Page 73 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2363686970717273747576777883 ... LastLast
Results 1,441 to 1,460 of 2209
  1. #1441  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    BTW - it seems that many models point to the Western Peninsula experiencing some warming, which is being offset by incresed precipitation elsewhere on the continent.
    Resulting in a net shrinking of antarctica and the consequent melting contributing to a rise in the sea levels - as clearly stated by Dr. Wingham himself.
  2. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1442  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Resulting in a net shrinking of antarctica and the consequent melting contributing to a rise in the sea levels - as clearly stated by Dr. Wingham himself.
    But CryoSat was not the only satellite available to polar scientists. Dr. Wingham has been collecting satellite data for years, and arriving at startling conclusions. Early last year at a European Union Space Conference in Brussels, for example, Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening, and concluded that the spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming.

    "The Antarctic Peninsula is exceptional because it juts out so far north," Dr. Wingham told the press at the time. As well, scientists have been drawn to the peninsula because it is relatively accessible and its climate is moderate, allowing it to be more easily studied than the harsh interior of the continent. Because many scientists have been preoccupied with what was, in effect, the tip of the iceberg, they missed the mass of evidence that lay beneath the surface.

    "One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled 'the contribution of anthropogenic warming,' " Dr. Wingham elaborated, but the evidence is not "favourable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming".

    Doesn't sound like he is saying Antarctica is thinning due to global warming, much less thinning due to man-made global warming.

    Furthermore, I think you will find most of his testimony that says that even if Antartica melts, its contribution to sea levels going up with neglible (even the questionable IPCC study says the effect is somewhere between non-existant to minimal).
    Last edited by gojeda; 10/31/2007 at 12:41 PM.
  3. #1443  
    you claimed that antarctica was getting bigger and I felt that based on the available data this was incorrect.
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The Artic is melting....and Antarctica is getting bigger. What is the point?
    And from your comments I got the impression that you were asking for more information about the subject:
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Is this the best you can do?

    LOL conspiratists rejoice!
    So I provided data from several 2007 Nature and Science journals to back up my claims that antarctica is indeed shrinking, including the most recent article by Dr. Wingham.
    Quote Originally Posted by Science 16 March 2007:
    Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1529 - 1532

    Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets

    Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham

    After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../315/5818/1529
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1444  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    you claimed that antarctica was getting bigger and I felt that based on the available data this was incorrect.

    And from your comments I got the impression that you were asking for more information about the subject:


    So I provided data from several 2007 Nature and Science journals to back up my claims that antarctica is indeed shrinking, including the most recent article by Dr. Wingham.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../315/5818/1529
    If you recall, I provided two studies. One of them being Wingham's and the other being from National Geographic.

    I have not heard much about the NatGeo study I cited.

    Whether or not Antarctica is melting or not is less important as to whether or not is due to natural cycles, global warming, or man-made global warming...and whether or not it raises oceans by a significant margin.

    Furthermore, here is another study from the US Geological Survey regarding an Artic glacier.

    2003 too old? Maybe, maybe not.....but I think it cements the notion that the science is simply not there yet.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/
  5. #1445  
    ah, now you are switching again back to the arctic? This is showing even more dramatic melting. For starters, the northwest passage is now open to navigation, thanks to extreme arctic melting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nature 449, 267 (2007)
    Arctic melt opens Northwest passage
    Record low for sea-ice retreat.

    The most direct shipping route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, connecting Asia and Europe, is fully navigable for the first time since records began, data show. Warming has led to a record retreat of Arctic sea ice, which covers about 16 million square kilometres during March each year and melts to a minimum sometime in September or October. The previous record minimum was 5.32 million square kilometres, set in 2005, but this year it has already reached a low of 4.24 million square kilometres, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

    The drop may have been caused by warmer ocean waters over the past few summers, says John Walsh, a climate scientist at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. This summer has been unusually cloud-free, and spring temperatures over the Russian part of the Arctic were higher than usual, he says. Lack of sea ice itself contributes to warming, since ice reflects the Sun's heat better than the sea. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that if current trends continue, a summer without sea ice will occur in the next 40 to 100 years.

