|
 
Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! Please  login or  register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
|
 zorbman
Bush Recession2008
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 3,634
|
|
A few questions:
The article mentions that Antarctic ice has increased and then says polar bear populations have increased in recent years.
Aren't polar bears native to the North Pole rather than the South Pole?
And isn't the ice thinning there (in the Arctic)?
We know that polar bears chief food source is seals and since their killing has been curtailed recently wouldn't that be expected to cause an increase in polar bear populations? ( As long as the bears have ice to rest upon.)
Also I read recently that NASA says the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer of 2013.* What are the bears supposed to do then? Construct floating bear barges?
One other thing I noticed about the article was that it highlights selected areas where temperatures have been cooler than normal in the last few months. Isn't the debate about Global average temperatures over a span of years rather than regional fluctuations over the course of a few weeks or months?
*http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-01/2008-01-09-voa12.cfm?CFID=272829339&CFTOKEN=77121182
--------------------
"I cannot morally blame all Americans for allowing, for instance, the birth of the Federal Reserve System (a private cartel with full control over the issuance of national debt) and the money destruction that has followed. They are simply ignorant about it and don't know what happened or what is happening. They think that prices go up rather than than dollars go down." - John Kenneth Galbraith
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 12,346
Loc: Lost In Space
|
 Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zorbman]
#8046081 - 02/20/08 03:29 AM (9 months, 10 days ago) |
|
|
I don't know enough about polar bears to say.
As the article mentions ice "caps" I'd say they were discussing both.
One of the main points of this thread was merely to demonstrate that there is insufficient evidence for panic, no consensus and conflicting information.
Quote:
Also I read recently that NASA says the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer of 2013.
So what. In the 70's we were reading about the coming ice age.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
Edited by luvdemshrooms (02/20/08 03:37 AM)
|
MushmanTheManic
Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,410
|
|
When it comes to something that could potentially wipe out humanity, precaution is a good idea.
--------------------
Concerned Citizens United Against Drugs and Terrorism
|
 boomer q
Comrade General
 
Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,036
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 8 hours, 45 minutes
|
|
global warming doesnt mean that the temperature at every point on the earth gets warmer all together. global warming theory predicts extreme and erratic weather patterns in both directions, hot and cold. hence the snowfall in regions where its uncommon, and powerful winter storms. the author of this article seems to think that the number of snowflakes which hit the earth is an accurate measure of the earths average temperature. this is false
|
boomer q
Comrade General
Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 1,036
Loc: Dirty Jersey
Last seen: 8 hours, 45 minutes
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
I don't know enough about polar bears to say.
As the article mentions ice "caps" I'd say they were discussing both.
One of the main points of this thread was merely to demonstrate that there is insufficient evidence for panic, no consensus and conflicting information.
Quote:
Also I read recently that NASA says the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer of 2013.
So what. In the 70's we were reading about the coming ice age.
well, i know enough about polar bears to tell you they live only in the northern hemisphere, and that the average depth of arctic ice is only 3 feet thick, and thinning, and no one from "Newsmax" is gonna convince me oherwise
as for having sufficient evidence for panic, i would have to disagree. first of all there is consensus among the scientific community.... if you go to 100 doctors and 95 of them tell you that you have cancer, are you gonna say that theres no consensus because the other 5 guys arent convinced? of course not. when determining a hazard, you have to factor in the probability of something happening and also the consequences of it happening. take, for example, asteroids. scientists agree that theres a small chance of a really big one hitting while we're around, but the consequences of it hapenning would be totally devistating. thats why people are spending alot of money to figure out how to move asteroids out of our orbit when we find them..
Its the same thing with gobal warming. even IF there WASENT overwhelming consensus of the comming crisis, it should still be taken very seriously because of the consequences. if the predictions are true, the face of the earth will litteraly be changed, and more species could die off than when the dinosaurs went extinct, not to mention what i feel is much less significant, that our way of life would completely change. any scenario in which the consequences are so dire should be avoided at all costs, and at the moment, people who feel the evidence isnt there have been ignoring the possible consequences. even if its not fact, its a serious possibility, and EVERYONE should take it seriously.
also, 2013 is only 5 years away
|
cottlestonpie
wanderer
Registered: 01/18/03
Posts: 466
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8047670 - 02/20/08 02:58 PM (9 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
^well said
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill
Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 846
Loc: VA
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zorbman]
#8047776 - 02/20/08 03:19 PM (9 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
I no longer believe the global warming hype. Just more fear mongering propaganda IMO.
