Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Global warming in a nutshell.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

    Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
    97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
    First of all, that 97% came from something like 77 out of 79 responses.
    Second, there are 3 main centers that track global temperature: GISS, NOAA, and the Met center. Whatever data these 3 centers put out are what the thousands of climate scientists around the world work with. If they put out shit, those thousands of scientists will work with the shit thinking it's correct.
    Third, what percentage of global warming is caused by humans?

    ?


    • #77
      Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

      Originally posted by kramer View Post
      First of all, that 97% came from something like 77 out of 79 responses.
      Second, there are 3 main centers that track global temperature: GISS, NOAA, and the Met center. Whatever data these 3 centers put out are what the thousands of climate scientists around the world work with. If they put out shit, those thousands of scientists will work with the shit thinking it's correct.
      Third, what percentage of global warming is caused by humans?
      On point one
      That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.



      Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

      Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

      "Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

      Doran 2009

      Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.


      poll_scientists.gif
      Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

      Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

      "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

      Anderegg 2010

      This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

      Consensus_publications.gif

      Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).
      Vision Prize


      The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.
      VisionParticipants.jpg

      Figure 3: Vision Prize participant affiliations and fields

      As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.

      Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).

      Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

      The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Astronomical Society
      American Chemical Society
      American Geophysical Union
      American Institute of Physics
      American Meteorological Society
      American Physical Society
      Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
      British Antarctic Survey
      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Environmental Protection Agency
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union
      European Physical Society
      Federation of American Scientists
      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
      Geological Society of America
      Geological Society of Australia
      Geological Society of London
      International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
      Royal Meteorological Society
      Royal Society of the UK

      The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

      Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
      Royal Society of Canada
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Academie des Sciences (France)
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
      Indian National Science Academy
      Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
      Science Council of Japan
      Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      Academy of Science of South Africa
      Royal Society (United Kingdom)
      National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

      A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

      "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

      The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

      African Academy of Sciences
      Cameroon Academy of Sciences
      Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
      Kenya National Academy of Sciences
      Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
      Nigerian Academy of Sciences
      l'Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal
      Uganda National Academy of Sciences
      Academy of Science of South Africa
      Tanzania Academy of Sciences
      Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
      Zambia Academy of Sciences
      Sudan Academy of Sciences

      Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

      Australian Academy of Science
      Royal Society of New Zealand
      Polish Academy of Sciences

      ?


      • #78
        Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

        Originally posted by kramer View Post
        First of all, that 97% came from something like 77 out of 79 responses.
        Second, there are 3 main centers that track global temperature: GISS, NOAA, and the Met center. Whatever data these 3 centers put out are what the thousands of climate scientists around the world work with. If they put out shit, those thousands of scientists will work with the shit thinking it's correct.
        Third, what percentage of global warming is caused by humans?
        On Point two:
        So you are now accusing the main centers of lying together

        Figure 2: Temperature data (with a 12-month running average) before and after the exogeneous factor removal
        FR11_Figure8.jpg
        Figure 3: Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)
        You are now saying this is a huge conspiracy... Boy take off the Tin hat...
        Where is your proof.


        On Point three:
        Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

        As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
        Carbon_Cycle.gif
        Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

        But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

        Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

        The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

        ?


        • #79
          Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

          Originally posted by kramer View Post
          I'm not skeptical of the science of gravity. I'm not skeptical of pretty much all of fields of science and I speak for the vast majority of conservatives of this. Nice try though...

          I'm skeptical of climate science because it's weak (read the climategate emails for starters) and the solutions to it are global government, redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor nations and within nations as well, global management of natural resources, much more control over our lives, and a drastic reduction in our lifestyle. In short, the solutions to AGW are a liberals wet dream. And there is nothing more than I want to do than to totally fuck the left by exposing the flaws and weaknesses of climate science.

          By the way, I don't dispute that CO2 is a warming gas, that we have added CO2 to the atmosphere, and that the world has warmed. I'm skeptical that the warming that has occurred is mainly from humans and also about the vast claims of catastrophe from global warming.
          A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

          In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

          In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called trick1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

          In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRUs "Professor Joness actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

          In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

          In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

          In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists rigor and honesty are not in doubt".

          In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

          In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

          In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

          In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

          Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.
          "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline"

          The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

          "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."

          "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

          The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...
          Trenberth's "travesty we can't account for the lack of warming"

          The second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Trenberth is actually discussing a paper he'd recently published that discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going (Trenberth 2009).

          In Trenberth's paper, he discusses how we know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, surface temperature sometimes shows short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system. More on Trenberth's travesty...
          The full body of evidence for man-made global warming

          An important point to realise is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.

