Forum Post: Here’s a story that should be the lead across the nation:
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 29, 2012, 7:25 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19393075
The ice cap has hit a record low, full melt is now considered inevitable, it has begun,.
The question remains, will we awake?
I do feel the economic concerns are paramount getting money out of government will at least give us a chance to address the question.
Will we allow each of us in the name of nation and freedom destroy the very condition that our lives depend on?
Will we allow those that make decisions decide that they can find a nice place to live and that to fix the problem would be just too expensive.
One thing seems to be set, that the longer we wait the more expensive it becomes, so we are set in a classic build of tension the longer the wealthy keep “winning” the worst the resolution will be.
UPDATE (8/31)
Great link to info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/climate-change/
UPDATE: (9/7/2012)
still not hit low yet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19508906
UPDATE: ( 9/18/2012)
I believe when you look at the data it is reasonable to predict that the Arctic Ice will drop below one million square Kilometers next year, you read it here first.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Update: 9/30
Warmer than the Medieval times
http://current.com/technology/93914747_high-arctic-warming-exceeds-viking-era.htm
Update: 10/19/2012
DailyKos talks about the most important issue of our day.
UPDATE 10/30/2012 (Sandy)
Update: 12/02/2012 ice melting at both poles
http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/12/02/4454798/global-warming-melts-ice-at-both.html
Update: 12/31/2012
A good piece on the up coming yer.
Update: 01/04/2013 better interactive graph:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Update: 03/15/2013 This story won't go away, till we do...
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/03/greedy-lying-bastards
http://greedylyingbastards.com/
I haven't updated this in a while here's a new 59 min discussion of something the 24/7s will never address with the attention it deserves, 7/09/2013:
The answer to your questions are easy to guess at, even though somewhat depressing, based on people's behavior. Most will not wake up. They will allow the continued use of fossil fuels for fear of national economic hardship. Personally they will also believe it's too expensive a problem to deal with.
They hold us hostage by our jobs, we should change that.
That's another point on which you get a wide range of opinions. Not all the hostages believe that that is what they are. Hard to get change when many don't want it and fewer still can agree on how to get it or what form it should take.
Quit. Go climb a mountain.
Breathe some real air.
Catch a fish to eat.
at least the people with most the money will think so and right now their opinion seems to be the only one that counts....
The GOP now has all five seats on the corporation commission in AZ, this will kill solar power in Arizona, IN ARIZONA!!!
"Among the most controversial topics addressed by the commission is the regulation it passed in 2006 that requires utilities to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar by 2025."
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20121107utilities-commission-republicans-win.html
Screw the commission.
Start your own solar movement.
They have to comply. It's their own directives.
The three GOP put out a flyer with solar panels and wind turbines on it and talk about cheap energy and not a word in favor of solar, they will repeal the "controversial" mandate for sure.
Sea-shade-dog by Salvador Dali
Just updating this link again:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
I'm starting to think maybe the world won't end on Dec. 21, 2012, but we may wish it did....
Geoengineering actually appears to me somewhat risky.
R's use this as punchline!
No they don't... they're not even thinking about geoengineering.
Didn't Mitt use the "stop the rising sea, heal the planet" line in a joke?
You know, I think it's very possible you've been paying more attention to him than I have. I don't see any of our politicians though as focused on a scientific remedy.
Maybe, it was on one of the environmental websites I was lookin out. I missed his speech but that's where he used.
I bet you pay attention enough to know that for 20 years one party has denied climate change science (at the behest of big oil), Against Evolution science, Stem cell research, & for Magic utero rape/pregnacy science. at the behest of christian fundamentalists.?
I think most people interested enough to debate important issues stay aware about the people who have the power we are trying to take back.
Peace
Have been paying attention enough
Well, funny you should mention that. While anti-environmentalists were busy denying global warming the libs were very busy denying the rising of the seas; I know because I've had these discussions as recently as just a few years ago. So what do we have? We have knaves arguing with idiots, engaged in a battle of egos, both vying for an intellectually superior position as one above the other. Most people dismissed both sides long ago, and after reading the falsified congressional reports, I once again turned to science itself and that's where my focus shall remain.
Stem cell was destined to proceed - historically no one have ever been successful at halting the advance of the independently conducted research of our science. No longer an issue is it?
Evolution has proven to be a rather strange bird. There were evolutionists long before Darwin... Darwinism itself has proven to contain the scientific mind; it limits in that it unintentionally directs focus, as much a detriment as a factor. And those limits have impacted our science. Theoretical Evolution contains serious flaws which science may never be able to withdraw from because the human mind is limited to the quantitative measure, and a deducive logic; we are directed to paths most would simply prefer to believe. And these are very likely untruths.
As much as the Left would like to dismiss not only our "fundamentalists" but all of Christianity, its all just so much banter. America has had this discussion for three hundred years now; we are reaching the very limits of our ability to observe "God matter" - in fact, we're not even certain what matter is or is not "matter" - and we will have it for another three hundred years. We are dismissing this discussion in its entirety, relegating it to the trash heap of historical intellectual egoism... because in this discussion we have forgotten the basic precept that we are "people" who need people, possessed of innate, as biological, desire.
Intelligentsia should not be a viper of derision but a contributing element esteemed; God has won; and the Left is done. Be thankful you live in a country that permits you a peaceable existence in disquiet. But its time for us to move forward TOGETHER as a people.
We disagree,
The left does not question sea rise.
The theory of Evolution does not prevent scientific questions, nor does it include serious flaws, nor does it likely include untruths.
We ARE people, We DO need each other. We should start arresting the criminals who misuse/abuse religion to oppress other people, and for political gain. We as people should educate all other people honestly that religion is untrue and misused/abuse by evil people against us.
Real separation of church and state.
"no hell below us, above us only sky" JL
You're wrong; it's only been over the last couple of years that we have concluded this discussion of rising seas. And it was primarily the liberals with their ocean front properties that sought to deny it; I was amazed. And so we conducted a further study, didn't we?
The theory of Evolution DOES contain serious flaws.
Religion is untrue? No one of any philosophical depth can deny that Zeus exists... actually organized religion is a HUGE subject, too large for the limits of time and space here.
Hell? With the birth of Grace through Salvation in 1790, Hell went the way of the ages. It no longer exists in the modern Protestant mind, united in minor differences through universalism. (And just in case you haven't figured this our yet - this is Protestant country.)
Separation of church in state in such extreme examples as we have recently witnessed is nothing more than Sharia influence.
So what the hell are you talkng about?
I'm talking about putting aside the false bronze age fairytales that are being used by evil people to oppress and control huge populations.
I'm talking about the fact that Protestantism (in America) is the worst, Sharia (Islam) the worst in middle east. but all are fake and need to be disgarded.
I'm talking about the death of God. We disagree. Thats all. No biggie. Most people agree with you. For now!
"nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too" JL
To me there is a huge difference between spirituality and that spirituality centralized and incorporated as "religion." Although Christianity is one very successful and therefore prominent example, I think you will find that religion predates the bronze age by tens of thousands of years.
Although religion becomes a tool, very few die the result of religious belief - it's cohesive bond in the defense or quest of resources.
It's fake. Time to move on, get over it. Allow progress and evolution to no longer be hobbled, and held back be these fairytales.
We disagree. no prob. no need to argue further.
God bless your heart!
Whether it is "fake" or not is irrelevant. If observable evidence was relevant to belief, religion would not exist anywhere in the world. I don't believe we'll ever be so precise in surgical practice so as to excise this desire from the reptilian core; it would require the genetic re-engineering of mind. Mmm... nah, I think we'll probably pass on that one. The King is dead, long live the King.
Whew. Ok dude. I think we've run this subject ragged.
Thanx. Good luck in all your good work.
Whoa! your not a people are reptilians guy are you?
whew. That religion is fake is most definitely relevant! We love our Greek mythology but we don't worship, or use it to oppress/control huge populations of people.
