Ha ha ha, common sense. Your fridge stopped working at the very time you were playing naked with your upside down pogo stick, so uh common sense would dictate it's your fault right?

If after millions of years, the thickest and toughest sea ice is only now (at the height of human influence on the environment)beginning to melt, it seems common sense to infer that human activity is largely, if not completely, to blame for the phenomena.

Is there any evidence that the part that is melting now is millions of years old? I don't think so. According to Zat we have climatology records for ~400 kyrs. If the earth was a day old, that is about 8 seconds worth. What kind of idiot wants to make assumptions of the temperature range of 24 hours based on 8 seconds worth of observations?

A: People who pretend to know everything, but like the rest of us, do not.

Please stand by while Zat makes his list of hot years and wishes us all a happy extinction.

"Please stand by while Zat makes his list of hot years and wishes us all a happy extinction."

Oh, shit! If Zat's on his way here, I'm splittin'. I've been bombarded for a good part of the day by the Obamaniacs and can't take a global warming wacko at this point.

If after millions of years, the thickest and toughest sea ice

You should read the article, m8. They say 1 - 6 years, perrenial ice. You say millions of years.

Using satellites that measure how much ice covers water in the Arctic and Antarctic, Meier and other climate scientists found a steep drop in the amount of perennial ice -- the hardy, thick ice that is over a year old -- in the north.

The oldest Arctic ice that has survived six years or more is the toughest, and even that shrank dramatically, Meier and the other scientists said.

Not to harp on the Arctic ice cap's age, but your statement, M8, made me wonder how old it really is which made me realize that it is not possible to have arctic ice that old.

Remember, unlike Antarctic ice, arctic ice is floating. That is why if the arctic ice caps melt the sea level will not rise. (the weight of the floating ice obviously displaces its own weight in water. Mark the level in a glass of ice water. After the ice melts, look at the level. It is the same) Anyway, as new ice forms more of the cap is forced down into the sea. There it slowly melts and is eroded by currents.

I want global warming so I'm gonna release all the carbon I can and you guys can reduce all you want.

I want global warming so I'm gonna release all the carbon I can and you guys can reduce all you want.

POSTED BY SHIRTSBYERIC AT 2008-03-18 07:20 PM | REPLY

I agree. Fuck everyone else.
As long as I'm coming clean, I'm also the guy that pisses on the toilet seat in public restrooms. I'm also the guy that throws my paper towel on the restroom floor instead of the garbage can. I'm most definitely the guy that wipes the boogers on the bathroom wall. Flush a healthy shit...Never (at least not in a public restroom)!

I'm sure many of you are shocked that I care so little for my fellow man, but I could care fucking less what you pussies think...

I'm going to go wet some toilet paper and throw it on the ceiling, I'll be right back.

Well as long as the think part stays frozen, we're okay.

Thickest Artic Ice Melting

So we're doomed in about 500,000 years?

Hope I can sleep tonight 'cause this is right at the top of my list of worries.

Mark the level in a glass of ice water. After the ice melts, look at the level. It is the same

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-18 05:48 PM | Reply

Actually, water is at its most dense in a liquid state, so as the ice melts, the level will go down.

This means that melting ice caps will not raise the sea level, but make it recede. Anyone with beach-front property will get a bigger yard.

In case any newcomers are here, 101 is not kidding. He purports to have been a paratrooper - I think - and this is what the service does to you. You're not just pussies, but wimps and traitors too. herm

agree. Fuck everyone else.
As long as I'm coming clean, I'm also the guy that pisses on the toilet seat in public restrooms. I'm also the guy that throws my paper towel on the restroom floor instead of the garbage can. I'm most definitely the guy that wipes the boogers on the bathroom wall. Flush a healthy shit...Never (at least not in a public restroom)!

I'm sure many of you are shocked that I care so little for my fellow man, but I could care fucking less what you pussies think...

I'm going to go wet some toilet paper and throw it on the ceiling, I'll be right back.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-03-18 07:28 PM

Actually, water is at its most dense in a liquid state, so as the ice melts, the level will go down

Not true, Vernon. Anything that floats -- regardless of its density -- displaces its own weight in water. Since ice weighs as much frozen as solid, when it melts, the water it displaced will be replaced with its own water in a liquid state.

Try my experiment if you don't believe me.

Vern also forgot to account for ice currently above sea level melting. Must be that calculator again.

Vern also forgot to account for ice currently above sea level melting. Must be that calculator again.

In case any newcomers are here, 101 is not kidding. He purports to have been a paratrooper - I think - and this is what the service does to you. You're not just pussies, but wimps and traitors too. herm

goddam -- at least he's got a sense of humor, herm. Lighten up!

Vern also forgot to account for ice currently above sea level melting

Exactly -- since ice is less dense than liquid water, part of it is above waterlevel. Yet it still has the same mass.

Actually, water is at its most dense in a liquid state, so as the ice melts, the level will go down.

This is true only if you had the ice artificially submerged as in held down with a wire. Otherwise, you fail to consider the ice above the water (which also melts) as Danforth noted.

Mark the level in a glass of ice water. After the ice melts, look at the level. It is the same

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-18 05:48 PM | Reply

Actually, water is at its most dense in a liquid state, so as the ice melts, the level will go down.

This means that melting ice caps will not raise the sea level, but make it recede. Anyone with beach-front property will get a bigger yard.

Posted by vernon at 2008-03-18 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hey You two fucking scholars....Try this.. Fill a glass up to the top with water and hold an ice cube over it till it melts.... where does the water go as it melts???

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!

Signed,

The DR Lefties.

Believe me, history will eventually expose the "Global Warming" croud of today as the "Earth is Flat" croud from many centuries ago.