          What do they find? The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all the heat building in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to melt glaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air.

          This build-up of heat is causing ice loss across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerated rate (Velicogna 2009, ). Even East Antarctica, previously thought to be too cold and stable, is now losing ice mass (Chen 2009). Glacier shrinkage is accelerating. Arctic sea ice has fallen so sharply, observations exceed even the IPCC worst case scenario. The combination of warming oceans and melting ice has resulted in sea level rise tracking the upper limit of IPCC predictions.

          Rising temperatures have impacted animal and plant species worldwide. The distribution of tree lines, plants and many species of animals are moving into cooler regions towards the poles. As the onset of spring is happening earlier each year, animal and plant species are responding to the shift in seasons. Scientists observe that frog breeding, bird nesting, flowering and migration patterns are all occurring earlier in the year (Parmeson 2003). There are many other physical signs of widespread warming. The height of the tropopause, a layer in our atmosphere, is rising (Santer 2003). Arctic permafrost, covering about 25% of Northern Hemisphere land, is warming and degrading (Walsh 2009). The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007). These results are all consistent with global warming.

          Whats causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find more heat returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the human fingerprint in global warming.

          There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanitys role in global warming.

          ?


          • #80
            Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
            On Point two:
            So you are now accusing the main centers of lying together

            Figure 3: Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)
            You are now saying this is a huge conspiracy... Boy take off the Tin hat...
            Where is your proof.
            First of all, I said whatever they put out is what the world's climate scientists work with. I never said they are lying together. But it is possible.
            As for the possibility of "shit" data, there has been data adjustments going on for quite some time. And in most cases, the older data ends up being colder than what they measured and the newer data ends up being warmer than what they measured. For example:



            'Scientists' faked or used incomplete data in something like 80% of the ozone measurements. The same kind of fraud could be going on with climate science. For example, we've seen a climate scientist saying they have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, Mann's hockey stick uses questionable math, and Phil Jones lost temperature data that he used.

            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
            On Point three:
            Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years.

            And notice from the following graph that the CO2 is fairly stable while rising a bit and the temperature is all over the map. There is NO correlation between temperature and CO2 from this graph.


            And if you look at VOSTOK ice core data of temp and CO2, you'll notice that the temperature changes hundreds of years BEFORE the CO2 changes. Al Gore "conveniently" used this ice core data in his error-ridden propaganda movie to fool the ignoratii into thinking CO2 drives temperature with that much power.

            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
            As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
            [ATTACH=CONFIG]13553[/ATTACH]
            Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
            But for a longer time (500 million years), CO2 was many times higher than it was today and not only did we NOT go into a Venus like condition, when Co2 was high, temps were low and when Co2 was low, temps were high. Today's CO2 levels compared with the past 500 million years are abnormally low.


            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
            But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere,
            For how long?


            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
            and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

            Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle.
            So what? CO2 is plant and tree food. The more we put in the air (up to a point), the more plants and trees grow and the more food we get.

            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
            Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet.
            I do not disagree that the extra CO2 is warming the planet. I disagree with how much it is warming.


            Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
            The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
            I agree with this.

            I await your canned answers from Skeptical Science...

            ?


            • #81
              Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

              Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
              A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

              In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

              In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called trick1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

              In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRUs "Professor Joness actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

              In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

              In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

              In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists rigor and honesty are not in doubt".

              In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

              In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".

              In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

              In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
              Those were whitewashes and several of those panels have people on them tied to Big Carbon. And those panels DID NOT read all those emails because if they did, they would have come to a different conclusion.




              Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
              Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.
              There was falsification of ozone data. And there is evidence that there may be falsification of temperature data.


              Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
              "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline"

              The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

              "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."

              "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

              The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...

              Here's what recently converted skeptic (ha ha ha) Muller had to say about hide the decline:
              Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - YouTube



              Did you happen to see the climategate 2 email where a scientist says he generated a bunch of random numbers in Excel and plugged them into a program (I think the same one Mann used for his hockey stick graph) and it generated a hockey stick. Then he writes that this is what McIntyre is going on about.


              I await your canned Skeptical Science answers. I'm going to go there now to get a heads up on what you are going to copy and paste in reply to me.

              ?


              • #82
                Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

                Well, and then there's this:

                Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Forbes

                Granted, a single ice increase a glaciation doesn't make. But doesn't that fly directly in the face of global climate change, and what's supposed to happen?

                ?


