaciers are calving at an unprecedented rate since records have been kept. The waters are raising in the pacific islands and some of them are actually under water in low lying spots. With all the human action on the planet, how can one not believe we are contributing to it. I think all you naysayers need to look elsewhere from Fox News.
... word up!
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Global warming is real. One must only look at the reduction of the glacial ice fields as photographed from space to see that. The glaciers are calving at an unprecedented rate since records have been kept. The waters are raising in the pacific islands and some of them are actually under water in low lying spots. With all the human action on the planet, how can one not believe we are contributing to it. I think all you naysayers need to look elsewhere from Fox News.
You mean like the 193,000 SQUARE MILES of ice that were missed...

And as far as the variance in the ocean. Tricky thing measuring the ocean's height. The problem is that the Earth is not nearly a perfect sphere, meaning that gravity changes in spots, especially over valleys, trenches, mountains, and near those geological items.

Trying to measure a dynamic fluctuating value with out knowing what a base value should be is idiotic.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible to MISS 193,000 SQUARE MILES of anything.
 

medicineman

New Member
You mean like the 193,000 SQUARE MILES of ice that were missed...

And as far as the variance in the ocean. Tricky thing measuring the ocean's height. The problem is that the Earth is not nearly a perfect sphere, meaning that gravity changes in spots, especially over valleys, trenches, mountains, and near those geological items.

Trying to measure a dynamic fluctuating value with out knowing what a base value should be is idiotic.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible to MISS 193,000 SQUARE MILES of anything.
Where is your proof? I also find it hard to believe. Who missed it and where? It's not so tricky measuring the oveans height when you live on an island that your ancestors lived on for thousands of years and now you have water in the streets at high tide.

The leader of the South Pacific island nation of Kiribati laid out an extraordinary plan Monday (Sept. 22) that would scatter his people through the nations of the world as rising sea levels submerge the islands they have called home for centuries.
Rising sea levels are submerging the land. Land not yet submerged is being rendered uninhabitable by salty ground water.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/10/14/kiribati_evacuating/
 

medicineman

New Member
Figure 2. Daily total Arctic sea ice extent between 1 December 2008 and 12 February 2009 for Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSM/I compared to the similar NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image

Data error sources
As discussed above, near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. However, the SSM/I sensors have proven themselves to be generally quite stable. Thus, it is reasonable to use the near-real-time products for displaying evolving ice conditions, with the caveat that errors may nevertheless occur. Sometimes errors are dramatic and obvious. Other errors, such as the recent sensor drift, may be subtler and not immediately apparent. We caution users of the near-real-time products that any conclusions from such data must be preliminary. We believe that the potential problems are outweighed by the scientific value of providing timely assessments of current Arctic sea ice conditions, as long as they are presented with appropriate caveats, which we try to do.


Now that we have cleared this up, this nitpicking redress, lets get on with disproving the dissapearing ice fields.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Figure 2. Daily total Arctic sea ice extent between 1 December 2008 and 12 February 2009 for Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSM/I compared to the similar NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image

Data error sources
As discussed above, near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. However, the SSM/I sensors have proven themselves to be generally quite stable. Thus, it is reasonable to use the near-real-time products for displaying evolving ice conditions, with the caveat that errors may nevertheless occur. Sometimes errors are dramatic and obvious. Other errors, such as the recent sensor drift, may be subtler and not immediately apparent. We caution users of the near-real-time products that any conclusions from such data must be preliminary. We believe that the potential problems are outweighed by the scientific value of providing timely assessments of current Arctic sea ice conditions, as long as they are presented with appropriate caveats, which we try to do.


Now that we have cleared this up, this nitpicking redress, lets get on with disproving the dissapearing ice fields.
Well of course they're disappearing, it's spring again.
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
As I said earlier melting sea ice does not effect sea levels. It is melting glaciers on land that cause the issue. If you have an ice cube in a drink and it melts the level of your drink is unaffected.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
As I said earlier melting sea ice does not effect sea levels. It is melting glaciers on land that cause the issue. If you have an ice cube in a drink and it melts the level of your drink is unaffected.
Actually you might see a decrease in the level depending on the volume of ice in your drink, and how much has melted. Water expands when frozen...
 

suedonimn

Well-Known Member
Actually you might see a decrease in the level depending on the volume of ice in your drink, and how much has melted. Water expands when frozen...
True that... I remember reading somewhere that GLACIERS melt. I don't know, I mean I seem to also remember that Yosemite was once a glacier and it melted. I still contend "global warming" is a natural trend and is followed by an ice age, which in itself a natural trend. Do I think we should take measures for renewable resources to be used instead of limited resources? YES, it only makes sense. Using renewable resources was the trend until the "INDUSTRIAL AGE" came about... coal and fossil fuels are renewable, it just takes mass extinction and an ice age to renew it. We could easily fix these problems, but remember the people that make the money do not want cheap inexpensive renewable energy unless it is controlled by them, not for monetary purpose, but for the simple fact that those POWERS that make the money want not money, but CONTROL.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
True that... I remember reading somewhere that GLACIERS melt. I don't know, I mean I seem to also remember that Yosemite was once a glacier and it melted. I still contend "global warming" is a natural trend and is followed by an ice age, which in itself a natural trend. Do I think we should take measures for renewable resources to be used instead of limited resources? YES, it only makes sense. Using renewable resources was the trend until the "INDUSTRIAL AGE" came about... coal and fossil fuels are renewable, it just takes mass extinction and an ice age to renew it. We could easily fix these problems, but remember the people that make the money do not want cheap inexpensive renewable energy unless it is controlled by them, not for monetary purpose, but for the simple fact that those POWERS that make the money want not money, but CONTROL.
Ironically most renewable sources of electricity are less economical than the so called non-renewable sources.

Though I don't know what the big complain is. If we really need more Hydrocarbons the Solar System is full of the damn things.

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, their moons, and who knows what's in the Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt.

Of course we don't have the technology to get to those places, but it'd be a lot more satisfying to see the government giving trillions to private firms that are trying to get to those places to exploit them than to corrupt incompetent bankers and traders on Wall Street, and inept and cowardly management in MoTown, and their million thieves, err employees.
 
Top