Climate Change: The Way Forward

**Sstashmoo** · December-01-09, 11:33 PM

Quote: "Perch a block of ice on the edge of a bathtub full of water. As long as the ice remains frozen, the water level in the bathtub doesn't change. If the ice melts, the water runs into the bathtub and the level goes up.

Next question."

Ok, how much of an iceberg is actually exposed above the waters surface?

1/10th. - Or my elementary school teachers were wrong.

**elganned** · December-01-09, 11:35 PM

Mitigate what? They are what they are. There's nothing to mitigate.
Tell you what: I don't give a crap anymore. I won't live long enough to see it--but you will.
So enjoy it while you can.

**elganned** · December-01-09, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Perch a block of ice on the edge of a bathtub full of water. As long as the ice remains frozen, the water level in the bathtub doesn't change. If the ice melts, the water runs into the bathtub and the level goes up.

Next question."

Ok, how much of an iceberg is actually exposed above the waters surface?

1/10th. - Or my elementary school teachers were wrong.

We're not talking about icebergs; we're talking about the icecaps where icebergs come from.
Calving icebergs only account for a miniscule fraction of the ice in Greenland or Antarctica.

The stuff in Greenland is over land [[perched on the edge of the bathtub), so it doesn't affect sea levels...unless it melts. Much--not all--of the ice in Antarctica is also over land, so it doesn't affect sea level, either...unless it melts.

Here's a factor we haven't mentioned: ice floats. Ice expands as it freezes, thereby reducing its specific density to less than 1. Hence, it's lighter than water. That's why icebergs float and don't sink to the bottom of the sea.

A huge chunk of the ice in Antarctica [[Ross Ice Shelf) is floating on top of the water, where it doesn't affect sea levels...unless it melts.

Any way you cut it, if the ice melts sea levels will rise.

**Sstashmoo** · December-01-09, 11:54 PM

These are straw arguments. Little data, small sampling [[considering the age of the earth). Whomever is right wouldn't matter. I doubt seriously if it could be proven, any measures could be taken to effect any sort of real change. It's taken 150 years to record 1.5 degree Fahrenheit change. How much has the world changed in 150 years? Think you'll change it back? Think people will discontinue burning fossil fuels etc? Not happening.

Form the Wall Street Journal article referenced above:

"There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century."

What are those waving the flags, willing to give up?

ziggyselbin · December-02-09, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

Mitigate what? They are what they are. There's nothing to mitigate.
Tell you what: I don't give a crap anymore. I won't live long enough to see it--but you will.
So enjoy it while you can.

Of course there is something to mitigate, The emails are damaging. As for who will be around.........I am probably older than you.

**elganned** · December-02-09, 08:06 AM

*shrug* Damaging to somebody, I suppose. Not to me.
And if you're older than me, I feel sorry for you. One shouldn't have lived so long and learned so little.

**elganned** · December-02-09, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

These are straw arguments. Little data, small sampling [[considering the age of the earth). Whomever is right wouldn't matter. I doubt seriously if it could be proven, any measures could be taken to effect any sort of real change. It's taken 150 years to record 1.5 degree Fahrenheit change. How much has the world changed in 150 years? Think you'll change it back? Think people will discontinue burning fossil fuels etc? Not happening.

Form the Wall Street Journal article referenced above:

"There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century."

What are those waving the flags, willing to give up?

Well, I for one am willing to help set up some Death Panels.
It's the only affordable option.

**rb336** · December-02-09, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

In this case...either by coercion, duress, misinterpretation, or flat out fraud, the manmade global warming alarmists are ALL unprofessional and criminal [[fraud).

ah, a new low in moronic, unsupportable comments.

further, the emails are not harmful in the least, except in the minds of the scientific illiterate

**Mikeg** · December-02-09, 12:37 PM

the emails are not harmful in the least, except in the minds of the scientific illiterate

How about when Jon Stewart uses them to rake the "leading" AGW scientists over the coals on last night's Daily Show?