    Figure legend: Melting of Arctic sea ice has opened the Northwest Passage in summer, providing a route between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for invasive species

    Next, there is the satellite imagery to prove how massive the ice melt is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nature Geoscience
    Published online: 25 October 2007

    Open ocean waters absorb almost ten times more solar radiation than sea ice — a phenomenon known as the ice-albedo feedback. Recent declines in the extent of Arctic summer sea ice may partly be due to the increase in heat being absorbed by the newly uncovered ocean.

    Donald Perovich at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory at the US Army ERDC and colleagues1 used a series of satellite-derived measurements of ice cover and solar radiation in the Arctic from 1979 to 2005 to estimate the amount of heat the ice-free ocean was absorbing. Although scientists have predicted that diminishing sea ice would lead to increasing heat absorption in the ocean, few studies have been able to quantify the effects. The team, led by Perovich, found that most of the Arctic Ocean has steadily been absorbing more heat since 1979. Areas such as the Chukchi Sea near the coast of Alaska have experienced increases of up to 4% per year.

    Over the 26 year period, the Arctic Ocean absorbed enough additional heat to melt up to 9,300 km3 of sea ice. Large amounts of energy stored in the upper ocean could also delay or prevent the refreezing of sea ice during the following winter.
    Here are two satellite images which document the dwindling arctic icecap, the first from the journal Nature:

    16 Sept 2007: the long-term average summer sea ice extent is shown by the pink line, today’s ice extent is shown in white.National Snow and Ice Data Center

    The second from NASA:

    Here is additional informative data from NASA which further documents the arctic ice melting.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Stu...ctic_ice3.html
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Stu...ctic_ice4.html

    So no I am not convinced by your one isolated report of what happened to one glacier, but rather the totality of the arctic region as a whole, as documented by multiple sources which make it clear to me that the arctic is indeed melting quite dramatically.
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1446  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    ah, now you are switching again back to the arctic? This is showing even more dramatic melting. For starters, the northwest passage is now open to navigation, thanks to extreme arctic melting.
    I believe there is little doubt that tha Artic is melting. However, the reason why the report was brought up was because it further supports the notion that we do not know why the Artic is melting or the root causes behind global warming as a whole, much less know why a glacier is "bucking the trend".
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1447  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I support the views of:
    1) the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
    2) the editors of the Journal Science
    3) the editors of the Journal Nature
    4) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    5) the National Research Council, United States Academy of Sciences
    6) the American Meterological Association
    7) the American Geophysical Union
    8) the American Institute of Physics
    9) the Geological Society of America
    10) the American Chemical Society
    who all have come out to say they believe that humans are contributing to global warming.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
    The only major scientific group which appears to have a dissenting statement on humans and global warming come from the American Association for Petroleum Geologists. An association filled with people like this guy from modInny's link, German Ojeda, who works for ecopetrol.
    http://www.unal.edu.co/geociencias/E....htm#editboard

    So if you ask me, who do I believe, the 10 major scientific organizations of our country who study climate change, or the Association for Petroleum Geologists, a group which I believe has a financial interest in perpetuating uncertainty and inaction on global warming, I would side with the former.
    I support:

    - The United States Geological Survery
    - The University of Wisconsin
    - NASA
    - Massachusettes Institute of Technology
    - The University of Alabama
    - Colorado State University
    - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    - National Oceangraphic and Atmospheric Administration
    - National Academy of Sciences
    - Florida State University
    - The University of Oklahoma
    - The University of Pennsylvania

    ....among others....

    All of whom have raised doubts, or have provided conclusive evidence against the man-made global warmining. So you will forgive me if I believe these prestigious institutions instead of the cabal that makes up the powerful enviromental lobby who has made, and stands to make, millions of dollars from perpetuating the unproven science of global warming under the moniker of "scientific consensus" when it does not exist.
  8. #1448  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I believe there is little doubt that tha Artic is melting. However, the reason why the report was brought up was because it further supports the notion that we do not know why the Artic is melting or the root causes behind global warming as a whole, much less know why a glacier is "bucking the trend".
    I support the views of:
    1) the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
    2) the editors of the Journal Science
    3) the editors of the Journal Nature
    4) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    5) the National Research Council, United States Academy of Sciences
    6) the American Meterological Association
    7) the American Geophysical Union
    8) the American Institute of Physics
    9) the Geological Society of America
    10) the American Chemical Society
    who all have issued statements associating human activity and global warming.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
    The only major scientific group which appears to have a dissenting statement on humans and global warming come from the American Association for Petroleum Geologists. An association filled with people like this guy from modInny's link, German Ojeda, who works for ecopetrol.
    http://www.unal.edu.co/geociencias/E....htm#editboard

    So if you ask me, who do I believe, the 10 major scientific organizations of our country who study climate change, or the Association for Petroleum Geologists, a group which I believe has a financial interest in perpetuating uncertainty and inaction on global warming, I would agree with the former.