--------------------
"In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson
"Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 12,229
Last seen: 10 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: bradmassive]
#8047784 - 02/20/08 03:20 PM (9 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bradmassive said:
I no longer believe the global warming hype. Just more fear mongering propaganda IMO.
yup.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 12,346
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
When it comes to something that could potentially wipe out humanity, precaution is a good idea.
There are many things that could possibly wipe out humanity. Global warming is among the more far-fetched.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 12,346
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: boomer q]
#8050452 - 02/21/08 03:03 AM (9 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
and no one from "Newsmax" is gonna convince me oherwise
They merely referred to other articles. Weak that you should focus on them.
Quote:
if you go to 100 doctors and 95 of them tell you that you have cancer, are you gonna say that theres no consensus because the other 5 guys arent convinced?
Depends on how much opposing evidence the 95 ignore.
Quote:
also, 2013 is only 5 years away
And 2023 is only 15 years away. By then people will be back to freaking about the next ice age. It's what people do. And the gullible do it more. And the evidence will likely be as weak.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,329
|
|
Quote:
It's what people do. And the gullible do it more. And the evidence will likely be as weak.
Oh... I now realize the error of my thinking. When it came to insight climate change, I had been listening to one of my chemistry professors who has actually been to the Antarctica on several occasions as part of a team that drills for polar ice caps & uses the findings to document the earth's climate for the last 600,000 to 1,000,000 years. All along, though, I should've been listening to you instead.
Quote:
By then people will be back to freaking about the next ice age.
You are aware that an ice age is a possible result of current climate change.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 12,229
Last seen: 10 hours, 47 minutes
|
|
Which research I'm sure you can understand and will post quite soon. How come CO2 increases follow temperature increases. Historically speaking, of course.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,329
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zappaisgod]
#8052053 - 02/21/08 02:05 PM (9 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
For the last 800,000 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have been directly correlated with temperature. Which one begins to rise first is unknown because that would require that scientists be able to date air bubbles trapped in ice cores to increments of 50-150 years, which they presently aren't able to do. Presently CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in roughly the last 1,000,000 years (as are the concentrations of nitrous oxide & methane). Predictable, well-established cycles dating back roughly 800,000 years suggest that the earth should now be beginning a cooling cycle instead of further increasing temperatures.
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill
Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 846
Loc: VA
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
When it comes to something that could potentially wipe out humanity, precaution is a good idea.
\
Investigation of the facts is a 'good idea' above and before any precaution.
--------------------
"In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson
"Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 12,229
Last seen: 10 hours, 47 minutes
|
|
Really? A million years, huh? I'd love to see the links on that. So, do you have anything that proves a causal relationship in the CO2 to temperature increase. Because I sure as shit haven't seen one. It actually makes more sense the other way, that is, that temperature increase allows more CO2 in the atmosphere. Further, I have read that we are actually coming out of a baby ice age, that there really has only been a tiny temp increase in one hundred years (less than 1 degree), that a lot of it is due to monitoring stations being located in increasingly urbanized areas, and that the 1930s were warmer, for example. Also angry sun syndrome. But I'd love to see anything about these 800,000 year cycles. When was the last ice age? 10,000 years ago?
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
Luddite
fossil fool
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1,761
|
|
Chemical Lobotomy, you don't know jack.
Global warming strikes again!
Posted by Cassy Fiano
Published: February 20, 2008 - 12:40 PM
Global warming has struck yet again! The Goracle has proved that he truly is able to predict what the weather will be like 10+ years from now, and if we simply bow down to him and put ourselves into the Economic Dark Ages, he will be able to save all of our lives.
Who needs the Obamamessiah when you've got the Goracle?
In case you're wondering what it is that has cemented the reality of global warming, here it is.
All that arctic ice that the Goracle's acolytes were hyperventilating over, that caused the crying over polar bears that were drowning and dying, and the whining that we would soon see 50 foot tidal waves putting the coasts of the United States underwater, the arctic ice that had supposedly melted and gone away for good?
