WatchThere has never been a summer like this one on the North Pole since detailed records have been kept. Not only is the United States experiencing a record heat wave, but the arctic ice cap is melting far ahead of schedule.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Those of you who believe that global warming is a fraud created by Al Gore to win the Nobel Prize should probably rethink your positions.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/arctic-sea-ice-melting-at-a-record-rate-20120701-21b57.html
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
Oh, all you have is data and evidence. What good is that compared to an ideology?
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
The Grand Canyon is 277 miles (446 km) long, up to 18 miles (29 km) wide and attains a depth of over a mile (6,000 feet / 1,800 metres)[2] Nearly two billion years of the Earth's geological history have been exposed as the Colorado River and its tributaries cut their channels through layer after layer of rock while the Colorado Plateau was uplifted. While the specific geologic processes and timing that formed the Grand Canyon are the subject of debate by geologists, recent evidence suggests the Colorado River established its course through the canyon at least 17 million years ago.
Since that time, the Colorado River continued to erode and form the canyon to its present-day configuration.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
Weather Channel Founder, 30,000 Scientists Suing Gore for Global Warming Fraud
Monday, June 15, 2009
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel will be joining 30,000 scientists to sue Al Gore to debunk global warming fraud. He said global warming supporters are not open to scientific, objective discussion but have been silencing their oposition to cover their faulty science. Coleman hopes that the lawsuit will bring the truth of the matter to the public eye and force media and government outlets to give a more balanced report on the claims.
&feature=related
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
We didn't even have winter here in upstate NY this past "winter." Stuff was blooming in March...two months ahead of schedule.
And this summer has been ridiculously hot as we all know.
No one season proves there's global warming. But data from the last 100 years sure does.
The main controversies remaining in the scientific community:
1) how much of the observed warming is due to the extra CO2, and how much of it (if any) is "natural"?
2) how much warming will occur in the future?
3) what the impacts of the warming will be
Follow
Befriend (4)
334 threads
919 comments
I have an ideology that the earth is flat & the center of the universe.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bdrasin says
That's the heart of almost everything wrong in the world isn't it?
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!"
Follow
Befriend (7)
22 threads
325 comments
thomas.wong1986 says
Thomas, there you go lying again. Everybody knows the grand canyon is only 5,000 years old. 6 thousand tops.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
lol. Ken Ham says so, so I believe it!
Follow
Befriend (25)
413 threads
6,982 comments
Saint George, UT
elliemae's website
http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/07/17/what-ever-happened-to-the-lawsuit-brought-by-weather-channel-founder-against-al-gore/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100729214718AAMg6oH
yawn.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Here is the graph that sold me and should open the eyes of even the most hardcore skeptics. It measures the yearly ebb and flow of the arctic ice pack by year starting in 1979 until yesterday 2012.
Blue is oldest, red is newest, Yellow is this year. The yellow line is cutting new ground since as I said initially, we are breaking new melt records.
It's inconceivable to me that anyone can view this chart and still deny global warming.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Homer Simpson: "That can't be true, Lisa. If it were, I'd be terrified"
(from the "Life's a Glitch, Then you Die" Y2K Halloween episode)
Follow
Befriend (3)
29 threads
490 comments
Denver, CO
iwog says
More and more people who used to deny global warming outright have shifted gears, and now acknowledge that "global climate change" is real. They will still question methodology and data, but the arguments I hear tend to focus more on whether / how much is due to human activity.
It's a harder sell not just because it is counter to peoples' interests ("It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"), but because establishing a causal relationship is harder than establishing the fact.
While I always keep my skeptic's hat handy, I tend to believe that human activity is a significant part of global warming. There have been missteps along the way, as with any scientific pursuit, and those missteps will continue to be used as fodder by the "other side". For me there are plenty of other reasons to oppose the mega-industrialization/consumption that we relentlessly pursue, global warming only being one of them, so I'm an easy convert.
I'm afraid that it's going to be a tough battle from here on out. Maybe as the 50+ crowd dies off and otherwise loses influence, we may see some movement -- maybe too little too late. At the end of the day the problem is the dot product of the population and standard of living (am I allowed to do that?). Both have to be curtailed significantly (I believe) to really have an impact. Reducing either is at odds with the financial "foundation" of our society. Growth or bust, baby!