Fill a glass up to the top with water and hold an ice cube over it till it melts.... where does the water go as it melts???

Into the water, of course. But this isn't a valid analogy unless of course you are suggesting that the arctic ice cap is being held above the arctic sea.

(it's not)

Believe me, history will eventually expose the "Global Warming" croud of today as the "Earth is Flat" croud from many centuries ago

And the Y2K scare only 8 years ago. How easily we forget how easily we are scared to pissing our pants.

Sorry, my bad. Croud = Crowd

Fill a glass up to the top with water and hold an ice cube over it till it melts.... where does the water go as it melts???

And that means what? The Artic ice is not being held over the ocean, it's sitting in it.

The point is.... Not all Ice is actually floating in the ocean...

The point is.... Not all Ice is actually floating in the ocean...

The article is about arctic ice. I made it clear I was talking about arctic ice. Arctic ice is mostly floating.

But there's one thing all you global warming folks never talk about and kind person that I am, I will give you another talking point and something for us all to fear and wring our hands about. Here's a bone for you:

The coastal flooding done by the extra water in the ocean from melting ice caps is nothing compared to the extra volume the water itself takes up due to thermal expansion.

You're welcome

Vern also forgot to account for ice currently above sea level melting.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-03-18 08:06 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter, if it's floating in the water

Anything that floats -- regardless of its density -- displaces its own weight in water.

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-18 08:04 PM | Reply

I believe you Goat. I just thought it would be fun to suggest that melting polar ice would have the opposite effect than what the fearmongers are always bleating about.

The coastal flooding done by the extra water in the ocean from melting ice caps is nothing compared to the extra volume the water itself takes up due to thermal expansion.

You're welcome

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-18 08:41 PM


Except that water expands when it gets COLD. When it gets hot it turns into steam or evaporates. Learn something new every day.

;-)

And the Y2K scare only 8 years ago. How easily we forget how easily we are scared to pissing our pants.

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-18 08:26 PM |


911 was proof of that. When you use "we"--speak for yourself.

Except that water expands when it gets COLD.

LOL. But what do I expect from someone who denies Newtonian orbital mechanics and basic geometry.

All liquids contract when they get cold bob. Without exception. Ever wonder why a thermometer behaves the way it does?

I suggested once you read a book on basic physics so you don't make yourself look more stupid than you already appear with your conspiracies. Your last post underscores this suggestion.

Mark the level in a glass of ice water. After the ice melts, look at the level. It is the same

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-18 05:48 PM | Reply

If the ice weren't on land you'd be right. But it is, so you're not...Rush.

When it gets hot it turns into steam or evaporates. Learn something new every day.

And steam has more volume (2200x) than water. So even though you are mixing apples and oranges (liquids vs gas) I am still correct. Steam has more volume than liquid water and it is hotter.

Learn something new everytday. No charge for this basic physics lesson, bob. It's free

If the ice weren't on land you'd be right. But it is, so you're not...Rush.

Alex, alex, alex. Read the thread before you retort -- specifically my 8:21. I adressed this. This thread addresses arctic ice. It is mostly floating.

If you want to talk about antarctic ice, feel free to interject with whatever pertains . . . rush.

I do enjoy seeing your knee jerk right on cue, though.

911 was proof of that.

9/11 was proof of Y2K? bob, you are completely out of your gourd -- I mean more so than we ever imagined.

Believe me, history will eventually expose the "Global Warming" croud of today as the "Earth is Flat" croud from many centuries ago

And the Y2K scare only 8 years ago. How easily we forget how easily we are scared to pissing our pants

The polar ice cap is melting and you morons are still denying the existence of global warming?

Wow, just wow.

Do you have any idea why 5 year olds are laffing at you at this point?

Global Warming deniers are the new Flat Earthers.

Be Well.

Goatman,

It TRUELY pains me to say that in this rare instance, BBob is correct.

Water takes up more volume as ice than it does as water. H2O is odd like that.

Goatman- "mostly" floating?

Well then you're only "mostly" right. And correct me if I'm wrong, but without the ice there, even if it is all floating, the water heats up faster...

But let's be honest. Maybe two dozen people on the internet actually give a shit about this topic.

Goatman,

It TRUELY pains me to say that in this rare instance, BBob is correct.

Water takes up more volume as ice than it does as water. H2O is odd like that.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-03-18 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, he's right. Try putting a slurpee(ice-e whatever) in the freezer and see what happens.

All liquids contract when they get cold bob. Without exception.

Not true Goatman.

Simple experiment. Get an ice tray. Fill it with water just below the rim of the cubicles. Now freeze it and check the level of the ice cube tops. You will find that they are higher than the the level of the water.

H2O is unique in the fact that water expands as it freezes. This is due to the shape of the molecule, and it also explains why ice floats on liquid water. It is because as it expands it becomes less dense (same mass, larger volume).

Water takes up more volume as ice than it does as water. H2O is odd like that.

Of course it takes up more volume as ice. It floats. duh.

And as I said above, Alex, you need to read the posts before you respond. If you read my 9:23, you'll see that I referred to liquids. Ice is not a liquid.

Water contracts when it gets cold. When it freezes (turns into a solid -- ice) it expands. You and bob are wrong about water expanding when it gets cold. Sorry you believed him, Alex. I thought you were smarter than that.

I don't have to go any further than my kitchen to prove that. If I fill my teapot to the top, it will start to overflow as it gets hotter. Even if I did not know this little bit of HS physics, I have personally observed it and can say undoubtedly that you and bob are wrong.

9:23=9:32 sorry

The polar ice caps are melting for the first time in recorded human history and some wingnuts are taking this as proof that Global Warming is bunk?