Well, um, it's, uh, back.
Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.
It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.
But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the "lost" ice has come back.
Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.
The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
...
Vast swathes of the world have suffered chaos because of some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades.
Central and southern China, the USA and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms.
Even the Middle East saw snow, with Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reporting the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan snow and freezing weather killed 120 people.
In Britain the barmy February weather came to an abrupt halt at the weekend as temperatures plunged to -10C in central England.
Experts believe that this month could end up as one of the coldest Februaries in Britain in the past 10 years.
The freezing night-time conditions look set to stay around -8C until at least the middle of the week.
Maybe that consensus isn't as ironclad as the Goreacle has led us to believe (but who actually believed that it was?).
But then again, this is probably due to global warming, too. According to the Goracle's global warming fanatical followers, everything is caused by global warming! Extreme heat? Global warming. Extreme cold? Global warming. Polar ice caps melt? Global warming. Polar ice caps swell? Global warming. Too many hurricanes? Global warming. Not enough hurricanes? Global warming. An ant is killed by some kid with a magnifying glass? Global warming!
So fear not, ye followers of the Church of Climate Change. I'm sure the apocalypse caused by global warming will still come in ten or so years time if we continue to refuse to bow to the will of the Almighty Goracle.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/02/20/global-warming-strikes-again.php
--------------------
http://www.protestwarrior.com/
http://www.thepeoplescube.com
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/Climate.htm
  
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,329
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: zappaisgod]
#8052520 - 02/21/08 04:12 PM (9 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Really? A million years, huh? I'd love to see the links on that.
Deep ice tells long climate story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
Quote:
So, do you have anything that proves a causal relationship in the CO2 to temperature increase. Because I sure as shit haven't seen one.
Hot off the projector #3: Atmospheric CO2 to 800 kyr ago
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/hot-off-the-projector-3-atmospheric-co2-to-800-kyr-ago/langswitch_lang/sw
The graph 2/3 of the way down in this article shows a definite correlation in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide & methane with temperature over the last 500,000 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw
Prior to very modern times, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been above 300 parts per million for at least 650,000 years. That they have been increasing above this & are presently about to 400 ppm is undeniably the cause of multiple human activities (burning fossil fuels being #1 & deforestation being #2, I believe). That increased amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to warming can be seen today & in very recent history, regardless of which one drove the other in the past (which isn't fully understood yet) where there was without a doubt a correlation between the two (or three if you count methane) factors.
Quote:
that there really has only been a tiny temp increase in one hundred years (less than 1 degree)
It's been about + 1.25oF, give or take a quarter of a degree either way.
While some people (very few of them actual scientists) are still attempting to raise doubt & create public confusion on this issue, the scientific community has moved to here...
Ecologists from across the globe who specialize in the study of many different types of ecosystems have reached a general consensus that the lower end of the predictions of what is to come, although severe & presenting many challenges & hardships, wouldn't be catastrophic, while the upper end of them will be.
Quote:
Oceans' Acidity Influences Early Carbon Dioxide And Temperature Link Estimates
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040317074024.htm
- An international team of geoscientists believes that carbon dioxide, and not changes in cosmic ray intensity, was the factor controlling ancient global temperatures. The new findings resulted from the researchers inclusion of the ocean's changing acidity in their calculations.
"Reviewing the geologic records of carbon dioxide and glaciations, we found that carbon dioxide was low during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high during other, warmer periods," says Dr. Dana L. Royer, research associate in geosciences at Penn State. "Previous suggestions that cosmic ray flux correlated better with ancient temperatures than carbon dioxides do not appear true. While cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, it is likely of second-order importance on a multimillion year timescale."
The researchers looked at climate changes that occurred over the past 570 million years. A direct record of global temperature and carbon dioxide exists for the past 100 years and ice cores provide carbon dioxide information for the past 400,000 years. However, for the remainder of the years, there are no direct measurements.
"A close correspondence between carbon dioxide and temperature has generally been found for the past 570 million years," says Royer. Scientists typically use proxies to determine carbon dioxide and temperatures in the distant past. Oxygen isotope ratios in shallow marine carbonate fossils were used by some researchers to determine surface water temperatures, and this indicated that carbon dioxide and temperature were not correlated, but that cosmic ray fluxes were correlated to temperature. Other proxies can determine carbon dioxide concentrations in both the atmosphere and the oceans.