If we can somehow convince or coerce the rest of the world to maintain/revert to a low population or standard of living, we might just be able to keep living the lie...but that isn't how things are going.
Not to be fatalistic about it, but I don't know if we can stop this train. It's gonna crash and there is going to be a lot of pain.
Off to tend my potato garden.
Follow
Befriend
5 threads
51 comments
Global Warming...... ummm
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
swebb says
That's the thing. What can we really do? Unless somebody figures out a way to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere cheaply.
There's not enough land to plant enough trees to do it "naturally."
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,220 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Yet another way marijuana will save the planet!
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
New renter says
Agree. If we all get stoned we'll just sit on the couch all day and not drive, build power plants, or buy stuff.
But how much global warming do Twinkies cause?
Follow
Befriend
2 comments
There's too much sin in the world. That's why the crazy weather. It's an indication that Jesus is coming soon. The only way to delay the end is a sin tax on doing bad things.
Follow
Befriend (7)
22 threads
325 comments
Schultz says
Yea, agreed. If we started taxing child molestation, we would put most of the churches out of business overnight.
However, not sure that this would have any significant effect on global warming.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,220 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Well you don't have to smoke it - the hemp alone is useful enough to justify its large scale cultivation.
Yeah, that it!
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,220 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
Buster says
Yes but we'd finally balance the budget!
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
There's a conspicuous absence of the boards most vehement right wingers in this thread.
I'd be interested to hear what the global warming skeptics think of the polar ice chart.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
The data isn't real. Just like Obama's birth certificate isn't real.
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,415 comments
Davis, CA
I like EllieMae's links abou the "30,000 scientists" who want to sue Al Gore. Nice, how the Freepers jumped on that subject and still do. Because someone threatens to press a lawsuit there must be some credibility neh? Haha, I can issue cartoony threats to sue Disney for stealing my rights to draw a mouse but it has zero chance of succeeding.
From the 2nd article:
"However, an investigation by a Danish journalist found that many of the names on the declaration were invalid and the true number of genuine signatories appears to be in the order of 30 to 50 people."
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Vicente says
30K or only 3 .. even 1 qualified scientists far outranks even what old Al Gore political spin!
Had a killer Burrito today! serious carbon / methane count.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
The average temperature of the earth has warmed slightly, however not since probably 1998 or so.
The problem with associating global warming with CO2 is that data from ice cores shows that rising CO2 actually follows warming on the earth.
The reason one can never prove that CO2 causes anything is that the energy emitted by the sun varies tremendously. As if mother nature wanted this to be so simple even a pothead like Gore could see, there are sunspots that show how active or inactive relatively the sun is.
CERN in Switzerland recently proved that cosmic rays from the sun can cause clouds. This is a huge discovery, since cosmic rays from the sun vary greatly. The cooling or warming of the earth is probably more closely related to sun activity than our meager production of CO2 gas.
The CO2 gas is present in the earth in minute concentrations. To understand this it helps to have been a scientist who worked with numbers.
The CO2 today is about 380 ppm=parts per million I think I remember. That is about 120 ppm higher than before "men polluted the atmosphere".
10,000 ppm=1%
The original concentration of the plant nutrient CO2 was low, and today it is still very low. The change is tiny.
The analogy that is useful is a pitcher of lemonade. You put in one grain of sugar. OK, that's not much of a sugar conc. in that pitcher. That's the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere.
Now, put in 1/2 of a grain of sugar to "sweeten" it. Did you accomplish a change in that pitcher of lemonade?
The other thing that is often forgotten is that earth is not a ball of rocks and water surrounded by an atmosphere.It contains trees and seas of phytoplankton, and by coincidence, CO2 is a plant nutrient. The reaction to living plant systems to additional nutrient is frequently using up those nutrients when conditions permit. This has already been observed in the oceans and other places where CO2 levels vary according to season.
The other question is more basic: which is worse, a cold planet or a warm planet?