There is no invisible old white guy in the sky with superpowers controlling everything.
Sorry!
No but there's definitely something there as the force that binds all atoms... and also unbinds to bind atoms.
I'm not a people are alligators kind of guy. But I do belief that the reptilian core is with us still and that the mind developed in layered leaps and bounds. But we're definitely possessed of subliminal desire, and subconscious thought, in physiological and therefore genetic form.
Are you a climate change denier?
I remain neutral on the ability of green house gases to increase surface temp; in fact, I have questioned the reflective and diffusive properties for years. I'm more concerned with air quality in terms of the chemical particulates than I am with global warming.
Wow. Ok, but you are against pollution right. Perhaps based on that you can support burning less oil/gas/coal?
It's not just the pollution, it's the fact that we have the resources and ability and yet are denied by the powers that be for the purpose of profit. Alaskan oil, for example, doesn't serve the American people. And who was it that signed the offshore oil ban? Well, it was old man Bush... And now we're being encouraged through unaffordable gas prices to buy 58,000 dollar electric cars that have one tenth the durability of a gas engine; there is no infrastructure and it will require coal to create it. Ethanol... half of Congress is invested in ethanol; corn has risen, pig has risen... the price of cars has risen. Germany first refused and then banned ethanol in its entirety and yet this Congress just raised the subsidies. Green? You've got to be kidding, we'll lose every phase of this to foreign manufacturers due largely to our own Congressional corruption.
Using less is a joke... everybody is already using less. I've seen people in gas stations in the South putting seventy cents in their tanks - they can't afford gasoline - and this winter more will freeze to death in the North. We're being manipulated and they're using "Green" sentiment as opportunity.
I consider myself a conservationalist; not an environmentalist. Our mantra very simply is to leave it as we found it. And I think that is a more respectable position, especially since those that currently espouse a greater environmentalism are also the very same that are destroying the natural viewscape. We live it; they cajole in it.
We have to stop burning fossil fuels. The planet is being polluted and we ARE overheating it! Forget the oil, push something less damaging.
I'm not going to stop using fossil fuels - I like heat, I like to bathe... I like things that go vroom and I use almost all of those products that require oil to manufacture. You're talking 22nd century tech here... we won't live to see it.
No it's happening now. We can hasten it if we invest appropriately.
Edjumacate yo-sef a tad bit:
This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW! This is a new century and we can leave fossil fuel behind us.
http://www.hopewellproject.org/
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1
FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600
You have got to watch this vid: The liquid Metal Battery - another piece to the puzzle.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html
Additional Liquid Metal Battery links.
Yea I know... I've been following all of this stuff for years; In fact, I had planned to install those fuel cells on a massive scale. It's just not there yet and in the meantime those that commute cannot afford these gas prices. And people will once again freeze to death this winter.
That's the thing fuel cells are there they work and there are power plants that make hydrogen as part of their operation.The only thing that is stopping us - is us. Also look at the hopewell project house. It is a stand alone structure - not connected to the grid.
I've looked at hopewell before... At one time, I was hoping for a home sized fuel cell to provide all energy but it doesn't appear it will be a viable option in the near future.
I just came across this again this morning:
http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm
The money depends on us not thinking that "we" can make good decisions, the collective we, if we thought that we might try to correct the economic system so that it is not so lopsided, if they have to kill the planet to keep government weak, that's a "cost of doing business" I guess.
[Removed]
I wonder if government anywhere will have the power to do such things if it becomes reasonable to do so, not the technical power but the political authority. Not that I’m all that trusting of large originations be they governmental or otherwise and I like to think that feeling is based on observation not prejudice though I seem to have always resisted being told what to do. It seems the current theme is to challenge the very right of the government to impose actions that might delay more risky moves.
[Removed]
I don't remember if we have discussed "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=4dznWH93bYEC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&source=gbs_atb&pg=GBS.PP1
but yes if it knows it's place government can have a role, I guess, at least that's the way they think,
I think we own the government we should open it up see how it works and put it to use
[Removed]
well here's my theory, I think things are so complicated folks don't really understand it all, as a result they can believe whatever they want, and there's a lot of knowledge out there about how to make people want this thing or that thing, I think most people are basically good and if they understood what they were doing hardly any would vote Republican, so I spend most my time trying to make things simple for folks
[Removed]
I realize we will never completely wipe out the Republicans or the darkness that creates them, but I look forward to the day they are comfortable as the Klan are to self identify.
[Removed]
You got booted off of a web site Zen? You gotta learn to control yourself...man. ;-)
[Removed]
Yes it is useful. There are two sides to my personality too, and both are truthful.
Stacking the deck but hedges the bet... we must own this house.
[Removed]
Zen,
My message does apply directly to what you were thinking.
[Removed]
Juxtaposed? Do you suppose we are just opposed? Are we not then the sounding boards of self?
[Removed]
You were there, while you were here... and here while you were there, who's to say where you are now?
[Removed]
Precisely. As long as I can see my feet, I will never be lost - I am "here."
[Removed]
No one cares because one party along with the fossil fuel industry has spent billions over decades to spread the fallacy that our pollution isn't warming the planet.
They will all come around but it will be too late to prevent catastrophes that are beginning now.
You mean the science denial "we did build that" party. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/jon-stewart-rnc-media.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
I suppose so! (Jon Stewart rules)
Did you build that reply?
LoL
How many bridges you build bitch?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-29-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---we-built-it
[Removed]
The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change
http://greedylyingbastards.com/
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/03/greedy-lying-bastards
and the story continues...
better interactive graph of arctic ice
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
The first big story of the new year.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/12/rebecca-solnit-2013-will-be-year-zero-our-climate-battle?google_editors_picks=true
New study shows ice melting at both pole, the most complete study yet.
http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/12/02/4454798/global-warming-melts-ice-at-both.html
Last year Irene was a 1 in a hundred, this year Sandy is a one in a thousand, what will next year bring?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/watching-hurricane-sandy-ignoring-climate-change.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true
Daily Kos comes on broad:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/19/1146917/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Roundup-We-need-more-hear-more-about-climate-change?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29
another update,
we fight over who ate the pudding, while the house is burning down...
refreeze has started looks to be at a fast rate, maybe the ice sheet will recover enough that another record will not be set next year but if it is watch out, and no more Michigan apples...
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Updated for newest data.
Still nothing about this on any of the three 24/7 news.
As the ice melts and the oceans rise, nothing would be funnier than a bunch of rich people who spent a million dollars to have a house on the beaches, under water, Oh the irony! Ha.
problem is I hear something like 80 to 85% of the people in the world live near the water,....me I'm at a thousand feet....
The "record" is only 33 year old. It started in 1979.
"Nasa says the extent of sea ice was 1.58m sq miles (4.1m sq km) compared with a previous low of 1.61m sq miles (4.17m sq km) on 18 September 2007."
7 100ths of a percent lower today than it was in 2007. What was it during the 5 years in between?
First the math 1.61(100)-1,589100)/ 1.61(100) = 1.86% not .07% change in the amount of ice since 2007, another problem is that it is not Sept. yet, the ice cover is still shrinking let's see where it stops.
And the record is longer really, we just have the highly accurate data over the past few years, we have known you can't sail north to the pole for quite some time.
From the link you posted:
"The Arctic has lost more sea ice this year than at any time since satellite records began in 1979, Nasa says."