Seriously do you have the first idea how absolutely batshit crazy that sounds?

Of course not, the first rule of Crazy in the Big Book of Crazy is the fact that Crazy folks ae the last to figure out the fact that they are crazy.

The right are so heavily invested in the notion that Global Warming is some kind of hoax that they have lost all sense of reason.

We are sooooo fucked as a species it's not even funny.

Be Well.

Water density increases as it cools to about 4 degrees centigrade, then it starts expanding.

Simple experiment. Get an ice tray. Fill it with water just below the rim of the cubicles. Now freeze it and check the level of the ice cube tops. You will find that they are higher than the the level of the water.

mooman: liquid vs solids.

The liquid form of water behaves as all liquids. It contracts when it gets cold, expands when it gets hot. However, when it freezes, it is, as Alex said, unusual. It expands. But when it freezes, it is no longer liquid, right?

I am talking about liquids.

Fill a Dasani bottle up with hot water with no air head space. Put it in the fridge (not freezer). see how the bottle and its contents have contracted after it chilled. Do this tonight and get back with me tomorrow.

Or do the tea kettle thing I described above. Fill one all the way to the top. Put it on the stove. It will start spilling over long before it starts boiling.

Water contracts when it gets cold. When it freezes (turns into a solid -- ice) it expands.

Water starts to expand BEFORE it freezes. The expansion just becomes more much pronounced at the freezing point. Granted, it does contract up until about 4C or 39F... but at that point it starts expanding before it freezes. Arctic liquid water is most likely expanded more than slightly warmer water is.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but without the ice there, even if it is all floating, the water heats up faster...

Yes and no. If clouds were not considered, then Yes because the ice reflects the sunlight. However, with warmer water, there are more clouds. Clouds also reflect sunlight.

This is one of the many unknowns about climatology and why I always say there is not enough known about the science. Is the loss of the ice caps compensated by the extra cloud cover? That is one of the unanswered mysteries of climatology

Water density increases as it cools to about 4 degrees centigrade, then it starts expanding.

Thank you, Yav

For those who don't read between the lines, an increase in density is the same as contraction.

Granted, it does contract up until about 4C or 39F

Yes, I agree. I was talking about its properties in general terms i.e.the full range from freezing to evaporation.

Yes and no. If clouds were not considered, then Yes because the ice reflects the sunlight. However, with warmer water, there are more clouds. Clouds also reflect sunlight.

And of course any cloud cover stays exactly over the area where the ice melted, because wind hasn't been invented in the arctic yet.

For those who don't read between the lines, an increase in density is the same as contraction.

Goatman,

Already stated that. I also made note of the fact that 4C is above the freezing point. Which means water in the Arctic is already expanded before it freezes and takes up more volume than slightly warmer water would.

In addition, add the displacement of the ice, and your assertion about thermal expansion may be canceled out here.

In addition, add the displacement of the ice, and your assertion about thermal expansion may be canceled out here.

I don't think so. (I'll admit I'm getting too tired and drunk to look up the data, so I could be wrong) but most of the world's oceans and seas are well above 4 C. Thermal expansion would be global, not isolated to the arctic.

In addition, add the displacement of the ice, and your assertion about thermal expansion may be canceled out here.

It's not cancelled at all. You have a vast amount of water and it's not all in that magic 4 < x > 0 range. I suspect the total volume and range > 4 dominate that part of the model.

Damn. Didn't wait quit long enough before posting.

quite, not quit. Anyway, you two have at it.

And of course any cloud cover stays exactly over the area where the ice melted, because wind hasn't been invented in the arctic yet.

Silly deflection, Alex. Cloud cover is negligible over the poles since the sun never gets above 23 degrees in the horizon, and even then it is for only a few minutes of the year.

The sun's heating potential is most notable at the equator and tropics, of course where the sun is directly overhead. This is also where increased cloud cover is most likely to happen.

I don't think that temperature applies to the arctic since we are dealing with salt water (lowered freezing and boiling points). For you to have ice caps you have to be dealing with colder water than 0C/32F to freeze. It is reasonable to assume that surrounding water isn't much different in temperature, hence at least somewhat expanded.

I don't think that temperature applies to the arctic since we are dealing with salt water

That's a valid point and other than knowing that salt water freezes at a lower point than fresh water, I'm not familiar with the rest of its properties, so I could not say for sure what its effect would be.

Correction to my temperatures.... 0C/32F although the scale suggest the temperature is also solidly below the 30F mark as well.

Yav,

-2C is 28.4F Not hard to believe that the current water temperature high in the arctic would be within this range based on the water temperature map I provided.

Good link, yav. I do find humor that they thought that 20C was good swimming temp!

A bit off topic: Last month I went to the bi-annual water survival course I am required to go to. Among other things we learn how to get out of a sinking helicopter upside down and how to conserve heat.

I've been to these classes before, but this time they did something interesting. They made us stay in the pool for 4 hours. Usually they let you out of the pool while others are doing the helicopter escape drill. (not fun -- they turn you upside down strapped to a seat and you have to find your way out of the window) Anyway, the water was 88F -- one degree above the average very warm GoM water. When we got in there it was quite warm. But after 4 hours, we were all starting to get chilled. The point they were making is that water, even seemingly warm water, can zap your body heat after time.

It was a good lesson.

It was a good lesson.

Indeed it was. Has to do with the fact that the entire surface area of the body is covered with a material significantly (as far as body temp goes) cooler.

Dangerous stuff when not respected.

"It doesn't matter, if it's floating in the water"

Not all ice above sea level is floating in the water.

It was a good lesson.