                • #83
                  Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

                  Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                  Well, and then there's this:

                  Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Forbes

                  Granted, a single ice increase a glaciation doesn't make. But doesn't that fly directly in the face of global climate change, and what's supposed to happen?
                  More Crap science from the Deniers....

                  Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.

                  Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

                  In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months.

                  In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between antarctic and arctic sea ice exists. Arctic sea ice lasts all the year round, there are increases during the winter months and decreases during the summer months but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

                  SeaIce.jpg
                  Figure 1: Coverage of sea ice in both the Arctic (Top) and Antarctica (Bottom) for both summer minimums and winter maximums
                  Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

                  One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

                  i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

                  and

                  ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain, glacial run-off and snowfall. This changes the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea ice (Zhang 2007).

                  All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

                  ?


                  • #84
                    Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

                    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                    as i said, gettin' sustainable and clean energy be a benefit, in and of itself. sorta like eatin' yer greens and exercisin' - be good, in and of itself.
                    Hey MeadHallPirate, was it good for Spain? Let's see below:


                    September 24, 2009:
                    Spain's Answer to Unemployment: Go Greener

                    [Spain] is already a leader in renewable fuels through $30 billion in public support and has been cited by the Obama administration as a model for the creation of a green economy. Spain generates about 24.5 percent of its electricity through renewable sources, compared with about 7 percent in the United States.

                    . . .

                    Through a combination of new laws and public and private investment, officials estimate that they can generate a million green jobs over the next decade. The plan would increase domestic demand for alternative energy by having the government help pay the bill -- but also by compelling millions of Spaniards to go green, whether they like it or not.

                    . . .

                    In the short term, officials say, the renewable-energy projects and refurbishing of buildings and homes for energy efficiency could redeploy up to 80 percent of the million construction workers here who lost their jobs in 2008. [What happens to those construction workers when all the buildings are retrofitted? Do they re-retrofit them??...]

                    . . .

                    The streets of Madrid and other cities are being dug up and repaved in a short-term government effort to offer temporary work to the unemployed. [That answers my question on re-retrofitting buildings after they've been retrofiftted. Gotta love leftist 'economics']

                    "And what do we do when the roadwork runs out?" Jos? Luis Salazar Garc?a, 32, said as he installed terra-cotta tiles on a Madrid sidewalk in a government-funded job. "There are no other jobs in Spain."

                    The country's answer is to go greener.

                    . . .

                    Because alternative-energy plants are more expensive than traditional power plants that burn fossil fuels, the government here has made green generation profitable by promising big subsidies for years to come. Though most Spaniards have so far seen only modest increases in their electricity bills, even government officials are warning that prices might suddenly jump in the coming years as more of the real costs are passed on to consumers.

                    In the meantime, some power distributors in Spain have converted their government guarantees for higher-than-market energy prices into complex financial instruments, then sold them off to the highest bidders in a manner similar to the repackaging of subprime mortgages in the United States. [WTF!!!??] If the government doesn't make good on those guarantees, critics fear, the securities could suddenly devalue, soaking the investors who hold them. [DOES IT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS??? This is a frigging clusterdemocrat! I couldn't have made this up if I tried...] ](*,)


                    Spain's Answer to Unemployment: Go Greener

                    So how did MeadHallPirate's plan for American work out in Spain since 2009?:

                    From the BBC, April 2012:
                    Spanish unemployment hits record 5.64 million


                    Spanish unemployment has hit a new record high, official figures have shown.

                    The number of unemployed people reached 5,639,500 at the end of March, with the unemployment rate hitting 24.4%, the national statistics agency said.

                    . . .

                    Spanish retail sales were down 3.7% in March from the same point a year ago, the 21st month in row sales have fallen.

                    . . .

                    The country has the highest unemployment rate in the European Union and it is expected to rise further this year.

                    . . .

                    "Spain is in a crisis of huge proportions,"

                    BBC News - Spanish unemployment hits record 5.64 million
                    Lights Go Out In Spain As Cuts Plunge Highways Into Dark
                    By Ben Sills - May 11, 2012 1:36 AM PT


                    Cars went barreling along the highway in darkness, ferrying families from Madrid to the beaches of Catalonia during the Easter holiday season, the black stalks of unlit streetlamps flicking past their windows. Truck drivers honked angrily as motorists switched on their full beams to pick out curves in the road, momentarily dazzling oncoming traffic.

                    . . .

                    Public lighting is one of the more visible casualties of the hard times.

                    Lights Go Out in Spain as Cuts Plunge Highways Into Dark - Bloomberg

                    We would be foolish to follow this model.

                    Kramer

                    ?