    There certainly are things we still need to learn. Science is never finished. We need to continue research into climate change and alternative energy. But it will take convincing new data to overturn what is the leading scientific view linking humans and global warming.

    Einstein was a great scientist because he overturned the leading scientific views of his time with new discoveries, not with rhetoric. Thats what is required to overturn sciences views today on humans and global warming. Not rhetoric, but new discoveries.

    So when some new data from Brookhaven or elsewhere overturns the prevailing view in the eyes of our scientific community, not just the petrol scientists but mainstream science, thats when my mind will change. It wont change with you telling me or anyone else here what to believe.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/01/2007 at 09:04 AM. Reason: made an addition to the end and reposted
  9. #1449  
    One wonders when 'scientific opinion', 'scientific consensus', or the views of editors of scientific journals suddenly became equal in weight to evidence. Also, Einstein was not a scientist per se. He was a theoretical physicist. His ideas and ways of framing observation were what made him great.

    Out of curiosity, cell, what is your vocation?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #1450  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    - The United States Geological Survery
    "Global warming, or human-induced climate change, is one of the most prominent environmental issues of our time. It is generally accepted that increases in the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping (greenhouse) gases, particularly carbon dioxide, may underlie any recent warming currently being documented and may contribute to subsequent global environmental change."
    http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/carbon_cycle/
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    NASA
    "Causes of global warming

    Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

    The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

    A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming."
    http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html
    -----------------------------------------
    I agree with the views of the USGS and NASA on global warming.
  11. #1451  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    One wonders when 'scientific opinion', 'scientific consensus', or the views of editors of scientific journals suddenly became equal in weight to evidence.
    In that same vein, wouldn't one be required to question exactly when entire University systems were responsible for "raised doubts, or have provided conclusive evidence against the man-made global warmining"?
  12. #1452  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    that you were posting something which had not been posted already. I would welcome that.
    When I posted this last group of scientific references on the subject of global warming I was thinking of your statement and I hope you found them informative. As far as my job, I have been up front about it, as have you I might add.
  13. #1453  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    In that same vein, wouldn't one be required to question exactly when entire University systems were responsible for "raised doubts, or have provided conclusive evidence against the man-made global warmining"?
    If I wasn't reading gojeda's response as somewhat TIC and intentionally hyperbolous, that might be fair. Then again, were I going to appoint myself the intellectual honesty police, I suppose I'd have to question how one would know what someone who was supposedly on one's ignore list had said.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #1454  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    When I posted this last group of scientific references on the subject of global warming I was thinking of your statement and I hope you found them informative.
    Well, I certainly rather new information than simply the same links over and over. However, I'm not sure that we get the same thing from all of them.
    As far as my job, I have been up front about it, as have you I might add.
    I don't believe I said you were being secretive, nor did I mean to imply it. I just don't recall it ever being mentioned. I suppose I can search, but it would have saved time to answer the question directly.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #1455  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    If I wasn't reading gojeda's response as somewhat TIC and intentionally hyperbolous, that might be fair. Then again, were I going to appoint myself the intellectual honesty police, I suppose I'd have to question how one would know what someone who was supposedly on one's ignore list had said.
    In addition, one would also have to appoint themselves the member policy police if one is assuming that one can never take a look at the post which created a certain response from cellmatrix.