So essentially the ice cap is the lowest it's been in 33 years a "record" has been kept. A split second in time over the millions of years the earth has existed. Can you tell me ...is the ice currently contained in the ice cap lower or higher, or even average for the past thousand years? 5 thousand? Million?
lower
Really?
http://www.c3headlines.com/arcticgreenlandantarcticglacierssea-ice/
"Over recent years, the Arctic has warmed much like it did during the natural Medieval Warming Period - during prior warm phases, mother nature melted the Northwest Passage sea ice completely, but not yet in the modern era"
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/climate-change/landscape-ecosystem/paleo-environmental/3947
"The radiocarbon-dated bowhead whale remains indicate that the whales were able to range along the length of the Passage during two intervals (centered on 9000 years ago and 1000 years ago) and that they were able to access the central part from the east about 4000 years ago. During the first of these intervals (9000 before present) ice cores indicate that summer temperatures were about 3°C warmer than mid 20th Century. Therefore, a warming of 3°C exceeds the opening threshold. Medieval Warm Period temperatures were probably about 1°C warmer than mid-20th Century, which is likely close to threshold conditions for an opening of the passage."
9,000 years ago the empirical evidence proves the Northwest Passage was open for whales to transverse it. How did humans cause the ice to fully melt then?
and here I thought you actually were confused by the 33 years and now we see you are well versed in climate change denial you knew with your very first post that what you were saying about 33 years was bullshit.
So we may still be confused on climate change, but we all know BetsyRoss is a lying shithead. Here's a link to what actual scientists are saying:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
So in addition to defending racist republicans abusing black women, you are also a climate change denier?
Nice try.
The climate has always changed. All the scientific evidence proves that. Does man impact the environment? Yep. Am I willing to state that man is the only, or even MOST powerful agent that impacts climate. Nope.
How could you have been confused about the 33 years? I think you are just a lying shithead.
That YOU mis-read or misinterpreted what I said in my first post is your problem, not mine.
Writing an article that screams "Lowest_ in recorded history" is a manipulation tool to make something sound alarmingly abnormal, when it may not be. Maybe you're confused about how the past 33 years of earth's existence compares to the REST of it's past. THAT was my point. HOW does that 33 year span of "recorded" data compare when it's placed in proper perspective? How much "value" should we assign it when viewed as part of the bigger picture?
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
Are the 40,000+ US scientists that "peer reviewed" and supported the above scientific paper all lying shitheads too?
records of temperatures around the world
have been kept for hundreds of years
This post started with a specific article about a specific part of the world measuring a specific amount of something over a specific 33 years.
If science has proven anything, it is that conditions on the earth have fluctuated between highly different extremes for millions of years.
For example, according to Alley, Richard B. (2000). "Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full-
Somewhere around 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years.
A 5 °C change over 30-40 years is more common according to http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter13/chapter13_01.htm
If one believes the scientific research that the ice cores PROVE "that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas extending into low latitudes" (Alley) you start to wonder about all the screaming that current climate changes (that are ALSO large, rapid, or extending over complete hemispheres) are un-natural, or unprecedented, or completely because of human activity.
when you don't even admit math errors why should I point out all places you are wrong here?
Hey did you see your math problem?
**1 points by BetsyRoss (-76) from New Hope, PA 4 days ago The "record" is only 33 year old. It started in 1979. "Nasa says the extent of sea ice was 1.58m sq miles (4.1m sq km) compared with a previous low of 1.61m sq miles (4.17m sq km) on 18 September 2007." 7 100ths of a percent lower today than it was in 2007. What was it during the 5 years in between? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (7441) from Phoenix, AZ 3 days ago First the math 1.61(100)-1,589100)/ 1.61(100) = 1.86% not .07% change in the amount of ice since 2007, another problem is that it is not Sept. yet, the ice cover is still shrinking let's see where it stops. And the record is longer really, we just have the highly accurate data over the past few years, we have known you can't sail north to the pole for quite some time. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink**
given how poor you are at basic math are you sure you know more than all these Noble people?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/29/prince-charles-nobel-laureates
If my math is wrong, it's wrong. I'll use yours.
1.86% change in an ice sheet that has been melting since the planet began to come out of it's last ice age...how alarmingly abnormal!!??
Actually, according to recent research, it's NOT:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804141706.htm
"Regarding the research results, Funder says, "Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which was absolutely lowest on record. Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
“The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return.”
Since it has been well established that you are a liar I'm incline to follow writings of the entire scientific community instead.
If you follow the writings of the ENTIRE scientific community, then you must by the very inclusion of the word "entire", also be aware of and give due consideration to the hundreds of scientific studies such as the one above that contradict your current message regarding arctic sea ice.
Either one group of scientists is lying/mistaken or we still have a very incomplete understanding of how our environment works and should be careful about declaring events in absolute terms.
Still we must deal with the fact that you are a liar, so how can anything you say be trusted? You started off with "oh just 33 years..." when you clearly knew and had access to much longer and deeper information, liars like yourself are never about informing just confusing.
Even people with PhDs sometimes need money and oil companies have lots of money, so lots of "studies" can be done they can also be discredited. Within a very few years the ice will melt completely, I wonder if the liars like yourself will still stick to this bull crap.
You state- "Still we must deal with the fact that you are a liar, so how can anything you say be trusted? You started off with "oh just 33 years..."
Please prove/show/provide evidence that I did ANY such thing. You can't because I didn't.
Everything I've posted in this thread about a 33 year time frame was within the context of the 33 year RECORD referenced in the OP. Now YOU may have been confused about what the article SAYS, but YOU brought it up!!! YOU might have interpreted what I said in a way completely different from what I actually said, but I am not responsible for the way YOUR MIND works. But it is clear to EVERYONE who can read this entire thread that YOU are the only one lying here.
But feel free to keep accusing me of lying, while all the evidence to the contrary is right here on this forum. It is invaluable proof to others of whether or not you should be given any credibility at all.
So given your vast knowledge in the field why were you confused by "OP”
(oh dropping in from next door I see, you may find here we have less tolerance for bullshit)
Why did you act as if we had only been looking at this for 33 years when that was never stated anywhere? We have been using satellites for that long and you acted as if we only had a “tiny” sample of time over which we were looking, all total bullshit (and you knew it).
I've explained what I said, and WHY I said it repeatedly. You are the only one confused here.
"2 points by BetsyRoss (-76) from New Hope, PA 4 days ago From the link you posted: "The Arctic has lost more sea ice this year than at any time since satellite records began in 1979, Nasa says." So essentially the ice cap is the lowest it's been in 33 years a "record" has been kept. A split second in time over the millions of years the earth has existed. Can you tell me ...is the ice currently contained in the ice cap lower or higher, or even average for the past thousand years? 5 thousand? Million? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink"
It is alarmingly abnormal and if you weren't just a lying bitch you would admit it.
Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. See if you can tell the difference between the two sentences that follow:
The Arctic has lost more sea ice this year than it has in the past 33 years.
The Arctic sea ice has never, ever been this low in the history of planet Earth.
Only someone who thinks the two sentences mean the same thing would find it "alarmingly abnormal"
I have not seen either of these except in your post which are designed to deceive and confuse.
What I did see was that Arctic ice is the lowest it has been in (at least, since you so much difficulty with English) the last33 years remarkable in that it is over three weeks before the low point and following a rather normal summer in the Arctic.
In your comment you say "essentially the ice cap is the lowest it's been in 33 years" calling it a "split second" in time this is not stated in the article and is clearly false, something you knew full well when you said it, therefore proving you are lying bitch!
So, I’m the one with the problem with English. Yet you seem oblivious to what quotation marks mean, and how they are properly used. I'm the one supposedly LYING (in some deceptive or confusing way while YOU MISQUOTE me in this post (but hilariously only AFTER you properly quoted me and BOLDED IT for emphasis prior to this) AND selectively edit out my clarification of my opinion that 33 years is a "split second in time over the millions of years the earth has existed." ?????
Your OWN POSTS provide all the hard, obvious evidence that the only one stating things that are “clearly false" and "something you knew full well when you said it, therefore proving YOU are lying bitch!" is YOU.