No doubt! Your body can't keep producing enough heat to override that kind of sink.

Reminds me of an early motorcycle lesson. You think "ah, warm day. No jacket." After a while I was looking for plastic garbage bags to put on under my clothes. Anything to warm me up enough to get HOME.

Not all ice above sea level is floating in the water.

But the ice in the Arctic Ocean is... which was the topic of this thread via the attached article.

Unless of course you can point to any land masses near the north pole.... maybe the one Santa lives on. ;-)

No doubt! Your body can't keep producing enough heat to override that kind of sink.

I think that was the instructor's exact words.

It was something we all knew, of course, but none of us had ever actually stayed in the water for that long -- 4 hours. The exercises where we all had to get in a huddle and hug each other to conserve body heat didn't seem so "gay" after that! *grin*

Maximum contribution to ocean rise from significant ice sources.

They say 50cm.... or 1'7.7"

That is a far cry from Al Gore's 20' rise.

correction... that is 1'7.7" by 2100.... not total.

Still well off from Messr. Gores predictions.

The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!

Signed,

The DR Lefties

And thirty or so years ago, using the same empirical evidence, we had to listen to dire predictions of global cooling. Remember, our earth's climate is naturally cyclical. The earth goes through periods of warming and periods of cooling directly corresponding with sun activity.

Now the race is on. WHO's going to be the first to drill for oil up there? Certainly NOT the US because of our anti ANWAR gang of tree huggers, ie Sierra Club and Pew Foundation.

It's going to be russia or canada, as the US consistently outsource as much of your energy production as possible...

"As long as I'm coming clean, I'm also the guy that pisses on the toilet seat in public restrooms. I'm also the guy that throws my paper towel on the restroom floor instead of the garbage can. I'm most definitely the guy that wipes the boogers on the bathroom wall. Flush a healthy shit...Never (at least not in a public restroom)!" Posted by GOATMAN

LOL...WAIT!, Plaease WAIT! Let me go first.

"As long as I'm coming clean, I'm also the guy that pisses on the toilet seat in public restrooms. I'm also the guy that throws my paper towel on the restroom floor instead of the garbage can. I'm most definitely the guy that wipes the boogers on the bathroom wall. Flush a healthy shit...Never (at least not in a public restroom)!" Posted by GOATMAN

"Scuse me...that post was by 101CHAIRBORNE...my eyes were so teared up I couldn't see clearly.

In case any newcomers are here, 101 is not kidding. He purports to have been a paratrooper - I think - and this is what the service does to you. You're not just pussies, but wimps and traitors too. herm

Posted by herm at 2008-03-18 07:58 PM | Reply


Seek help. Plenty have had the Chairborne Flu, many have been cured (by "cured" I mean they changed handles).
I have a feeling I did such a number on you that the only thing that will cure you is a toe tag. Fortunately for both of us you've got one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana peel.

"You're not just pussies, but wimps and traitors too. herm"

Poor "mentally challenged" herm. He considers Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan to be great American patriots. That's why he says things like that, Chairborne. That's why he thinks people like you and me are traitors. It's because we don't share his admiration for Rosie O'Donnell and Cindy Sheehan like he does. Just realize that he's a few clowns short of a circus and pity him.

The Arctic ice bridge never formed in 2007, either,the coldest year on record.

I blame the Democrats.

Cause Rush says there's no global climate change.

All those core samples over the years are allowing heat into the cores and melting within.

Great Point! Except that I (and almost all scientists) think that history will eventually expose the "No Global Warming" crowd of today as the "Earth is Flat" croud from many centuries ago. Still, great point!

I'm so pleased! With this fresh and excellent propaganda available, I'm sure The Great Gore will return from his mission saving all the tigers to weigh in on the matter. I'm already practicing reducing my breathing frequency to avoid emitting more evil CO2. I'm so excited. AlGore will return!

What happened to the lawsuit against gore on 'the global warming fraud'?

Why do the Righties hate Science?

Tough when your world view doesn't jibe with logic and data I suppose.

Well, we'll finally secure the benefits of the long sought after Northwest Passage.

And the ice cover elsewhere, particularly the Antarctic is thickening, isn't it?

Regime Change,

I'm no righty, and I am a science teacher, so perhaps you could tell me what "science" you're talking about that's in favor of human-induced global warming?

Or, are you simply referring to the "Scientific Concencus", as revealed to us by The Great Gore?

It's been so long since I've heard from him, I can't even remember exactly what the specific tenets of THe Scientific Concencus are...Could you enlighten me? I'm SO missing THe Great Gore's daily guidance....

This will make Armand Hammer very proud of his bastard son al gore

"Why do the Righties hate Science?" Posted by REGIME_CHANGE

Why do all the Lefties (who hate just about EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY) think that Righties share all that hatred?

"I'm no righty, and I am a science teacher, so perhaps you could tell me what "science" you're talking about that's in favor of human-induced global warming?" Posted by JONRYKER

Oh oh...now he hates you too. He's probably relying on Algore...and Zatoitchi with his scientific, peer-reviewed swimming pool.

Wonder why they didn't mention the sea ice at the South Pole and the fact that is growing at the fastest rate in decades?

JonRyker, just believe. You don't need any information to believe. Once you have had that epiphany, you need not defend Gore-osophy. Just smile and pity the people who have not been enlightened.

He, Gore, shall return and slop at the carbon credit exchange trough. He has a company created for that purpose and is prepared to capitalize on the global warming hysteria.

And people call him a lefty. Hah.

He's ready to plunder. He's a "long con" man as opposed to short con guys. And it is a huge con if he can influence governments to enable this scam. It'll be more enduring and lucrative than "oil for food."