[[BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN PERSON: A hacker in England got hold of emails between leading scientists which skeptics say show a clear effort to raise fears about global warming, and hide evidence against it.

[[END VIDEO)

JON STEWART, HOST: Oh for f**k's sake! Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony. The iro---ny. Actually, the real story isn't quite that sensational. Basically, emails stolen from scientists at one of the leading centers for global warming show them discussing the work, a bit, how do I put this, casually.

[[BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN FOX ANNOUNCER READING EMAIL MESSAGE FROM CLIMATEGATE PARTICIPANTS): "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." [[Kevin Trenberth)

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years [[ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." [[Phil Jones, CRU Director)

[[END VIDEO)

STEWART: [[Laughing) See, I tell you it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here's what's great about science: in disagreement, we go back and look at the raw data.

[[BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.

[[END VIDEO)

STEWART: Oh for f**k's sake! Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s! Laminated. What did you keep?

[[BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): The scientists say they kept something called "value added data".

[[END VIDEO)

STEWART: Value added data? What is that, numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.

[[BEGIN VIDEO)

SENATOR JOHN INHOFE, [[R-OKLA.): The fact that this whole idea on the global warming. I'm glad that's over, gone, done. We won. You lost. Get a life.

[[END VIDEO)

STEWART: Alright. We knew Inhofe was going to say that. That guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a Slushee and gets a brain freeze. "If global warming is real, why does my head hurt?" But by the way, that quote was from BEFORE he found out about the leaked email story. But that's the point. If you care about an issue, and want it to be your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined towards the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to skullf**k polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans caused now apparently by God's tears!

ziggyselbin · December-02-09, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by elganned

*shrug* Damaging to somebody, I suppose. Not to me.
And if you're older than me, I feel sorry for you. One shouldn't have lived so long and learned so little.

Being a smarmy jerk in no way supports your contention. What you believe has been discredited by the leaked emails.

If you have not read or heard the Prof at Penn State is under scrutiny by the Univ, and Phil Jones of Anglia Univ has stepped aside.

Come up with something better if you are going to be insulting and bitchy,

**Mikeg** · December-02-09, 12:59 PM

the emails are not harmful in the least, except in the minds of the scientific illiterate

As the e-mail themselves reveal, AGW has become a political issue within the scientific community, not just a scientific issue. If the science is sloppy and cannot stand the scrutiny of peer-review, it only makes it more difficult to sustain the political arguments over what to do, who should do it and who will have to pay for it.

In many of the western nations that are being asked to foot the bill for solving AGW , the strength of the political leaders who are promoting these schemes rests on the confidence and support of their constituents. Here in the USA, that confidence and support seems to be eroding.

This survey was taken one month ago. I can't imagine all this recent unfavorable publicity will do anything to reverse the trend.

Big Drop in Those Who Believe That Global Warming Is Coming

NEW YORK--[[BUSINESS WIRE)-- As President Obama prepares to head to Copenhagen next week, a new Harris Poll finds that those who believe that the release of carbon dioxide and other gases will lead to global warming has dropped from 71% two years ago to only 51% now. While many people are not sure, those who do not believe that carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming have increased from 23% to 29% since 2007.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll Â® of 2,303 adults surveyed online between November 2 and 11, 2009 by Harris Interactive Â®.

Other interesting findings in this survey include:

So what?

The sharp drop in those who believe that greenhouse emissions will cause global warming will make it harder for leaders to introduce new policies to promote alternative energy sources and reduce our carbon footprint.

**elganned** · December-02-09, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by ziggyselbin

Being a smarmy jerk in no way supports your contention. What you believe has been discredited by the leaked emails.

If you have not read or heard the Prof at Penn State is under scrutiny by the Univ, and Phil Jones of Anglia Univ has stepped aside.

Come up with something better if you are going to be insulting and bitchy,

And, um, exactly what was my contention?

That there is still an overwhelming mass of scientific inquiry that supports the idea of man-made global warming quite aside from these emails you find so damning? Is that the contention you think needs more support?