YOU POSTED: * 1 points by factsrfun (7466) from Phoenix, AZ 3 days ago "2 points by BetsyRoss (-76) from New Hope, PA 4 days ago From the link you posted: "The Arctic has lost more sea ice this year than at any time since satellite records began in 1979, Nasa says." So essentially the ice cap is the lowest it's been in 33 years a "record" has been kept. A split second in time over the millions of years the earth has existed. Can you tell me ...is the ice currently contained in the ice cap lower or higher, or even average for the past thousand years? 5 thousand? Million? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink"
It is alarmingly abnormal and if you weren't just a lying bitch you would admit it.**
See those quotation marks both before and after the NASA quote I used? They indicate a beginning and an END to the reference from the article I used. I then insert my OWN words here with the exception of the word “record” from an article that’s title is “Arctic sea ice reaches record low, Nasa says”. That same article goes on to state that the “records began in 1979” which even with my stunted math abilities is 33 years. (are you clearly delusional?)
NOW, someone like you, who is, in your OWN words, “incline to follow writings of the entire scientific community instead” would ALREADY KNOW that multiple scientific studies have been done and published that detail that sudden increases in temperature AND in sea ice change are NOT “alarmingly abnormal”. I even linked to THREE different scientific sources, that someone who follows the "entire scientific community" would NATURALLY be aware of, to back up my assertion: one from an oceanic TEXTBOOK, one from the US National Academy of Science, and one from Science Daily discussing a study done by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen!! (those lying bitches!)
From the TEXTBOOK- • “ Many times during the last ice age, temperatures near Greenland warmed rapidly over periods of 1-100 years, followed by gradual cooling over longer periods (Dansgaard et al., 1993). For example, roughly 11,500 years ago, temperatures over Greenland warmed by roughly 8°C in 40 years in three steps, each spanning 5 years (Alley, 2000). Such abrupt warming is called a Dansgaard/Oeschger event. Other studies have shown that much of the northern hemisphere warmed and cooled in phase with temperatures calculated from the ice core.” • “The climate of the past 8,000 years was constant with very little variability. Our perception of climate change is thus based on highly unusual circumstances. All of recorded history has been during a period of warm and stable climate.”
From the National Academy of Science-“Ice-Core evidence of abrupt climate changes”-
“For the best-characterized warming, the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval ≈11,500 years ago, the transition in many ice-core variables was achieved in three steps, each spanning ≈5 years and in total covering ≈40 years. However, most of the change occurred in the middle of these steps. The warming as recorded in gas isotopes occurred in decades or less.”
From the Copenhagen study-
‘Regarding the research results, Funder says, "Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which was absolutely lowest on record. Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."’
Please note the QUOTATION marks around all three-indicating that ALL of these things were STATED in the REAL SCIENTIFIC sources I referenced and that all accusations that they are LIES, DECEPTIONS, etc. or complaints of CONFUSION resulting from the studies themselves, should be taken up with the quoted institutions and scientists themselves.
Thanks.
man all this from somebody who thought we had only been looking at this for 33 years, imagine that.....
The article YOU linked to and used in the OP is opens with this sentence:
"The Arctic has lost more sea ice this year than at any time since satellite records began in 1979, Nasa says."
2012-1979=33 years.
So, first tell me who the "we" you just brought up is, and then show me where I said/stated/implied that this "we" had only been looking at the arctic sea ice for 33 years. Using your OWN criteria-since I EVER "stated it", your accusation is "clearly false, something you knew full well when you said it, therefore proving you are lying bitch!"
Again.
still waiting to hear why you were confused
now we are back to you thinking we have only been looking at this this since we put up the satellites, you came in with lies and they continue them, but just for fun go ahead and explain why did you start off trying to say it was only a 33 years record?
Besides have you looked out your window today? The ice is still melting
OMG. Either you can't read/comprehend or you are determined to hold onto your twisted perceptions no matter what.
The ARTICLE set the parameters and established a SPECIFIC record to which it referred. The comment you keep harping on was directed to the SPECIFIC parameters established in a SPECIFIC article.
But keep shoveling out your delusional drivel. It only proves more and more that you are crazy/stupid/irrational/untruthful-whichever one is actually responsible for your continued responses to me on this issue.
We MUST stop pulluting our water, air, and food (through the ground pollution). That means we MUST stop burning fossil fuels.
Are you against that?
I'm all for it. What shall we replace it with?
This is America. We are the most industrious, innovative country in the history of the planet. We can do anything. We will replace with all the various Alternatives that republicans ridicule.
We cannot let China & Germany continue kickin our ass in these 21st century tech just because our 19th century tech fossil fuel corps have so much power.
If we all recognize the obvious future, all new greentech will be improved enough to replace fossil fuels.
That is what we MUST do. For our children, for our planet, for our future!
Greentech must still use natural resources to produce energy.
"Power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources"=energy. In order to produce energy, physical or chemical resources must be used. And every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We might replace fossil fuels and disturb some other element only to find out 60 years in the future that it's affected our environment in a negative way.
What if the most industrious, innovative country in the history of the planet NEVER finds a viable alternative?
I am not that defeatist. We have found numerous ways that our innovativeness will improve enough to be viable post haste.
Thank you factsrfun for post. The fact that it is not the lead story, speaks to how much trouble we have regarding the corporation/dictatorship.
And the fossil fuel companies, can't wait to get up there and drill.
zendog commented with a link to Rolling Stone piece it's long but talks about the market forces that are in play, when I think back it seems we cared more about this when people weren't losing their homes, I hope we do something but I fear we won't....
Drought-----food shortage coming. Elite buying food futures.
So sad, and could have been avoided.
(Zen link good)
water is the new oil....
Yes. Saw an article a while back, about the elite buying water rights around the world. Another profitable weapon of control.
owning stuff is the monarchy
i wonder why people think there is something that can be 'done'. this is not anything that can change , not to any degree that would have any effect anyway.
I can't guarantee we can do anything but if we put our best minds on the issue I expect we could reverse the problems. I would rather try that instead of going out without a fight.
We could tax fossil fuel to reflect the true cost of burning it. That would at least provide the funds to deal with the droughts and hurricanes. But even better we could stop using all fossil fuels completely, then it wouldn’t get a lot warmer, sure the north pole would still melt but not the south.
you should lead by example if you have a car sell it, you use ele. stop. Etc, etc. taxing fossil use does not help the env. it makes pol. pockets fat nothing more.
have you seen the debt, don't look fat to me.....
Likely it's already too late. I've been living this all my life. As Americans, we ALWAYS knew how important our ENVIRONMENT was. The truth was always there. ALL of us knew this as children if we were listening and hearing. TEDDY, at the turn of the twentieth knew this great mechanized engine of growth would SOON consume and lay waste to most beautiful lush lands, like Yellowstone. Realizing that the wealthy were gobbling up lands to exploit them solely for money. Get rich quick at the expense of our beautiful planet. Which, cutting to the short, means, raping mother Earth so she eventually convulses us off when climate changes for other creatures to evolve. Just not us, anymore. The Earth is an actual living organism, and now it's distressed. When a vital organ in our own body fails to function we can have a complete system failure, called death. For the Earth, this will be the death of humans, the Earth will move on along with Mars, and the rest. Evolution will continue.
This doesn't mean that I give up the fight. My purpose runs deeper. We have to fight, AND yes, fight for what is ultimately true, and ultimately true because of the abundance of facts and evidence. The evident truth which requires learning. Study and respect what science is telling us. This is our direction. If we didn't come to Earth to learn then we are ALL screwed.
Unfortunately, in human nature we respond well to major events. We pay attention to solve a potentially disastrous problem. We learn well from mistakes. Constantly perfecting the method using that OLD school of HARD KNOCKS. Sadly this mistake is only gradually catching up with us. It's main event, warning, will be way too late for us to becomes HEROES once more. We've been sowing these seeds longer then we may even want to believe, it's in our blood. A long time. Some of it's SIGNS are now undeniable. We have NEVER slowed our consmption of the Earth, NEVER! Yes, we have GROWTH. Remember, growth is our goal. Growth is GOOD.