Johnson,

Completely true in all respects, but doesn't that make the greenies not scientific, but religious zealots?

Hitler would certainly have approved.

Seig Heil!

Ryker (Johnson, et al), as I've stated countless times before on this seemingly endless debate, I rely on what the best documented, non industry affiliated, peer reviewed sources tell me, plus I add my common sense. Oh, and I work in saving rain forests, which puts me in contact with a lot of scientists who publish papers on the subject of climate change. Not to mention the climate change I can see myself after working in the jungle for 10 years.

poor spuddy check on mars. me think's thay's a melting as fast as yourn newbie/w doobie just thinking

Beltway column of August 14th, 2007

Cool link ...Jest!

I am a science teacher,

Posted by jonryker at 2008-03-19 12:03 PM |


Then there is hope for some kids ...thank goodness.

"The thickest, oldest and toughest sea ice around the North Pole is melting..."

Yeah, so? Won't all that melted ice water just flow off the sides of the planet anyways?

no sense discussing science with right wingers, they know very little about it, they spend most of their time not learning but rather hunting bears, very often you will see them cutting the arms off of the bears they killed. you see they believe they have the right to bear arms.

remember they were against "gigarettes cause cancer". They were against PCB's are harmfull. Asbestos was a joke to them. Cadmium posioning was a hoax to them. The really bad part is that they are proud of their ignorance. But they do have the right to bear arms.

JonRyker, just believe. You don't need any information to believe--A True Believer

Amen brother! When you got God, you don't need Science!

"Wonder why they didn't mention the sea ice at the South Pole and the fact that is growing at the fastest rate in decades?"
--EVERLONG

Because that would go against talking points.

"Wonder why they didn't mention the sea ice at the South Pole and the fact that is growing at the fastest rate in decades?"
--EVERLONG

Because that would go against talking points.

If you don't understand how hilariously self-retorting that is, you don't know the problem with the original statement's premise.

Perhaps you should try reading to the end of the article:

The scientists also analyzed satellite data for Antarctica but found less dramatic change there.

This was attributed to the difference in the two polar regions. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land while the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean.

Regime Change,

Facts, please...Unless, of course, that's your religious doctrine you're giving me, in which case, as a religion, no facts are required...just blind faith..in this case, in AlGore and the IPCC.

Since you've spent so much time saving jungles, you might have noticed that JUNGLES LOVE CO2! By the way, did you find AlGore in there saving tigers...I can't find him!

If you think that environmental science is not funded by political agenda, you don't understand the nature of government-funded science. Grants funded to study the effects of human-generated CO2 on climate are not continued if the answers come back in the negative. Environmental scientists who value their future employment do not cut of the source of their funding, any more than corporate-funded scientists hired to hide the effects of Cadmium are gonna show that Cadmium kills people.

The #1 rule of judging research is: Follow the Money! At the end of the CO2 money chain is AlGore and his carbon caps. In between are lots of government scientists who would be unemployed if the public weren't scared into funding their fraudulent efforts. One of the largest lobbyists for imposing carbon caps early on was ENRON....why do you think that is?

As a reliable source of facts, I'd recommend The Science for Public Policy Institute (SPPI). Of course, they've been poo-pooing human induced global warming for a long time, but they are not beholden to anyone in particular financially and they actually give a very scientific assessment of the FACTS themselves as they are known (all facts are not equally factual, of course), as well as the scientific (NOT religious) interpretations thereof. They are also very conservative in their judgments...for example, they have as yet said NOTHING about the 1 degree temperature drop globally over the past year...they tend to check their facts and wait before talking....See, these guys are not government-employed scientists or UN bureaucrats...They also don't own carbon capp companies.

I'm sorry, but AlGore's assertions are scientifically unsuppportable. The human-induced global warming notion is inseperabe from him...he is the high-priest, and they all use his "facts" from the IPCC as the basis for their panic. If you believe in human-induced global warming as outlined by his IPCC cronies, you are with him. Just like you can't really say that you were a practicing Nazi, but didn't really agree with everything Hitler did. Just doesn't wash.

Finally, what you call the "best source of data", the IPCC report which got this all started, was signed by either 4 or 5 scientists...THat's ALL...

Finally, in reference to Antarctica, you should probably realize that in the last 2.5 billion years or so of Earth's history, whenever a large continent is over a pole, the predominant climate is lots of ice. That's the mode we're in now. The fundamentals are for ice, not warming. I'd welcome warming, if it were happening, but it's not, if you use the data as a guide for your decision.

Of course, one can't really make arguments against RELIGIOUS POSITIONS...they're based on faith, not facts and reason. I'm not a religious man, but I'm not against religion. I just don't confuse it with science...

I agree. Fuck everyone else.
As long as I'm coming clean, I'm also the guy that pisses on the toilet seat in public restrooms. I'm also the guy that throws my paper towel on the restroom floor instead of the garbage can. I'm most definitely the guy that wipes the boogers on the bathroom wall. Flush a healthy shit...Never (at least not in a public restroom)!

I'm sure many of you are shocked that I care so little for my fellow man, but I could care fucking less what you pussies think...

I'm going to go wet some toilet paper and throw it on the ceiling, I'll be right back.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-03-18 07:28 PM

the sad thing is that so many Americans really are like that...

remember they were against "gigarettes cause cancer". They were against PCB's are harmfull. Asbestos was a joke to them. Cadmium posioning was a hoax to them.

These things were easy to analyze becaause of the preponderance of data. Cigs, Asbestos, and Cadmium (as related to humans) has been around for a couple of hundred years. We have a couple of hundred years worth of data for these things.

However, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We have about 400,000 years of data to work with. If the earth was 1 day old, that is about 8 seconds. Both the naysayers and the chicken little side of this debate don't have near enough data to understand the climate changes of the earth and what man can do to change it.

Sorry, but these are the facts. They apply to both sides of this debate.

Hotter than a set of twin babies
With the windows up
When the temp goes up
To the mid eightes

Goatman,

We have around 2.5 billion years of evidence for ice ages and tectonic drift....it indicates that when large continents are at a pole, there is not enough sun to completely melt the winter snows and glaciers grow there. As glaciers grow, less solar energy is absorbed, the Earth cools, and the ice spreads. Pretty well understood...We're in that overall dynamic now. There are other effects, like ocean currents and things, but human-induced CO2 is simply not on that list.

I think that some people on this post are confusing the issue. Most people agree that the earth is warming since we are technically still in and coming out an ice age. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

The point is that most of us do not believe that it is proven to be man-made global warming. Most of us do not believe that the arguement is over.

On top of that how can anyone buy into AL GORE and his carbon credit scam...He uses inaccurate information to scare everyone into believing that the earth is going to end soon unless we do something about it and what is one way to save earth? Buy carbon credits from AL GORE'S company.

The funny thing is that some people still believe this mans word as fact. Silly, gullible people.

HANS

Why do you feel the need to change the subject?

Was my post about Bush?

Oh I get it, are you possibly one of those gullible people that believe AL GORE and felt the need to attack Bush in his defense?

Very original Hans.

"Very original Hans."

Thank you. That's very kind of you to acknowledge my creativity.

Hans

Chitdown, read the article on which this thread is based in it's entirety. Clearly, there is an accelerating level of global warming effect on the Earth. "The thickest, oldest and toughest sea ice around the North Pole is melting".
Coincidentally (Not!) currently the impact of human behavior/industry/development on the planet is at it's greatest level ever.
Common sense should lead any intelligent person to acknowledge this correlation. Unfortunately, politics and financial self interest have gotten mixed into the equation. So now, we have an unhealthy percentage of the populace disregarding what is self-evident for reasons having nothing to do with the actual scientific evidence. Again, "the thickest, oldest and toughest sea ice around the North Pole is melting". It is reality.

HANS

It's sad when Libs feel Bush bashing is creative at this point.

Do you feel the need to Bush Bash even when he is not part of the subject?

Hans at the deli counter; "I'll have 1/2 lb of ham, 1/4 lb of cole slaw and Bush is the biggest asshole in the world".

Hans driving his car; Most people look over and think he is singing along to his favorite song but really he is just mouthing "Bush sucks" "Bush sucks" "Bush sucks"

Hans at his Therapist; Therapist asks "Hans what does this picture represent to you?" (picture is just a blob of black ink)

Hans; It looks like a picture of President Bush with devils horns and lightning bolts coming out of his eyes.

MODER8

The earth over the course of millions of years has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled again. Now its warming. Over those millions of years, how could that possibly happen when man wasnt even on the planet yet? We are currently coming out of an ice age, shouldnt we be warming?

How come a large Glacier on Mars has melted quite a bit over the last decade? Was it the emissions from our Mars rover that we sent up? Maybe as some scientists state it was solar flares and they have warmed the earth recently as well.

How come Iceland was once covered with ice and today its not? It happened well before the industrial age? Hmmmm...Maybe, just maybe weather changes by itself.

How come the Antartic ice is getting thicker?

How come the Founder of the Weather Channel calls man made global warming a farce?

Why have hundreds of climate related scientists that are not tied to government(UN)or oil $$$ state that the hocky stick method that Al Gore and the UN IPCC have used as the foundation for their research is totally inaccurate and claim man made global warming is BS?

Why have a number of the IPCC Scientists brought lawsuits against the IPCC and UN claiming that they mis-represented their research?

How come we have not moved any of the temperature measuring stations around the globe since we put them in? Many of these stations were in rural areas and now those same areas are metroploitan. Is this still accurate data?

My point...the man made climate debate is not over...its just getting started.

Oh man. Same discredited talking points again.

I am so tired of nonsense being put out there over and over again. Especially from idiots that can't tell the difference between bashing bush and bashing the idiots that still support him.

Moder8,

Melting sea ice in the north pole does not imply global warming....it implies regional warming. Regional temperature variability is 4 times the global variability...Global temperatures have not risen in at least 10 years according to satellite data and other sources. The only data which sees the temps going up are the ground-based weather stations, which, over the past 30 years, have become surrounded by urban sprawl and parking lots, thereby driving up their temperature readings...In the scientific community, data like that is called "systematically biased", and would be thrown out of any actual scientific paper as not usable. This is the data the IPCC used and AlGore. They know it's unusable data, but it suited their purposes, so they used it, thinking people would be too stupid to notice. Guess in some cases, they were right.

So, the good data, including this most recent stuff show anything from a leveling off to a slight drop in global temperatures. So, we have no global warming to talk about...let alone human-induced by CO2, which is patently absurd, unless you're ignorant of the science and rely on AlGore's well-demostrated scientific acumen.

Also, if you're going to advance a scientifically plausible notion about some dynamic change to a system, you have to advance a credible cause/effect relationship. AlGore picked CO2 because it allows him to sell more carbon caps. Unfortunately, CO2 has a negligible effect on global temperatures. Even by IPCC calculations, it has a miniscule effect on warming compared to water vapor and methane. Yet, they don't call for alarm on these gases...why, do you suppose?