Royer, working with Robert A. Berner, The Alan M. Bateman professor of geology and geophysics, Yale University; Isabel P. Montanez, professor of geology, University of California Davis; Neil J. Tabor, research associate, Southern Methodist University; and David J. Beerling, professor of animal and plant sciences, University of Sheffield, U.K., compared the results of a variety of carbon dioxide proxies to a model, GEOCARB III, that predicts carbon dioxide over time by tracking carbon entering and leaving the atmosphere. "Proxy estimates of paleo carbon dioxide agree, within modeling errors with GEOCARB model results," the researchers reported in the March issue of GSA Today.
The researchers also found good correlation between low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the presence of extensive continental glaciations.
However, the proxy for temperature obtained from shallow oceanic carbonate deposits did not correlate well with the other temperature proxies or the carbon dioxide estimates.
"The acidity of the oceans changes depending on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the amounts of calcium and calcium carbonate in the water," says Royer. "When corrected for acidity, the temperature curve matches the glacial record much better."
The researchers applied correction factors for changes in acidity due to changes in carbon dioxide alone, changes in calcium ions in the water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and also for changes in calcium ions, carbon dioxide and calcium carbonate saturation of the water. The corrected temperature curves correctly predicted two major glaciations, one around 300 million years ago and one 30 million years ago. The cosmic ray flux does predict these glaciations, but also predicts cold temperatures when there is no evidence for ice.
"The global temperatures inferred from the cosmic ray flux model do not correlate with the temperature record determined from oxygen isotopes in shallow marine carbonate fossils, when these estimates were corrected for past changes in oceanic acidity," says the Penn State researcher.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation supported this research.
The following is a good article in presenting evidence that dispels the idea that CO2 levels increase as a result of temperature increases:
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/22/08 12:23 AM)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,329
|
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: Luddite]
#8052536 - 02/21/08 04:16 PM (9 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Thank you for posting yet another stupid article by someone, I'm guessing, who has no idea of the science & its complexities regarding the topic being discussed.
|
snoopaloop53
No BetterFriend. NoWorse Friend.
Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 311
Last seen: 6 months, 9 days
|
|
What is more important now, getting the increases in temperature under control and perhaps bringing the temps down or accepting the fact that temps are going up and how do we deal with those accompanying issues? Is the slow rise of sea level going to be a bigger problem or the random storm surge that destroys lots of the coast?
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,329
|
|
That the temperatures are going to increase at least 2oC over the next century is greater than a 90% certainty, so making plans to deal with this widely accepted consensus should be done by all responsible & forward-thinking organizations (governments & NGOs alike); this increase in now unavoidable it appears. At the same time, polices should be developed to attempt to avert the 4oC increase that ecologists believe will be a worldwide disaster the likes of which humanity has not yet known. If it can be done effectively will be seen by our children & grandchildren.
An interesting variable that is rarely, if ever, discussed in the media is the fact that less solar radiation is reaching the earth's surface than it has even decades ago, as evidenced by pan evaporation rates decreasing in recent decades while temperatures are at the same time increasing; a phenomenon known as 'global dimming'. Ironically, global dimming may very well be what is moderating global warming. Global dimming is perhaps a greater threat than global warming due to hydroxyl radicals being produced when the strong enough UV radiation hits water vapor molecules. These highly unstable radicals, when they are formed, almost instantaneously react with another molecule. Produced in the atmosphere, the molecules they almost always react with are greenhouse gases and/or pollutants, oxidizing them so that they can bond to water & fall harmlessly to the earth's surface.
Without this effect to clean up after us, pollution would simply hang around as thick clouds of smog indefinitely... no sunlight reaching most of the earth's surface = an instantaneous ice age & no photosynthesis = mass animal death. There is also evidence that this system is being overwhelmed due to excessive human-caused pollution, as it has been documented by NASA scientists that the concentration of hydroxyl radicals in the environment is decreasing. I point this out because the real debate regarding climate change is about more than just 'global warming'; it's about a fundamentally unsustainable way of life that has to be altered & reformed. If it is not, catastrophe is very likely within the next few centuries.
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/21/08 08:11 PM)
| |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