                    • #85
                      Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

                      Hey :MeadHallPirate, couple of things with your 'source' and it's claims.

                      1) The Union of Concerned (left-wing activist) Scientists have received funding from Rockefeller and the Tides foundation to name a few.
                      Discover the Networks
                      Discover the Networks

                      Rockefeller wealth has ties to the UN (for example, it gave the UN an $8+ million dollar plot of land around 1946 for the UN building and the Tides foundation has ties to george Soros).

                      2) Several of those 'independent' panels had members who had ties to big carbon (pro-green organizations).


                      Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                      all this "climategate" stuff be much ado 'bout nothin'....
                      So you read all the incriminating emails yourself or did you take the words of the leftist MSM and/or the packed "independent' climategate panels?


                      Did you for example read the email where a fellow scientist says that he used Excel to generate a bunch of random numbers and plugged them in the code and it spit out a hockey stick graph? Think that's bogus?...






                      Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                      it hardly ranks gettin' the "gate" moniker that Watergate so richly deserved.
                      It deserves it. I'll guess I'll have to post some of the emails for your enlightenment?...



                      Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                      furthermore, ye were a spirited AGW skeptic long before these hacked emails came to light, and even though the controversy regardin' them hath been completelyl debunked, that doesn't get any traction with AGW deniers (and i understand that - ye be a devout disbeliever, and thats fine with me).
                      I'm a disbeliever regarding the claims about the amount of warming they say and the consequences. And I know for a fact that prior to the concerns of global warming, [activist left-wing] scientists at the National Academy of Science were concerned about the West's (America in particular) wasteful use of resources. Oh, and Rockefeller has donated a number of times to the NAS.


                      Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                      i wanted to say, though, that hoppin' into threads like these and steadfastly repeatin' the word "climategate" doesn't seem like a very mighty rebuttal.

                      - MeadHallPirate
                      Of course it is. You people were lied to.

                      ?


                      • #86
                        Re: Global warming in a nutshell.

                        Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                        More Crap science from the Deniers....

                        Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
                        This is a bunch of crap bullshit from a conspiratorial leftwing site. The ice mass in the Antarctic has been increasing.

                        SCAR ISMASS Workshop, July 14, 2012 Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

                        H. Jay Zwally'. Jun Li', John Robbins2, Jack 1. Saba2, Donghui Yi', Anita Brenner', and David Bromwich4

                        Abstract
                        During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements ofelevation change.

                        http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2012013235.pdf

                        GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL052559

                        Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA).

                        Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
                        Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice- sheet interior north of 81.6-S increased in mass by 45 T 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003.

                        http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/121648main_ais2.pdf


                        Originally posted by CowboyTed via SkepticalScience View Post


                        One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

                        i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

                        Really? The ozone layer above the Arctic dropped to unprecdented low levels in 2011, why didn't the Arctic get colder and grow more ice?:
                        Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011

                        . . .

                        ozone destruction over the Arctic in early 2011 wasfor the first time in the observational recordcomparable to that in the Antarctic ozone hole. Unusually long-lasting cold conditions in the Arctic lower stratosphere led to persistent enhancement in ozone-destroying forms of chlorine and to unprecedented ozone loss, which exceeded 80 per cent over 1820 kilometres altitude. Our results show that Arctic ozone holes are possible even with temperatures much milder than those in the Antarctic.

                        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10556.html
                        And how come the Arctic ozone hole grew? I thought the Montreal Protocol that phased out CFC's was supposed to stop ozone holes from getting bigger or forming?



                        Originally posted by CowboyTed via SkepticalScience View Post
                        All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure.
                        I agree. However, if the Antarctic sea ice is getting larger every year, that means it's getting colder every year.

                        Originally posted by CowboyTed via SkepticalScience View Post
                        In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
                        Why the West Antarctic? Probably because much of that ice sits atop land with volcanic activity:

                        ScienceDaily (Mar. 4, 2008) The West Antarctic rift is a region of volcanic activity and crustal stretching that is roughly the size of the western United States (from Salt Lake City to the Pacific Ocean).

                        Could Volcanic Activity In West Antarctic Rift Destabilize Ice Sheet?
                        Could these volcanos melt the ice and cause the ice to move faster to the sea?:
                        First Evidence Of Under-Ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica
                        ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2008) The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet has been reported. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active.

                        . . .

                        The subglacial volcano has a 'volcanic explosion index' of around 3-4. Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid change and BAS scientists are part of an international research effort to understand this change.

                        First Evidence Of Under-ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica

                        Kramer

                        ?

                        Working...
                        X