The facts are that
(1) the best data point to the fact that the globe hasn't warmed in 10 years
(2) even if the globe were to warm, CO2 would not be the cause of it
(3) Given the history of the last 2 million years and the 2.5 billion year history of plate tectonics on this planet, we are in a warm-up period in the context of a larger ice age dynamic. Any changes happening to global temperatures will likely be down, unless somebody finds a way to pick Antarctica up and drop it in the tropics somewhere. If the past 2 million years is any historical guide, the warm-up period is about to end. Data is starting to support this, but it's too early to panic on that count yet.

This is the scientific framework for a scientific debate on the matter. The rest is religion.

YAV

Not sure if your post was pointed at me or not?

Seems like it possibly was but I'm not sure.

If it was pointed at me, please tell me where in my post I stated that I was a Bush supporter? Just because I am not a flaming Lib, does not mean I am Bush lover or supporter. I certainly did not vote for him.

Regardless, it would be like me ripping on Obama and his Pastor on this global warming post. Makes no sense. Thats my point. Get it, got it, good.

My post ripping the person that was Bush bashing was because it had nothing to do with the initial arguement and now its seems you are defedning him. Here we are talking about Global Warming and the weak minded people just cannot stop with the Bush bashing? Go to the Bush post and talk about him all you want. Its like an addiction with you people.

WE GET IT. BUSH SUCKS. HE IS THE WORST. HE IS THE DEVIL. THE SOURCE OF ALL THE WORLDS PROBLEMS.

Is it out of your system now? Can we stick to the main discussion point now?

"Especially from idiots that can't tell the difference between bashing bush and bashing the idiots that still support him."

Posted by YAV at 2008-03-20 04:03 PM

Isn't that the truth, Yav!

"Can we stick to the main discussion point now?"

Is this the Drudge Discussion? No.

Is this the Drudge Debate? No.

Is this the Drudge Retort? I think we have a winner!

Hans

Hans,

Never mind. Egads.

how do you know they landed on the moon

YAV

Thats right. There are many other Bush posts here on Drudge Retort that are discussing Bush, so go there since you obviously cant contribute to this discussion.

Looks you are one of those libs that when they are losing an arguement, you change the subject to Bush. Im sure it works with your high school buddies.

Now go spoon with your buddy Hans. Never mind. Egads

The scientists also analyzed satellite data for Antarctica but found less dramatic change there.

This was attributed to the difference in the two polar regions. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land while the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean.


Oh yeah, I forgot. No, actually i got confused because I have read different reports from different scientists on the same regions saying different things, over the past 2 years. Stay tuned because in a couple months you'll have a brand new report out.

Haven't you alarmists figured out that there is a political agenda and a lot of money behind this different front of global terror? Hell, there was just a link here about how the oceans aren't actually warming when we've been told they were.

Remember when milk was good for you and then bad for you and then good for you only to be bad for you again? Same for cheese and coffee. You are seeing the same thing with the global warming scientists, pro and con.

Question??? What caused the ice to melt in the last warming cycle many years ago???? not too many humans as I remember.

Important to remember, the earth has been going through freeze thaw cycles since its birth many millions of years ago. What was the cause / s when these events occurred?

Yes, there is a warming happening BUT, in Iowa we had some pretty cold weather this Winter and I would have loved for a little global warming to get me through. It is going to happen folks. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Common sense should lead any intelligent person to acknowledge this correlation.

Common sense led man to believe for thousands of years that the earth was the center of the universe.

Again, "the thickest, oldest and toughest sea ice around the North Pole is melting".

According to the article that ice you describe is one to six years old.

bob -- I hate pointing out the obvious to you all the time...

Those people who run the links you put up are not getting funding. Nor are they lying in the context that they falsify results. They are repeating studies from government funded agencies -- NASA e.g.

Also, I do not think anyone is "lying". You use that word so liberally I can understand your confusion. However it is possible to skew data without lying.

Fact is, bob, no one knows enough about climatology to say for sure. Pretty much all climatologists agree that we have been coming out of an ice age for a few thousand years. Some disagree, however, if the current rate of global warming is inconsistent with normal climatological factors or if they are, instead, caused by man.

No one, not even (especially!) St. Gore or the "deniers" has enough data or understanding of the climatological system we live in.

I keep saying it, but it bears repeating: If the earth was 24 hours old, we are working with only 8 seconds of data. That may be enough for someone who sees smakestacks on the moon and blue ghost-angels in Cinncinatti gas stations, but it's not good enough for me.

I am so glad you have it all figured out...whew!

goddam you're dense, donny boy. I admitted that I don't have it figured out. I said no one has it figured out. Can you read? Or did you go to the buffalo bob school of comprehension and textual intepretation?

what an idiot.

Fact is, bob, no one knows enough about climatology to say for sure. Pretty much all climatologists agree that we have been coming out of an ice age for a few thousand years. Some disagree, however, if the current rate of global warming is inconsistent with normal climatological factors or if they are, instead, caused by man.

In July 2001, a research letter was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, relating that a few people with the "X" type had been identified in a tribe located in extreme southern Siberia. These people, called the Altasians, or Altaics as Russian geneticists refer to them, have always lived in the Gobi Desert area. ...[ the presence of X ] is of ancient origin. (Ancient South America p 50)


Alone, the tribe of Khoorassan claims to have come from what is now known as Afghanistan, long before the days of Alexander, and brings legendary lore to that effect as corroboration. The Russian traveller, Colonel (now General) Prjevalsky, found quite close to the oasis of Tchertchen, the ruins of two enormous cities, the oldest of which was, according to local tradition, ruined 3,000 years ago by a hero and giant; and the other by the Mongolians in the tenth century of our era. "The emplacement of the two cities is now covered, owing to shifting sands and the desert wind, with strange and heterogeneous relics; with broken china and kitchen utensils and human bones. The natives often find copper and gold coins, melted silver, ingots, diamonds, and turquoises, and what is the most remarkable-broken glass. . . . ." "Coffins of some undecaying wood, or material, also, within which beautifully preserved embalmed bodies are found. . . . The male mummies are all extremely tall powerfully built men with long waving hair. (SDxxxii-xxxiii)

The Geology classes I took taught me that the earth has been melting and thawing and then freezing since its inception. Again, why should we be concerned IF this is Mother nature doing her thing? I ask this in all sincerety too. If what we know of the past million years or so is any indication of the future, we should be warming up and ice should be thawing. Instead I get the answer mankind used to think the earth was flat too.