Very sadly, the next sign, and future signs may come way too quickly as the Earth begins a death roll. We'll try like hell. But not all problems can and do get solved this way. Just like in all our lives, some mistakes cost us the whole gig. This is one. The biggest. Recognize that and then ACT.
Come Together NOW, Wake Up with the Universe
~Knowledge IS Power~
The economic forces against change are huge, I hope we can reach our arms out to all that will help to end the rule of wealth over reason.
You just gotta love this independent.
[Removed]
Was he saying the 6 deg C number would result from burning the 2700 gig-tons or so? I wasn't sure, but in any case yes we are going to burn it all who's going to stop them when oil is $10,000 a barrel?
Reading the part of 1992, I remember that back when we thought we would do something surly we wouldn't destroy the world, but it looks more likely than not these days.
[Removed]
I agree, I was looking for the higher number and am not sure he gave one, I also think the over 2 degree C will be huge, but for some time now I feel we have to start making projections based on current growth of hot house gas production until actual change in path is taken to do otherwise is malpractice of sorts.
One thing I fear is as we start reporting the ever increasing higher temps, it will become like Olympic World Records and people will just expect them to be broken and it all becomes part of the boiling water surrounding us frogs.
I think about the numbers too tough because if I don't I will think about the polar bears....
[Removed]
I've head that life will find a way, friend of mine has ran into black bears more than once, but I understand they are much more well "understanding" than the polar type....come to think of it I guess I have to, he just had one that didn't want to go away at first....
[Removed]
yeah back in TN we call it "breaking bush" I've heard them a couple of time, saw them once for sure but with me it has always been them breaking bush the other way, which is normal, my friend came around a bend and was a bit too close once, had to hold his walking stick over his head and get big real quick like.....
[Removed]
had a moose stick his/her? head in the car window driving through Yellowstone, now those suckers are huge, you are lucky...
[Removed]
You are lucky to be alive. When I was in Alaska, a mother moose kicked and stomped a VW Microbus, rolled it over 3 times and killed everyone inside.
[Removed]
Ever see the video of the Deer Hunter ( idiot ) who sprayed himself with Musk? He Got the Shit kicked out of Him and ended up in intensive care.
[Removed]
Yep - never back em into a corner - that flight or fight response - is an either or response - if they can not run - it is likely they "will" attack. Even a cute little raccoon can tear you up.
[-] 1 points by ZenDog (9994) from South Burlington, VT 0 minutes ago
all wild animals are potentially dangerous. And they are often terrified when we approach them - not always but often. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Does it include the filthy RICH variety.
They are pretty - but some people are not aware - they are pretty Dangerous as well.
[Removed]
or more like having them polar bears wander into our air conditioned homes....
[Removed]
Did we seriously go after 'green energy' after the 1973 OPEC embargo? No. Were we promised by our leaders then that we would .... yes. Did we know about AGW back then...YES.
as recently as 2000 many people did not vote for Al Gore who had been on the forefront for 14 years or so by then, so we do have many problems at the leadership level and the people front. As I recall we did our first CAFE standers around then, as well as a number of tax credits for wind mills, had a friend with one of those, bought it as a tax dodge ended up being a money maker, one of his best investments....
These people are too chicken shyt to "awake".
They love to follow, so only a few are truly in the running as real leaders..
Apathy is the greatest medication!
On global warming - 45 min of Bernie Sanders talking to the Senate.
GLOBAL WARMING
In a summer of record heat, severe drought, extreme storms, melting glaciers and raging wildfires, Bernie challenged claims by a leading Republican senator who dismisses global warming as a "hoax" »
This is 45 minutes that should go viral - tweet or share out any other way if you agree.
Bernie never disappoints. Trust the the Sand man.
I think everyone should forward these videos of Bernie's to members of government - with one question presented =
Were you aware of this? If not thought you would want to know as some of you in office seem to be out of the loop - please share with your other colleagues in office.
Even an official poll of pols. Every candidate should have it sent to them and asked if they agree or not. They should go on the record.
I think that is what also needs to be done ( very good call ) a polling of all of those in office right now State and Federal asking where they stand on the issues of the day.
in office now and running as well.
Absolutely. Hell no politician really talks about issues - we need to get them talking.
we should be able send it to each candidates website. no?
I would think so - but get the questionnaire filled out and returned or responded to?
It's possible and worth a try. Whatta you think? can we do it.?
I don't the the forum would like it so......
Ask jart if she would mind if we put together a questionnaire and sent them out from here. Politicians e-mails could be in the post with the questionnaire and it could be shared out on twitter - with the link back to here.
I think it's a little too political for them. And I think some pols will put off by the OWS connection. We might get more responses if we do some kinda change.org petition that we send to all candidates, and sitting members of office.
We should also maybe consider a total of just 3 most important items. Certainly this environment issue, maybe public finance of campaign finance, and one more that maybe we can ask the forum to choose.
Couldn't hurt to ask. Send in an outline of what the questionnaire is and what it is to be used for - in getting politicians and those running for office to tell us what their positions on issues of the day are.
LoL. Fine! Can I say I discussed with you?
Sure sure - don't worry she won't kill you. I don't think. {:-]) No of course she won't....I am pretty certain of that.....hehehe.... Kidding I am Kidding.
Just don't be afraid of going into a little detail.
Exactly. R U gonna ask?. You know her better than me dude.
Stretch your legs sunshine - if it is an OK or Good idea to her it won't matter who asked. Do it - and make us proud - sides it is kinda your baby - bite the bullet. {:-])
Wow. I think it is a great idea. Even though some will say it is too much like election central. I suppose if Jart disagrees we can still do it somehow.
She may just surprise everyone and figure it a good information gathering exercise - besides trying to get them to go on record.
[Removed]
Bernie is a good one, do you know anything about King? he is winning in Maine and will caucus with the Ds (like Bernie) the "D" steped aside and basically drop out for King to have clear shot at the R, I hope he is as good a Bernie when he gets there, the thing I really like about Bernie is that he is an independent that knows who the enemy is...
King? Nope - I don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King
hoping for another Bernie is hoping for a lot, but he looks good so far I guess....reading on he did veto a 25 cent increase in minimum wage but otherwise not bad...
I like the part about being an advocate for green energy.
that seems to be his background, one of the places government action could help, pushing green energy
That should be on the platform for every candidate for office and every politician in office. Not Bio Fuel ( still pollutes = co ) but real clean energy some of which would have water vapor exhaust - Hydrogen. This is how the public will get educated ( by campaigns anyway ). Other then that we have to educate through every internet communications hub that will join in.
Pushing rooftop solar, it pays for itself with savings and creates jobs, installing and building panels, here's how Germany is using solar power to stay ahead economically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
I believe that all of the ways green energy production is used - should be given prime-time Daily exposure.
Right now The Powers That PEE are in control of Main Stream Media - so we will have to continue to circulate share the information.
Just think the stress reduction on the power grid if every home and business incorporated solar power into their individual structural power grids.
This would not reduce pollution from fossil fuel burning power plants - as they are either running ( polluting ) or they are not running - but until we can replace the use of fossil fuel power plants they will continue to run ( pollute ).
So additional power for manufacturing industry - whatever - needs to come from things like solar farms and wind farms combined with the use of an efficient storage and distribution points ( liquid metal batteries ) as well as burning Hydrogen or use of cleaner ( and cleaner nuclear tech as it is developed ) like thorium reactors.
This is needed to be done in every aspect of our modern World from the ground up. Homes Industry transportation agriculture - EVERYTHING.
I like lithium ion batteries, I will have to look into this "liquid metal" what I do know about attempts to use liquid metal in some applications, is that they look great on paper, but the substance itself is very hard to work with and creates corrosion and other problems. I spent most my life making what engineers thought looked good on paper work in the real world so I am a little cautious.
The key to saving the human civilization from running out of energy sources may be by coming up with an organic battery that when it no longer works, can just be buried in the ground with no harm to the environment.
Most if not all energy sources are limited by either being a non renewable resource (coal and petroleum), or renewable energy that requires too many resources on the front end (ethanol and solar) or too much deconstruction on the back end (batteries to store the non renewable energy source).
Ironically, solar and wind's best chance for replacing petroleum will require an organic battery that can store solar and wind's irregular output so it becomes a more stable supply, with virtually no deconstruction charges once the battery has lost the ability to store a charge.
I like it a lot, seems could be viable.
I think if we shifted our way of life, shared more, looked at most effective method not just most profitable, we can live more lightly on the earth.
Thanks, I did some research on this a year or two ago, I recall finding an article or two about batteries made out of plant life. Anybody know of any organic battery research.
Sadly, we can't count on wall street to help along research in this area, they are too busy finding ways to securitize every moment of main street's life with the express purpose of up front profiting irrespective of what damage they are doing to main street.
the big money is in moving money around, not taking risk on new ideals, besides plenty of hungry young kids for that, of course once you get passed punching code and on to big machines that gets tougher to fit in a garage, so some things don't get looked into, because as I said all the smart people are busy moving money around so they can grab a little at each turn.
There is a classic cat food commercial that illustrates your point perfectly. I could not find it. It's the one where there are 17 cats and 16 bowls of food.
quick note on the bio-fuel, there are problems because of fossil fuel used in production, but as far as the CO2 goes the ideal there is that it is "recent capture" CO2, so it more of a recycling of CO2 than an adding to, if you see what I mean, I do like electricity I think there are a lot of ways it can be used, as opposed to combustion.
I guess nobody is willing to give up consumerism.
But people 60 years ago were not less happy.
So it can be done without too much loss of happiness.
60 years ago they consumed all they could and kept trying to come up with ways to consume more I don't see that much difference, nor do I believe they were more or less "happy".
The point is, we've been conditioned to consume.
Sixty years ago, tv was just starting to be seen.
tv has empowered the "group think" and therefor the power of think tanks to control the people by controlling the vote,
it does add to desire, by intent, desire is the source of all suffering so it follows that tv increases suffering, a good point you make
tweeted.
id rather have a global warming than a global freeze.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57542315/superstorm-sandy-state-by-state-snapshot/
enjoy your climate change
This is scary but we still have a chance. This is a case where the poison is the cure. Technology caused this and can fix this. First off is get off fossil fuels and coal (why are we still using coal) such advancements as the liquid metal battery and lower rad nuclear, solar, etc. Then if that's not enough we can try orbital mirrors. What we need to do is keep advancing in the sciences. Remember the kind of advancement is possible in 16 years.
thank you, I was more supportive of nuclear till the Japan earthquake, now I like multi point solar, at least it seems the best to get started I think we should require the banks to get behind this, it would create a lot of savings and jobs and the banks own us a few by now....
Nuclear could be viable if we were smart about placement of the plant. We have had the nuclear test site in nevada for decades. Plus the latest gen plants are supposed to be able t reuse waste we already have. Plus if we actually invest in our space program we could do most of our mfg in space which would prevent damage to earth.
[Removed]
How does my post go against physics?
[Removed]
I know about gravity. If you re-read my post I was talking about space based mfg. Which means less polution on earth due to the fact you are outside earths gravity well. In other words yowu are outside the effects of earths gravity so what goes up does not have to come down.
[Removed]
I know it's not cost effective right now but if we invest in the research of alternative means to get into orbit it's doable. For example if we learn how to mass produce carbon nano tubes we can builda space elevator or we might use a magnetic launch platform. Sound like sci-fi? Most advances we take for granted were predictedby sci-fi writers.
Thats just to forward thinking for many. It was only a few years ago NASA became worried about space junk. Those guys are supposed to be smart.
Sure ive thought of that. My current answer to the issue of space junk is to accelerate the trash towards the sun to burn up. This might not be thebestanswer but I know if we don'tstart using space based resources and technology we are eithergoin to kill the planet or kill each other fighting overdwindling resources.
Not that I want to bump this thread but...
Once we figure out our energy issue. Plasma can be created from garbage in order to use as a tool and other applications I'm sure. The ultimate in recycling.
[Removed]
Why does it seem so hard for you to disagree with me without making a smart ass comment. I've never said I have all the answers. Hell, I know I don't know everything. This is supposed to be a place we can come togethet to figure out how we can improve the world. People like you are why wecan't have an honest discussion these days.
[Removed]
Why not? As long as we can produce long enough it is just an engineering problem.
If we can find a way to produce long enough nanotubes then yeah we could. If not that there is research in other cheap ways to orbit.
[Removed]
The "reuse" of waste involves reprocessing which creates bomb grade material and has not been done in the US.
Space is problematic if you are talking about making stuff there and bring it here.
Another problem with nuclear power is that the plants are very large and expensive, when things involves a lot of money people start to think the money flow is more important than doing the right thing, look at what happen at Penn St. Nuclear power must be done with high integrity we have not developed a method to get integrity into the management team of the utilities that run the plants, if you thought we had think Enron. Our nullity companies were once ran by bureaucrats, but bureaucrats got a bad name and now they are ran by hard chargers, you can't trust hard chargers with dangerous things.
Yes space is problematic but that is because we refuse to invest the money required to advance. Space mfg could be possible on a smaller scale within the next 5 years if we actually invest in space. Plus you get the side benefit of enhancing our dreams.
One more reason to re-elect Obama.
he is raising CAFE standers Clinton never did that and of course NO Republican ever will just like minimum wage, so maybe there is hope for Obama, either way it ain't getting better cause, Romney is in the wings if Obama steps down...
[Removed]
As soon as I see Millionaire limousine liberals, moving out of their beachfront homes, because of rising oceans, I'll support you. Until then, go fuck yourself and the LIE of global warming.
You're just a pitiful little piss-ant aren't you?
98% of climate scientists agree, We are warming the planet which is creating extreme weather.
The science is settled.
Do you think we should cut down on pollution?
WRONG. 98% do NOT agree. Quit making up bullshit lies...just like fat ass Al Gore
true it's more like 99.9%, and the other .1% were paid off by big oil
YOU are absolutely wrong. The science is settled. Your childish insults of the great Al Gore simple indicates the impotence of your argument.
Do you think we should cut down on pollution.?
You all know that Greenland hasn't always been covered with ice right? That it used to actually BE GREEN?
Oh, and this:
Greenland Ice Melt every 150 years is ‘right on time’ “Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-every-150-years-is-right-on-time/#more-68079
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/paging-aps-seth-borenstein-hey-seth-wheres-the-beef/
Check out the webcam images of the ice station up there too. Looks pretty damn cold and white to me.
Small coastal parts of Greenland were green during short periods of history. The 150 year ice melt refers to the surface ice melting and pooling The mile thick ice cap has been there for 110,000 years, and covers 90% of the surface.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694912/?tool=pmcentrez
DNA samples taken from core drillings indicate that there used to be a forest where there is now an ice sheet. (Which means that the area was once a lot warmer than it is now and it can't be blamed on the industrial era)
Did you read the paper?????
"All four dating methods suggest that the Dye 3 silty ice and its forest community predate the Last Interglacial (LIG, ~130-116Ka) (Fig 2), which contrasts with the results of recent models suggesting that Dye 3 was ice-free during this period (27, 28). Indeed, all four dating methods give overlapping dates for the silty ice between 450Ka and 800Ka (Fig. 2), exceeding the current record of long-term DNA survival from Siberian permafrost of 300-400Ka (9)."
The forest was also at an elevation 1,000 feet higher than current land conditions...... 400,000 years ago.
Nobody denies climate change happened in the past. What we are experiencing today is different.
How do you know? We don't have satellite data or recorded records for further back than.....? Until you have proof of exactly what happened in the past in tight 200-300 year increments and globally-all you can do is assume, postulate, guess etc. Right?
Wrong. The earth/sun radiation budget is the key...which is measurable, objective data, that indicates that the excess radiation that we are experiencing is directly attributable to the infrared absorption properties and contributions of each of the GHG's currently in the atmosphere.