I don't need to support it. Take a look around; you'll find it. In fact, it's almost impossible to take a step without tripping over it.

One professor at Penn State and one professor at Anglia University do not a majority opinion make.

Oh, and though I freely admit that I may be a jerk, I am in no way "smarmy".

ziggyselbin · December-02-09, 01:08 PM

You have stated your contention. The emails are by prominent scientists in the forefront of the climate issue. I have said I am unsure about it all. However when scientists in the forefront[[data used by the UN) as these were pull these kinds of shenanigans, then the credibility of the whole movement is of course damaged. When that is put together with all kinds of skepticism on the part of many, many scientists from well know reputable places i.e. Univ of Mich, MIT, et,al then it is not unreasonable to respond as I have.

**Sstashmoo** · December-02-09, 01:40 PM

Quote: "Here in the USA, that confidence and support seems to be eroding."

With the economy in the tank, businesses dropping like flies, our dollar right on the verge of becoming the next peso and a President that obviously doesn't have a clue on how to take the reins and do anything, a theory is way out on the back burner for most of us, when real dangers are staring us in the face.

**Sstashmoo** · December-02-09, 01:45 PM

Quote: "there is still an overwhelming mass of scientific inquiry that supports the idea of man-made global warming"

Ok they're right. 1.5 degreesF over 150 years. The planet is Billions of years old? I'm not a scientist, but I'd be careful claiming anything conclusive on that much data.

**rb336** · December-02-09, 02:35 PM

tashmoo, you obviously haven't read ANY of the source materials

**d.mcc** · December-02-09, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "there is still an overwhelming mass of scientific inquiry that supports the idea of man-made global warming"

Ok they're right. 1.5 degreesF over 150 years. The planet is Billions of years old? I'm not a scientist, but I'd be careful claiming anything conclusive on that much data.

Its actually in Celcius... and it's more than 1.5

Besides... it's called global Climate Change for a reason. Weather patterns will get changed...

**Sstashmoo** · December-02-09, 04:47 PM

From the Wall Street Journal article referenced above:

"There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century."

ccbatson · December-02-09, 08:50 PM

And that is an inflated number, and it says nothing about anthropogenic origins...nor does it say anything about CO2 as casual.

When AL Gore's hockey stick graphs were debunked...even the correlative theory of CO2 and warming was lost.

**elganned** · December-02-09, 08:51 PM

That's like saying it took 3,000 years for the world population to reach 1 billion in the mid-19th Century, so it'll be 3,000 more years before it reaches 2 billion. We're currently at what? 6 billion and counting?

The effect is cumulative and accelerating...we've burned a crap-ton more fossil fuels since then.

ccbatson · December-02-09, 09:05 PM

Nope...the correlation's chronicity holds today [[and always).

**elganned** · December-02-09, 09:25 PM

Oh, yeah, sorry; I fogot Objectivist Dogma #1: All things are permanently fixed for all time; nothing is mutable. Ever.

I guess this includes CO2 levels in the atmosphere as well as population growth...oh, wait...

ziggyselbin · December-02-09, 11:06 PM

It really is a religion to you isn't it elganned? Crichton had you in mind...........

**elganned** · December-03-09, 12:24 AM

No. I just refuse to believe that every climatologist everywhere in the world is part of some vast global conspiracy to take over the world [[somehow; the mechanism is never quite explained). That's just sheer paranoia.

And Crichton never met me. I think we'd have gotten along famously. He was a great man and a great mind--unlike some who seek to use their flawed grasp of his thought to justify some arcane purpose of their own.

**d.mcc** · December-03-09, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

That's like saying it took 3,000 years for the world population to reach 1 billion in the mid-19th Century, so it'll be 3,000 more years before it reaches 2 billion. We're currently at what? 6 billion and counting?

The effect is cumulative and accelerating...we've burned a crap-ton more fossil fuels since then.

Crazy...exponential growth