I see all kinds of people lining up on this side or that side of the issue but where is the proof other than ice is melting? But, in some parts of the old earth, water froze to great depths too. SO???

Some say it is the trees and others say it is the cars BUT, what was it a million years ago, dino shit??? You know what some say about cow shit contributing to the current warming trend.

If we do not really know but know it has happened in the past and is happening now, in some parts of the world, then why get all worked up about it?

Goatman


ooo did I touch a nerve?

Gee thanks for the kind words.

But you blather on (about floating ice) and act as though the thousand of scientists that propose that there is global climate change occurring are a bunch of liberal kooks with an agenda. You are constantly trying to debunk the scientific evidence being presented as though you have some kind of secret knowledge while at the same time professing that you don't.

For example:

But there's one thing all you global warming folks never talk about and kind person that I am, I will give you another talking point and something for us all to fear and wring our hands about. Here's a bone for you:

The coastal flooding done by the extra water in the ocean from melting ice caps is nothing compared to the extra volume the water itself takes up due to thermal expansion.

You're welcome

Posted by goatman at 2008-03-18 08:41 PM

So I posted a nice article about how all the glaciers still seem to melting and are even accelerating so what do you do?

You call me an idiot.

so very clever of you.

ooo did I touch a nerve?

No, not really. But idiots who take one set of words and turn it into the complete opposite context do need to know about it.

So I posted a nice article about how all the glaciers still seem to melting and are even accelerating so what do you do?

You call me an idiot.

No, I called you an idiot because of your statement:

I am so glad you have it all figured out...whew!
'
when I said nothing of the sort.

Company's here. gotta run

Yav,

What do you think global temperature is composed of....perhaps the sum of all the regional changes? Do you think it would be easier to change the temperature of a region or a globe? Hmmm....I'd think, a region, it being a much smaller piece....Therefore, if it's easier to change the temperature of a region, than the regional variability would be correspondingly larger than the variability of the much larger region...the globe.

Simple thermodynamics, aside from looking at the actual climatological data, which clearly you have not, or actually just paying attention to how rapidly temperatures change in a region during the season compared to the overall temperature of the planet per season. Honestly, have you been asleep your whole life to not understand this simple fact?

It is good that you are NOT a science teacher. There are a lot of reasons for this.

Greenland was much warmer in the 40's than it is now. Yet, we've dumped a lot more CO2 into the air since then. If CO2 was the driver, our temperatures would have steadily climbed.

This current 11,000 year warmup period happened before human civilization arrived to cause it, along with the dozens of other warmup periods in the history of this planet.

It's ok if you wanna be a Greenie and take it on faith that AlGore is right. Who could blame you? He is, afterall, a Nobel Prize winner and candidate for Dhali Lhama....but please understand that that is not a scientific position to take. It is a religious one.

Imagine. Just imagine that global warming was human caused and we had to depend on our government to cool down the planet. If it got to that we would be doomed.
This is just an offhand list of failures.
War on recession.
War on terror
War on drugs
War on poverty
Reckless spending
Reckless debt

What did these idiots do for energy independence. Why they gave Archer Daniels a taxpayer subsidy to make ethanol from corn. That in turn drove up food prices.

Regimechange,

RealClimte.org is a mouthpiece for the IPCC. They are not scientists. They know that...thus the name which tries to trick the unsophisticated....guess it worked at least once!

Where is the evidence they offer? Calling people not real scientists and insinuating that oil companies might not be run by wacko greenies and therefore don't believe in AlGore hardly constitutes scientific proof of anything other than they have no actual scientific position to lay out.

They were invited to this conference, but didn't go...hmmmmm, sounds kinda like not putting the guilty party on the stand to testify.

Not tricked Ryker. Obviously you didn't follow the money, or the links. Try the earlier one I posted if you're allergic to IPCC and the Gore connection. But, don't kid yourself: there are certainly real scientists intimately involved, and real data. My friends are guys like Adrian Forsyth and Gus Speth, and they are most certainly real scientists, and really concerned. The point of that link was that petro dollars are being paid to find ANYBODY who will help obscure the truth that's being chorused, with increasing volume, by scientists who are not sucking the corporate dick.

I fervently wish you were right, but you're not. The data is so overwhelming, and the effects so contemporary, that even the insurance industries and others are taking note and adjusting policy accordingly. Free market may be what saves us in the long run, despite the oil cabal.

And again, if you can find me a peer reviewed, non (petroleum) industry sponsored paper that conclusively refutes climate change and man's (at least partial) culpability, then hey, I'll be the first to offer a mea culpa. I haven't found it yet.

We are sooooo fucked as a species it's not even funny.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-03-18 09:58 PM | Reply

Well, at least you will die first, so I don't hafta listen to you whine and bitch and complain.

But here you are, some irritating smelly Canuck, whining and bitching. It's worse than having multiple wives. Eventually one wife leaves. But you never shut the fuck up

It is clear that you cannot keep a woman. I am sorry that your entire pathetic life is reduced to this. Maybe you will die soon

Good luck with that, I guess