If the earth did warm up a little, they could grow huge quantities of grain in vast areas of Russia and Canada which are not farmed today for example.
I remember the time when they were worried about "northern hemisphere cooling" in the 1970's. This cold N. hemisphere caused droughts and grain crop reduction in the Southern Hemisphere.
Here is a pic from a NYTimes story about the variation of sun's cosmic rays. NO fooling around an no photoshop. See the energy variation for yourself.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
swebb says
No ! no on denied there was change in weather... many acknowledge the whale bones found in places like the Santa Cruz mts. to prove water occupied even our California mountain peaks.
What Al Gore says or thinks on any matter isnt worth crap!
that said.. anyone recall the HOT Summers we had in the late 70s. I doubt it!
1876 - In an otherwise cold year, very warm over mid-June to mid-July.
1879 - Great gyrating warm and cold spells over late-September through year-end.
1882 - September wettest calendar month (16.85”) in Central Park history.
1885 - Cold January to March.
1888 - Coldest year in New York Central Park history (1869-Present).
http://www.climatestations.com/new-york-city/
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Clambo,
Yes, you've stated the heart of the problem.
Nobody denies the earth is warming. And nobody denies that CO2 is increasing.
The Big Problem: determining how much of of the warming is due to the extra CO2, and how much (if any) is from other things.
Climatology is a lot like trying to do chemistry with dirty test tubes. There are just so many "contaminating" factors. The climatologists do the best they can with the data and theory they have.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
21 comments
Lake of the Pines, CA
I'm a skeptic. The models used to predict outcomes 100 years from today cannot predict today's weather when fed data from just ten years ago. We need more data gathering, but critical weather satellites are not even being replaced.
I seem to see more evidence that global warming is turning to a religion - or even a cult. Global warming is now faith-based rather than science-based. "The science is in - you can't deny it!" NPR is a cheerleader for the climate change poppycock: they are supporting ways "to prevent climate change denial material from entering the classroom."
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/20/145525000/defending-climate-sciences-place-in-the-classroom
Another recent think-tank study showed persons who were more educated had less of a tendency to believe in AGW. The study concluded that more "science" clouded the issue and suggested euphemistically how to skew the presentation to get the desired result - belief in AGW. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/
AGW promoters are getting more polarized against skeptics all the time. They don't understand why we don't "get it." I find this amusing. Ask anyone who is a believer is they have read Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear." The best line in the book is near the end: "Everyone has an agenda - except me."
So try that book and this website (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) for some alternate views.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
rocketjoe79 says
Funny to me, that acknowledging that global warming is probably (or possibly if you prefer) related to our activity and that defensive action is probably worth taking now rather than later is worthwhile.
IF a doctor did an health analysis and said, "based on our analysis, we believe the length and quality of your life will probably be greatly enhanced by doing X, Y, and Z, "
Would the guy with no agenda then say, "I'm too objective for this nonsense. I noticed you said probably. I'm holding out for something more definitive, because I'm objective and unbiased, unlike all you science people with your science, math, statistics and probabilities."
IT's so fucked up that these issues get tied to which god damn team you're on (democrat or republican).
We humans are such emotional little children.
Follow
Befriend
14 threads
1,118 comments
clambo says
The low sounding concentration of CO2 is irrelevant. You could take out 90% of the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 would go up about 10 fold to more like 4000 PPM. But it would not mean much change for the greenhouse effect, since N2 and O2 are transparent to infrared radiation.
How much visible light does an inch of air block? Almost nothing. How much does 1000 inches of air block? Almost nothing. How much does a 1 millimeter thick piece of tinted glass block? Quite a bit.
CO2 is the tinted glass. The concentration of CO2 compared to N2 and O2 is irrelevant because N2 and O2 don't block infrared light.
All that matters is the amount of tinted glass which blocks visible light. All that matters is the amount of CO2 which blocks infrared.
What you are saying amounts to: "There are million inches of air between me and the sun. And only a millimeter of this tinted glass in my sun glasses. Therefore the tinted glass could not possibly have a significant effect on the amount of light reaching my eyes,"
clambo says
Clearly you are not talking about yourself here. You just cut and pasted some cow droppings from somebody else who wasn't a scientist either.