The American Meteorological Society published a key paper on this in 2006. I'll get it for you again.... I've posted it before. EDIT:
This isn't the one I was referring to but its from 2009, same idea. This stuff gets checked all the time:
http://content.imamu.edu.sa/Scholars/it/net/trenbert.pdf
geo, that was one hell of an effort and you certainly schooled them but,
all that will be swayed by science on this, pretty much is, I don’t know what we do when we face stuff like this:
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/meet-the-koch-brothers-again/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/the-koch-brothers-exposed-20120420
Still keeping up the fight against science. Thanks.
Now which of us is fighting science exactly, this was established, somewhat like gravity as an accepted theory some time ago but some like the ass kisses of the Koch brothers still fight against scientific fact just as the Church opposed Galileo:
http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm
oh and I didn't misplace my links
Neither of us...
I am keeping up the fight against those who are anti-science. My previous post didn't convey that correctly, it was written in haste.
Please read the paper you linked to. And then tell me how many times the word "estimate" is used. (Hint-alot)
Using computer models-which the paper admits are flawed-to measure what is happening today and then ESTIMATE what happened millions of years ago does not constitute "proof" in my book.
Question: So what WAS causing the excess radiation the earth was experiencing millions of years ago when there were no man-made GHG's to affect it?
This article-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=three-quarters-of-climate
"Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made "
"States that 3/4 of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience."
According to the article-that means that in the past 60 years, human behavior has "warmed" the planet by .4125 of a degree. Since ALL of the ice in the Arctic didn't melt even when the planet was 5 WHOLE degrees hotter than it is now, why on earth would anyone expect it to melt entirely when it's 4.5+ degrees COLDER at the moment?
"Please read the paper you linked to. And then tell me how many times the word "estimate" is used. (Hint-alot)"
The term 'estimate' is used because measurements are being made of a parameter that is in flux. That flux is within a known range....+/- some number, that changes with location. Since it is an average number, it is accurately termed an estimate.
"Using computer models-which the paper admits are flawed-to measure what is happening today and then ESTIMATE what happened millions of years ago does not constitute "proof" in my book."
I guess Black Holes don't exist either. Computer models were used in their prediction, confirmation, and determination of structure. We've increased oil field production 10x because of 3D modeling of the earths subsurface... thats not valid either then, Passenger and military jets are designed using fluid dynamic modeling for lift surfaces... that's bogus as well according to your logic.
"Question: So what WAS causing the excess radiation the earth was experiencing millions of years ago when there were no man-made GHG's to affect it?"
Natural GHG's mostly CO2 from volcanic activity and methane releases, coupled with known earth orbit fluctuations (Milankovitch Cycles)
"According to the article-that means that in the past 60 years, human behavior has "warmed" the planet by .4125 of a degree. Since ALL of the ice in the Arctic didn't melt even when the planet was 5 WHOLE degrees hotter than it is now, why on earth would anyone expect it to melt entirely when it's 4.5+ degrees COLDER at the moment?"
The earth was 5 deg warmer than today 450,000 years ago. Almost all the ice was melted at that time. Greenland had no ice cap, as per your own article detailing forests in Greenland. That 5 deg number is an average, once again, meaning parts of the world could actually be colder than now, as what happened during the Younger Dryas.
We have gone through stages in earths history from full frozen 'snowball earth' to no ice, and many stages in between. Currently, we are accelerating heating process faster than at any other time within the past 100,000 years. It is because of the industrial and land use practices of man. The carbon that is in the atmosphere and oceans is isotopically different (the radioisotope ratios are different) than the carbon that nature produces. So we know that we are the root cause.
Interest rate charges cause global warming. You can make the connection if you connect the dots.
This is the most ridiculous post I've read in years. AGW has been studied and acknowledged for over 100 years. The process began with industrialization in the 18th century. Interest rates have been a roller coaster during this time span. There is no correlation.
I think he is trying to say that if we remove the power of money to make money, life would find a better balance, I sort of agree in some ways.
We must competently change the system to succeed, however that does not mean it is vague or complicated, really the money is just too concentrated, spread the wealth and you spread the power, if we do that we will only be able to get most people to agree to the things that save us because no one person will have enough power or enough at stake to go against good decisions.
Many problems we have now are caused by those who make the decisions being personally affected by those decisions.
There is a total correlation. People have to work too many extra hours to pay for a made up expense that IS NO LONGER NEEDED.
Interest rate charges make sense early on in the industrial revolution. Now is the time to reduce overall consumption of the world's resources by not having literally a billion people do unnecessary work, or work additional hours.
Lets make the unlikely assumption that you are right. What are you going to do with a billion people out of work with no income?
The key is to have people work LESS hours per week. People should be working 20 to 25 hours a week, and double shifting with an out of work worker if necessary, and that should be ENOUGH to make a living.
Otherwise what was the point of all of this alleged mass production super industrialized society that is supposed to drop the cost of items to "affordable" levels?
Otherwise what was the point of all of this alleged mass production super industrialized society that is supposed to drop the cost of items to "affordable" levels?
Well that is the lie now isn't it? Our 'mass production super industrialized society' was created only to make a few individuals rich. The only reason for a company to be in business is to make a profit.... I think Milton Freedman said that.
Does the fact that we don't work fewer hours so that others can work prove that we are just as selfish as the wealthy?
Not at all, that is out of desperation to simply maintain what one already has. In many instances what one has it not necessary an outrageous amount.
I would suggest that bankers requiring a debtor to be declared in default before their debt can be restructured is wreaking havoc with society to an extent not yet reported.
People work/get hired because there is a demand for a product. If the product doesn't sell there is no demand, no work.... not to pay interest rates.
That doesn't mean that interest rates are still necessary as long as people pay back the money that was loaned to them in a reasonable amount of time.
No interest rate charges, but pay back 15% per month of what is owed. The banks still make money because they charge for the service of having credit cards.
I think we are in agreement about debt instruments. The shift from private savings to consumerism and debt can be traced directly back to the development of the mislabeled 'credit card'.
But that is not the reason why people work more... your original premise. Prices have risen steadily through inflation while wages have remained constant since 1970.
I thought wages have dropped over the past several years. Which would actually be ok if not for credit card interest rates sapping a bigger bigger chunk of a consumers spendable income.
No debt and lower wages could be doable because the information age has increased efficiency. Some of the Action shows just from the early to mid 90's feel almost comical now because so much importance was placed on reaching a person, place or thing without the benefit of any type of wireless device.
And ironically, no debt would make it easier to invest locally on locally made goods and services, keeping the nationalistas out of the action on a greater scale.
People make products and talk others into buying them because they need money. If some of the money drive went away, a good amount of production would also go away which really is not a bad thing so long as everyone is getting the essentials to live comfy.
Then there is the government which makes work for people so that they have a job and don't starve. Best example is the defense industry.
all things come from the system, and all things affect it....
GOOD NEWS! They found your ice....
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/antarctic-ice-area-sets-another-record-nsidc-is-silent/
Here's what the actual scientists are saying:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0921/While-Arctic-melts-Antarctic-ice-hits-record.-Is-warming-debunked
Excellent scientific rebuttal.
yeah this latest denier crap had only recently been addressed by the serious folks....
Depressing how much MSM stills gives deniers equal time when the evidence, & scientists is so obviously supports climate change.
Stay strong.
The weather will cause them to cover it in time, but it will be too late, if Nader couldn't get behind Gore, we really don't have much hope on this issue.....
Looks like the finial numbers are in a 18% shattering of the record set in 2007, I wonder if cons ever take a step back and think of all the facts they have to ignore to hold on to their beliefs?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Again, the good news is, that all your Arctic melting has been FREEZING solid in the Antarctic. It's almost like the earth's climate moves around....or some weird scientific thing....
From an article in the Christian Science Monitor; "But if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year — or the mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really happening." http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0921/While-Arctic-melts-Antarctic-ice-hits-record.-Is-warming-debunked
First off, AGAIN, I didn't say that global warming wasn't happening. This entire thread has been centered on ICE-how much vs how little etc and has included everything from the reflective quality of ice to obtaining ice core sample. I'm ONLY saying that if "factsrfun's" point is that losing ICE in large amounts is a reason to panic, then GROWING ice in large amounts it a good thing...right?
The "real scientist" in the article you linked to says that the hole in the ozone layer is responsible for making the Antarctic so cold and growing the ice there, and he likes to rely on climate MODELS..which we all know have limitations and flaws. And yet here's an article saying that the Antarctic Peninsula is "one of the most rapidly warming places on earth". http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/08/antarctic-peninsula-warming-natural-variability-of-global-warming/
It also says that much more study needs to be done to understand WHY and HOW our climate works. THAT is one area that scientists can ALL agree on-that we simply do not know and understand ALL the influences on our environment and atmosphere and that we need a LOT more information and research in order to do that.
I think the pertinent question is; Does the gain exceed or balance the loss, wouldn't you think?
more voo doo science eh? well since it';s been well establish you are just a full of shit liar i guess you have nothin g to say about how stupid your previous statements sound now the the record has been broken by 20% back when you were claiming .07% remember those days?
First, you'll have to attack the scientists who did the study and the actual AMOUNT of Antarctic ice there now is and prove "voodoo" is at play.
Second, YOUR opinion that I am a liar-despite huge amounts of evidence proving I'm not-is irrelevant to the FACTS.
Third-I even told you that if my math was flawed, I was perfectly willing to use your math.
Fourth-address the issue at hand-WHY is there a record amount of ice in the ANTARCTIC and WHY aren't you excited and dancing to hear about it? Isn't that GOOD NEWS?
We have been over this liar, remember when you were all "but it's only 33 years" when you knew damn well we have many more years than that, you are here to lie not discuss, and yes when 99.99% of the scientists call bull shit, well it's bull shit, you come here to spread lies and nothing else.
Remember when you said the record had only been broken by .07%? another lie!
People here can read for themselves. I said the numbers in the article referred to a RECORD that had ONLY BEEN KEPT (recorded...ya know) for 33 years. YOU insist on lying over and over again about what I actually said even AFTER I clarified it repeatedly. Your continuing with this line of argument only proves you either want to continue to lie, OR you have no reading comprehension.
Same thing with the math number.
I guess you have no scientific answers and are left with what amounts to playground retorts.
You came into the thread with a completely disingenuous comment and you knew it at the time I have already reposted it and explained your insidious lie, now that, what you are has been discovered you want to cover yourself in the pretense of logic when in fact your only purpose is to distort the record, to continue to deny the reality of climate change just illustrates how perverted your positions are, this is continued other places where you give credit to the GOP for things they fought tooth and nail against.
Nope. I came into this thread to highlight the facts established IN the very article you linked to in the OP. Period. That YOU saw that as a reason to launch a witch hunt which led nowhere...and still does, is your problem.
Please produce ONE post where I "have denied the reality of climate change". You can't, because I don't. But I can show you post after post where I SAY that I am not denying climate change and that I believe that humans DO impact the climate. My point-the one you hate with every fiber of your being-is that science exposes and reveals that OTHER THINGS also impact the climate and HAVE done so thousands and millions of years before humans were part of the equation.
How long will you continue to DENY and attempt to "pervert" the reality that there are other HUGE factors involved in our climate besides just human activity? How long will you continue to pervert and deny the fact that almost ALL scientists, no matter what side of the debate they stand on, WILL ADMIT that we don't know enough and that we need to do MORE research on EVERYTHING impacting our climate?
When you want to talk about facts, data, and actual evidence let me know. Your overemotional, accusatory, assumptions are tedious and so nothing to make you any more credible.
Where did you get your PhD in climatology from?
Here's a fact for you the Arctic ice is melting.
There was nothing "factual" about you pretending to think we had been studying this for only 33 years, and claiming some reporter was the blame is just lame.
But your premise is that because we don't know everything, we should do nothing. Every time you address global warming, it is the same old, same old, do nothing and have faith that it will correct itself.
So in a sense, you are denying we have problem. Flirting with the edges just creates enough doubt to keep us moving in the same direction. I don't know what is worst, people who flat out deny it is getting hotter or those who acknowledge it is getting hotter but refuse to take responsibility.
No, you ASSUME that my "premise" is that we should do nothing. Many times when I address global warming issues here I have AGREED that we need to reduce pollution, take care of our planet, and seek better alternatives. But those responses from me are always ignored and my supposed "premises" are bestowed upon me by strangers.
I object to taking action based on computer models whose projections 10+ years ago FAIL to match what actually happened. I object to spending millions of dollars on "ideas" that might cause further destruction down the road because we "didn't know" that one of the Earth's systems would react a certain way because we hadn't studied it or researched it enough before we acted.
REACTING in a panic and spending billions of dollars implementing "what we think/hope will work" is NOT acting responsibly. And being cautionary and thorough is not being irresponsible just because YOU or someone else THINKS it is.
Ranting and raving on an internet forum that "WE MUST DO SOMETHING" might make someone feel like they are doing something useful, but to me it equates with what you accuse me of-"the same old same old, doing nothing, and having faith that" someone else will come along and "correct it" for you.
MY bad, it is that when you post, or the posts that I have read, makes me believe you have a tendency to put holes in the argument for doing something constructive to combat Global Warming. Maybe I'm not informed enough about your stance to have an opinion on what motivates you, again sorry.
Also, the part about the computer models is a valid concern.
But to say that I'm not mindful of my carbon footprint is to make the same assumptions about me.
I cannot thank you enough for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. I try very hard to only "put holes" in arguments if those arguments are susceptible to those holes. It seems the only ones who respond are the ones who want everyone else to ignore those flaws and weaknesses and attacking me is a convenient distraction for doing that.
I never said that you are not mindful of your carbon footprint, nor did I assume you are. I believe that even those who "rant and rave" are aware of their own carbon footprints, and they may be doing all they can to reduce their own affect on the planet. I'm ALL FOR THAT. I don't drive an SUV, my family conserves water and electricity as a matter of habit, and we plant and care for as much "green" life as we can. We don't litter, we participate in our community's recycling program (which is optional) and we re-purpose a lot of things. We also save money and store up on essentials so that in the case of economic turmoil-our own or the country's-we will not be a burden on the limited resources that will be available.
But because I advocate for as much intelligent, well researched, scientific data as possible to come forward BEFORE we go "changing the planet"-AGAIN-I'm automatically, and predictably, labeled a gas loving, corporate bedfellow who hates both the planet and my fellow human beings. This predictable and automatic reaction goes against all definitions of logical, tolerant, critical thought etc that are available to society and is obviously counter productive to constructive discussions and eventual solutions.
So why doesn't anyone here take a stand against THAT?
Very well stated. Even though I like to poke fun at Conservatives, i know that deep down they believe they are doing what is best. I can't speak for everyone, but I do understand this simple truth. Most people want to do what is right.
Acknowledgement of that beautiful, simple truth, is what brings people together, allows compromise, and creates an atmosphere in which valid, respectful solutions can be brought about.
When people openly vilify and accuse entire groups of people of being evil, or stupid, or greedy or wanting to do what is wrong simply because those people don't fall into lock step with everything they are, or personally feel or think or agree with- it's like holding up a New Jersey sized neon sign declaring "I'm narrow minded, bigoted, uninformed and agenda driven".
And the more they try to accuse their opponent of being all those things and more-the brighter the sign they are holding gets.
uh oh...better run for high ground. Yet another chicken little liberal shrieking "the world is ending". Crying like little bitches. Imagining they will soon be standing on their rooftop to avoid the high water from melting snow
Boo hoo....
thanks for the bump