Oh,It melted.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120828-arctic-sea-ice-global-warming-record-environment-science/
What happened to the ice?
By HEY YOU Follow Wed, 29 Aug 2012, 1:19am 1,065 views 12 comments
Watch (0) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Viewing Comments 1-12 of 12 Last » See most liked comments
|
HEY YOU is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend
118 comments
What happened to the sea level? Oh, not a damn thing. What happened to the MWP? Well, the parts of it that weren't coaxed into oblivion by propagandist scientists like Michael Mann, cooled off somehow on its own. Any ideas how? Better find an answer fast, because there are new scientific studies being done in Brazil, Peru, South Africa, Prince Edward Islands, and New Zealand that are confirming the Medieval Warming Period wasn't limited to the Northern Hemisphere. If somebody doesn't get us all to panic soon (say within the next 24 months), a shallow but extensive sea full of peer-reviewed literature will soon arrive stating that the MWP was worldwide, warmer than today, and not caused (or later cooled) by parts per million of C02. You're going to have to do more than melt the Arctic. You'll have to flood Miami, Boston, and Bangladesh by next Christmas. Get to it. All available hairdryers to the Antarctic pronto!
Follow
Befriend
12 comments
Hillsboro, OR
When you look closely at the historic temperature data one of the things you see is that CO2 density lags temperature change. Which implies of course that CO2 is an indication that the temperature has changed and not the cause.
The other thought that I have looking at the historic temperature data (last 10 cooling/warming cycles) is that the system appears to operate as a negative feedback system. In that there is a floor and ceiling to what the temperature range of the planet tends to operate between. My conclusion is that you can't get a run away temperature change event to occur as many alarmists have written over the last 30 years.
Over the years there has been proposed 7 major theories for climate change. Maybe it's time the other 6 got more attention?
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
919 comments
Larkspur, CA
patjohn97123 says
And your credentials for this conclusion are....?
Follow
Befriend
12 comments
Hillsboro, OR
rooemoore says
Credentials are the crutch for people who can't think for themselves.
Science is the exploration of the truth. Credentials or who you are
has no bearing on what the truth is...
Go look at the data and tell us what you think.
Follow
Befriend (5)
174 threads
5,236 comments
patjohn97123 says
Anti Science Americans are funny. They think that their own little brain farts are comparable to years of analysis by hundred of great minds.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/converted-skeptic-humans-driving-recent-warming/
If you want to see the other 6 debunked there is a site that was made just for you. If I know you, you won't even look at it, because what your gut tells you trumps the diligent analysis of countless scientists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html
Awesome animated graphs on that last page that might just freak you out a little if you are the slightest bit more intelligent than you seem.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,564 comments
deepcgi says
That's funny, every scientific report I've ever read says sea levels are rising about 3.5 mm a year. What is your source for this amazing bit of data?
The article is about floating sea ice. Floating sea ice doesn't affect sea levels, it's already in the sea. Glacial ice on land affects sea levels.
Follow
Befriend
118 comments
The sea level never ceases to raise or lower, and it does both simultaneously and continuously across the globe. To this very day, even claiming that a global sea level is possible to measure at all, let alone within millimeters, doesn't leave the realm of hypothesis. The margin of error in a global calculation like that is enormous. Any 'scientist' claiming a number within millimeters per year is either a propagandist or someone using large time scales and massive numbers of proxy measurements so prone to error that even a two decade long period is liable to fall within the normal distribution curve. The earth has been warming, co2 is a green house gas, humans make a lot of it compared to itself alone, and civilizations growth makes man's impact on the globe an increasing factor, but the reasonable doubt of necessity to panic is beyond overwhelming. The MWP is the 800 pound gorilla spoiling everyone's carbon credit fun - that's why they sold their scientific soul to flatten it out. One one hundredth of the funding proposed in UN programs to save the planet from warming, if given to civil engineers rather than climate researchers, could transform the third world, create new more durable societies, and revolutionize agriculture. The trouble is, these scientists think the first world won't fork over the fiat for anything globally responsible unless there's flat-out fear.
Follow
Befriend (13)
61 threads
2,708 comments
Premium
If you fill a glass of ice water to the rim, and the ice melts, does the water overflow the glass?
In my aquarium, when I pump CO2 in the water, the plants start growing like crazy.
Follow
Befriend
38 threads
2,313 comments
Regardless of whatever is happening to the planet, one thing I've never really understood is how come some on the right are so up in arms over even suggesting that some of that change be caused by humans? Its a scientific theory and like theories, there are many and likewise have some elements of truth and others that need study. I fail to see how being totally against even taking a look at these ideas is helpful.
Follow
Befriend
12 comments
Hillsboro, OR
marcus says
Now Marcus, because one is skeptical of a given scientific theory, it does not make them anti-science. In fact science is the search for what the truth is, no matter what are your feelings.
I looked at your links, I've seen the same arguments many times before. They do not shoot down the other possible theories of climate change. The prominent data they show is 1970 to present. Hardly the big picture
when the most interesting data happened 7000 years ago plus.
Current planetary modeling does show a divergence of the natural derived planetary temperature and man made effects starting in the early 1960s. Going back 20-30 years the models were pointing to the 1500s as humans started the pre-industrial revolution and significantly increased emissions.
Better computer models have shown the errors in the past modeling.
The last time I heard from the guys running the planetary models, it was taking a day to run a 10 year period backwards (the goal of course is to see if the models can be run backwards on historical data and then correct the model when it diverges).
None of the models explain the Holocene warming period.
Or maybe more pertinent to our condition today, what causes the cooling period that leads to the long ice age.
Follow
Befriend
12 comments
Hillsboro, OR
deepcgi says
I tend to agree. I am of the opinion until we as a society have a valid discussion as to what the optimal temperature should be, we're not really serious about the problem.
The old engineering maxim is to first define the problem and then solve it.
So far we haven't discussed what temperature we'd like to target. Until we can get the discussion as to what to build I don't think we'll see any real change in behavior other than scare tactics unfortunately.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,972 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
deepcgi says
And if I present some facts that show otherwise, will you have the rationality to change your mind?
The same thing will happen to the New York islands eventually.
200 million refuges expected. That's not insignificant.
The poor nations will be the first affected by rising sea levels, but America will get fucked as well. Think about all the destruction of real estate and infrastructure along the coast. Think about all the crop failures. Even without regard to the human suffering and moral issues, the economic toll would be far more devastating than anything else this country has experienced. You think that Obamacare is bad economics? Climate change is way the fuck worse economics.