Follow
Befriend
14 threads
1,118 comments
rocketjoe79 says
That may be true. But that has nothing to do with the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Follow
Befriend (1)
249 threads
4,739 comments
This is Al Gores fault.
Actually they are finding that climate change(global warming) is something that happens quite often. Man or no Man, the ice caps have melted and reformed countless times.
But it's some low hanging fruit that can be used to chastise the dim witted masses to be made to feel they are being held accountable for a winless battle. Stop Global warming and all that.
CO2 emissions are at the lowest levels right now than in over 70 years, we've actually reduced CO2 output not because of the Greenolution, but because in our quest to make a greenotopia, it out priced Gas for people so they quit driving. That and the Global economic and production slowdown, in spite what the quarterly GDP spindoctors say.
It seems the Liberals have been trying to apply a poultice that cures hemorrhoids when the real problem is we have mouth cankers.
Whoppie we're all gonna die!
Follow
Befriend (3)
29 threads
490 comments
Denver, CO
clambo says
That's a 46% increase.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
marcus says
Yep. We get all mystical and emotional over stuff like Schrodinger's Cat. ;-)
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
MarkInSF says
Exactly right. The N2 and O2 are irrelevant.
MarkInSF says
Hilarious.
Clambo, did you know that wind turbines might blow the earth out of its orbit? I saw it on the internet.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
16 comments
First, anyone who strictly adheres to "religous" belief will never acknowledge a problem that conflicts with that belief. Second, our species has thrived because the planet's climate conditions have been favorable. This favorable period, just the last 10-15 thousand years, is exceptional in the entire history of the planet, not the norm. Third, it is actually very arrogant to think we can create ever increasing amounts of pollution and not expect there to be consequences. Finally, relatively minor changes in global temperature can create significant changes to climate. It is literally suicidal to risk upsetting the delicate balance in climate that has ALLOWED us to thrive. Greed will undo our economic system and arrogance will result in the planet responding to our folly in a most painful manner.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
21 comments
Lake of the Pines, CA
MarkInSF says
This is exactly the issue. You believe AGW is "scientific reality." I do not. Why? I do not rely on anecdotal evidence, such as "record heat waves" or other weather phenomena. I have looked at the historical climate data, the integrity of the data (collection methods, span of the data sets, etc.) and the ability of current models to predict climate (not weather.) None of these convince me that an unbiased, credible conclusion of AGW is true. We cannot even conclude that the Earth is warming on scale of say, 100-1000 years as the climate models are incomplete. There is still basic science and huge amounts of data collection that need to be done before policy changes are deployed that force billions of humans to reduce their standard of living in the name of unconfirmed "climate change."
If the science was "settled" there wouldn't be so much controversy. Why would otherwise "good" scientists attempt to hide and skew the data to force their conclusions? (ClimateGate and others.)
The scientific community has been co-opted by larger interests. Follow the money. How does a "carbon sequestration project" that results in "Carbon credits" get approved? An investor starts plants tree farm, for example. He makes application to the responsible United Nations Agency, gets the project approved, and can then sell shares for money. It's a printing press for cash. But I'm sure the folks at the UN agency weren't paid a fat arrangement fee for their services. Right.
Look over the history of the people involved in producing the IPCC reports and you'll see some smarmy moneymakers there too. If something smells bad, it's probably rotten. It doesn't surprise me that the "science" supports the conclusions in the IPCC reports. You don't get grant money for climate science that could have a contrarian result. The science has been politicizied.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,643 comments
rocketjoe79 says
Now that's laughable. Money funds the anti-global warming movement. Industry wants to pollute...
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
rocketjoe79 says
Yes it has, sadly.
It happens any time billions (trillions?) of dollars are at stake. Especially true if the issue is complex.
Remember the debate about whether smoking causes cancer?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Does anyone know if there are scientific papers that try to quantify how much of the observed warming is directly due to the increased CO2 levels?
Is that even possible to do, in an unbiased, scientific manner?