    Thanks for placing into the record your assumption that a certain member's posts are "TIC and intentionally hyperbolous". The rest of us, I believe, recognize his actual "TIC and intentionally hyperbolous" posts as negative sarcasm and personal insults, not the listing of University systems.
  16. #1456  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    In addition, one would also have to appoint themselves the member policy police if one is assuming that one can never take a look at the post which created a certain response from cellmatrix.
    One isn't assuming one never could, but one certainly wonders what the point of supposedly ignoring a certain person is if one is not going to ignore them. OTOH, if one were going to appoint oneself the member policy police, there would be much more interesting policies to bring up.
    Thanks for placing into the record your assumption that a certain member's posts are "TIC and intentionally hyperbolous".
    You've added an 's' there where it isn't warranted. His list was obviously in response to cell's list despite cell's habit of deleting posts and then reposting them in modified format instead of simply editing either before or after it's posted.
    The rest of us, I believe, recognize his actual "TIC and intentionally hyperbolous" posts as negative sarcasm and personal insults, not the listing of University systems.
    He certainly throws around his share of sarcasm. IME, it's not unheard of in these sorts of discussions on the internets. However, I think the 'rest of us' are not exactly without blame on that front, nor on the flimsy 'evidence' front. It causes one to wonder if a quick digg or google search is all it takes to convince one of something, what other rhetorics they're falling prey to.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #1457  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    One isn't assuming one never could, but one certainly wonders what the point of supposedly ignoring a certain person is if one is not going to ignore them. OTOH, if one were going to appoint oneself the member policy police, there would be much more interesting policies to bring up.
    Hall monitor, are you? Discussion about "methods of discussion" seems to be what you're defending rather than the actual merit of a given post. Can we move on?

    You've added an 's' there where it isn't warranted.
    Judgment call since you solely appear to jump in when someone from the Right is called out. We can agree to disagree and move on.

    It causes one to wonder if a quick digg or google search is all it takes to convince one of something, what other rhetorics they're falling prey to.
    "Falling prey to"? Whether via internet or not, these subjects are just "goofin", eh? Must've missed that disclosure notice in Advance's OP, as well as in the hatred-based site in it's signature.
  18. #1458  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Hall monitor, are you?
    If I were, I'd be extremely lax in my duties.
    Discussion about "methods of discussion" seems to be what you're defending rather than the actual merit of a given post.
    I'm not defending anything per se. My post was trying to find out a bit more about where cell was coming from.
    Can we move on?
    Up to you.
    Judgment call since you solely appear to jump in when someone from the Right is called out.
    Strong observer bias there. I tend to 'appear' whenever something interests me. Typically it's going to be something that either affects me personally, or a bit of metadebate, but occasionally it'll be pure curiosity. ISTR jumping into a few discussions where 'the Left' was being called out as well.
    We can agree to disagree and move on.
    Excellent.
    "Falling prey to"?
    Yes, as in the traps that some of us let ourselves get caught in.
    Whether via internet or not, these subjects are just "goofin", eh?
    Quite the contrary, IMO, which is why I tend to vacillate between amusement and sheer terror when folks on the internets think they have it all figured out.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #1459  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    If I were, I'd be extremely lax in my duties.
    And such omnipotence would clearly be too much for a mere mortal.

    I'm not defending anything per se. My post was trying to find out a bit more about where cell was coming from.
    The same causative response you supplied which brought us to this point? Are you and gojeda sharing the same cheek in which to place your tongues?

    Up to you.
    Clearly why this distractive side-discussion took place.

    Strong observer bias there.
    No. Just observant.

    Yes, as in the traps that some of us let ourselves get caught in.
    Yet nothing to say about those who utilize "traps" as their communication technique de jeur. Sounds strikingly similar to your signature.
  20. #1460  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    And such omnipotence would clearly be too much for a mere mortal.
    Hall monitors are omnipotent?
    The same causative response you supplied which brought us to this point?
    What brought us to 'this point' was your taking issue with a comment to cell, and functionally calling me a hypocrite.
    Are you and gojeda sharing the same cheek in which to place your tongues?
    Yes, we're really bots programmed by Citgo on behalf of Hugo Chavez.
    Clearly why this distractive side-discussion took place.
    Quite.
    No. Just observant.
    Apparently not quite enough. Otherwise, you might have noticed at least one other instance where I was lumped into the leftie cabal by mikec. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Yet nothing to say about those who utilize "traps" as their communication technique de jeur.
    Trapping and trolling are noble professions among my people. FWIW, it's typically spelled 'du jour', although 'de jour' is a less commonly used alternative.
    Sounds strikingly similar to your signature.
    Well, my wife has said that had I become a doctor, I'd be House.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions