# Antarctic ice shelf showing signs of breaking away



## Chris (Nov 29, 2008)

(CNN) -- Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to it breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said.

 The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a large sheet of floating ice south of South America, is connected to two Antarctic islands by a strip of ice. That ice "bridge" has lost around 2,000 square kilometers (about 772 square miles) so far this year, the ESA said.

A satellite image captured November 26 shows new rifts on the ice shelf that make it dangerously close to breaking away from the strip of ice -- and the islands to which it's connected, the ESA said.

Scientists first spotted rifts in the ice shelf in late February, and they noticed further deterioration the following week. The period marks the end of the South Pole summer and is the time when such events are most likely, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Before the new rifts were spotted this week, the last cracks were noticed July 21.

"These new rifts, which have joined previously existing rifts on the ice shelf, threaten to break up the chunk of ice located beneath the 21 July date, which would cause the bridge to lose its stabilization and collapse," said Angelika Humbert, a scientist from Germany's Muenster University who spotted the cracks with Matthias Braun of the University of Bonn.

Wilkins is the size of the state of Connecticut, or about half the area of Scotland. It is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.

New rifts form on Antarctic ice shelf - CNN.com


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to it breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said.
> 
> The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a large sheet of floating ice south of South America, is connected to two Antarctic islands by a strip of ice. That ice "bridge" has lost around 2,000 square kilometers (about 772 square miles) so far this year, the ESA said.
> 
> ...



And the problem is ----?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> And the problem is ----?



None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.



It's fun to watch--that'll be one hell of a big ice cube !


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 29, 2008)

I've been dropping ice cubes in the Arkansas River.  This has the effect of cooling water that will eventually end up in the ocean.  Before long, this entire global warming mess will be history.  I'm just trying to do my part.


----------



## editec (Nov 29, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> And the problem is ----?


 
The problem MIGHT be that the salinity in the ocean changes as that fresh water ice melts thus screwing up the Atlantic currents.

Hey, I watch the mandatory TV ecological disasters movies like a good citizen, too.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 29, 2008)

editec said:


> The problem MIGHT be that the salinity in the ocean changes as that fresh water ice melts thus screwing up the Atlantic currents.
> 
> Hey, I watch the mandatory TV ecological disasters movies like a good citizen, too.



Screwing up currents ?  Is that something that humans won't be able to adjust to ?


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 29, 2008)

editec said:


> The problem MIGHT be that the salinity in the ocean changes as that fresh water ice melts thus screwing up the Atlantic currents.
> 
> Hey, I watch the mandatory TV ecological disasters movies like a good citizen, too.



I forgot to mention that the ice cubes I drop into the Arkansas River contain a pinch of salt.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.



Assuming you can establish the causal chain, rather than relying on correlation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Assuming you can establish the causal chain, rather than relying on correlation.



That was done over a hundred years ago.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Missourian (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming *caused by the burning of fossil fuels*.




*So how did the burning of fossil fuels cause warming and cooling in all the other drastic climate changes in our planets recent history?  *


*Lake Chicago*​
"The city of Chicago lies in a broad plain which, hundreds of millions of years ago, was a great interior basin covered by warm, shallow seas. These seas covered portions of North America from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Evidence of these seas are found in the fossils of coral, such as those unearthed in Illinois quarries at Stony Island Avenue, Thornton and McCook Avenues, or at 18th Street and Damen Avenue, all in Chicago. Evidence may also be found in the fossils in the Niagara limestone bedrock found throughout the Chicago area and extending all the way to Niagara, New York.

*Much later, the polar ice cap crept four times down across the continent, covering the region with ice to a depth of a mile or more. As the climate changed, the ice melted;* and the last great ice flow (the Wisconsin Glacier of the Pleistocene period, which covered much of northern half of North America) retreated, and an outlet for the melting water developed through the Sag River and the Des Plaines River Valley around Mt. Forest, Illinois, in the area known as the Palos. Mighty torrents of water poured through those valleys, eventually leaving behind them the prehistoric Lake Chicago, the ancestor of Lake Michigan."  Lake Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*Lake Bonneville​*
"Lake Bonneville was a large, ancient lake that existed from about 32 to 14 thousand years ago.  It occupied the lowest, closed depression in the eastern Great Basin and at its largest extent covered about 20,000 square miles of western Utah and smaller portions of eastern Nevada and southern Idaho.

At its largest, Lake Bonneville was about 325 miles long, 135 miles wide, and had a maximum depth of over 1,000 feet.  It contained many islands that are the present-day mountain ranges of western Utah.  Its relatively fresh water was derived from direct precipitation, rivers, streams, and water from melting glaciers.  *During the time of Lake Bonneville, the climate was somewhat wetter and colder than now. *
"  Utah's Great Salt Lake and Ancient Lake Bonneville, PI39 - Utah Geological Survey











*California's Ancient Inland Sea ​*
"Formed at about the same time as the Sierras, by faulting and down-warping of the earth's crust, Mono Lake has had varying amounts of water in it for about a million years. During the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago, the lake filled the entire basin, 338 square miles, and was in places 900 feet deep. *The salt-rimmed 60 square miles of milky water you see now is a briny shadow of the lake's ice age self*."  California's Ancient Inland Sea - New York Times


*Lake Manly​*
"Lake Manly was a large freshwater lake which filled the Death Valley (United States) basin *prior to the dry climatic period which has prevailed since the last ice age*. Lake Manly receded due to increased evaporation, and to isolation from the Colorado River system, to which it was once connected. At its greatest extent Lake Manly was roughly 80 miles long and 800 feet deep.

As Lake Manly evaporated to the surface of Death Valley, it left a remarkable legacy. Under the surface of Death Valley is one of the world's largest underground reservoirs (aquifers). Being fed by the Amargosa River and Salt Creek, this aquifer is barely visible above ground at Badwater, the lowest point in the valley (282 feet below sea level)."  Lake Manly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Lake Lahontan​*
"Ancient Lake Lahontan was a large endorheic lake that existed during the ice age, covering much of northwestern Nevada, extending into northeastern California and southern Oregon. At its peak approximately 12,700 years ago (during a period known as the "Sehoo Highstand"), the lake had a surface area of over 8500 square miles, [1] with its largest component centered at the location of the present Carson Sink. The depth of the lake was approximately 900 feet[2] (290 m) at present day Pyramid Lake, and 500 feet (150 m) at the Black Rock Desert. Lake Lahontan, during this earlier ice age, would have been one of the largest lakes in North America.[3]

*Climate change around the end of the Pleistocene epoch led to a gradual desiccation of ancient Lake Lahontan. *The lake had largely disappeared in its extended form by approximately 9,000 years ago."  Lake Lahontan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## del (Nov 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Scientists have identified new rifts on an Antarctic ice shelf that could lead to it breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, the European Space Agency said.
> 
> The Wilkins Ice Shelf, a large sheet of floating ice south of South America, is connected to two Antarctic islands by a strip of ice. That ice "bridge" has lost around 2,000 square kilometers (about 772 square miles) so far this year, the ESA said.
> 
> ...



<yawn>
that's nice
any guns involved?


----------



## DavidS (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.



You made three statements. The first statement you made was that an ice shelf from Antarctica was breaking off. I've found a much better article than the one you posted that discusses this.

ESA - Observing the Earth - Understanding Our Planet - Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat

Notice the part where it says "floating ice shelf." This isn't part of the antarctican continent, this is part of a floating ice shelf. But I digress.

The second statement you made, and I did not realize you were an expert climatologist, was that a piece of this floating shelf was breaking off due to the Earth warming.

Let's assume you're going to live to 75 years of age. This would mean you would live 2,365,200,000 seconds. If I were to observe you for 11,826 seconds (.0005%), I would be observing you for a little over 3 hours. Within that 3 hour time period, if I were to be as detailed as possible in my notes, there is no way I could make an educated guess as to who you are and have a full psychological profile. 

The same is to be said about Antarctica. We've been studying climatology in antarctica for 50 years. Compared to the hundreds of millions of years that our continents have been the way they are, with minor variances in sea levels, is nothing - absolutely nothing. In fact, if the continents were 100 million years old, 1% of that would be 1 million years. 1% of the 1 million years would be 10,000 years. 1% of that would be 100 years. So we've been studying climate in Antarctica for .0005% of the time it's existed in the current form that it's in, assuming that the current continental arrangment is only 100 million years old and we know it's quite longer, probably about 300 million years. We have no direct evidence that the warming of 2.5 degrees celcius is abnormal, since we've only been taking temperatures in the antarctic for 50 years.

Lastly, we've only been able to accurately measure our Earth's temperature for 50 years as well. Yes, there were thermometers back in the early 20th century, but they were not as accurate as they are today and if you're going to make statements that the Earth is 1 degree warmer today than it was 100 years ago, then you would have to make the assumption that the way we kept records 100 years ago was accurate - and it wasn't. 

The third statement you made was that the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to an increase in temperatures over the past 100 years. I would assume you're using the CO2 theory that postulates increased CO2 in our atmosphere is causing our climate to warm. The accuracy of this statement would be dependent upon the second statement being true - that our earth is warming. We do not have nearly enough data to say whether or not this is true. We also do not have enough data to say that if the Earth is indeed warming, if this is natural or not. There are SEVERAL other sources of CO2 besides man-made CO2 that could be contributing to an increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. 

In conclusion, we do not have nearly enough data to say whether or not our Earth is warming and if it is the warming is natural or unnatural and if it is unnatural it is being harmful to our planet and if it is how harmful it's being and if it's being very harmful a reduction in burning fossil fuels will reduce, overall, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere and if it does if removing CO2 from our atmosphere is actually a GOOD thing. We are like 5 year old children thinking we can perform quadruple bypass surgery. We have no idea. And we had better back the fuck off because we have no idea if what we're doing to solve the problem will actually solve the problem or make it worse, if there is indeed a problem at all.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> That was done over a hundred years ago.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making. 

Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.
> 
> Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"



OF COURSE it is. Besides being the new secularist dogma of course.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 29, 2008)

But Al Gore said it was true. So it must be true!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

Missourian said:


> *So how did the burning of fossil fuels cause warming and cooling in all the other drastic climate changes in our planets recent history?  *
> 
> 
> *Lake Chicago*​
> ...



You ignored Lake Missoula. I feel slighted. 

As for your statement concerning climate changes in the past, yes, there have been many. And for many causes.Here is where you can begin real research on them, just one of many good sites;
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology - Climate Reconstructions

The present cycle of continental glaciers and interglacial periods are due to the Milankovic Cycles. There have been times of great catastrophe in prior periods where the influx of greenhouse gases, initiated by trap volcanics, created climatic conditions that resulted in major extinctions. The Perimian-Triassic was the worst of them, a 95% of species dieoff.


----------



## Neubarth (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.
> 
> Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"



The Earth is presently warming, but we do not know if that is a normal thing.  I know in researching the history of Greenland for my book *Newbeard the Great*, I found out that there were reports of people being able to circumnavigate Greenland prior to the voyage of Columbus. Today that is impossible because of the ice sheet to the north of Greenland.  Could it be that conditions in that area were warmer a thousand years ago???


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> You made three statements. The first statement you made was that an ice shelf from Antarctica was breaking off. I've found a much better article than the one you posted that discusses this.
> 
> ESA - Observing the Earth - Understanding Our Planet - Wilkins Ice Shelf under threat
> 
> ...



We have ample data, from dendochronology to ice cores that go back further than 650,000 years. We also have proxy data from isotopes of oxygen and carbon that go back hundreds of millions of years.

The earth is warming, and warming with a rapidity only matched in periods that in prior geologic history led to a time of major extinction. The only other major source of CO2 in the atmosphere is volcanos, and, at present, their contribution is less than 1/130th that of man. That is a USGS figure. 

Today, virtually all the alpine glaciers are in rapid retreat on all the inhabited contintents. The major ice caps, Greenland and Anarctica, are losing ice mass at the rate of tens of cubic miles per year. The Siberian and North American permafrost areas are melting and beginning to outgass CO2 and CH4. The physical evidence of the warming is undeniable.

As far as the scientific community is concerned, there is an overwhelming consensus that the earth is warming and that the burning of fossil fuel is the primary cause. Every single scientific society on earth states this in it's policy statement concerning global warming. As does every National Academy of Science, as does every major university.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.
> 
> Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"



And you are flapping your yap without ever bothering to read the information in the article. Not something that speaks highly of your intellect.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

Neubarth said:


> The Earth is presently warming, but we do not know if that is a normal thing.  I know in researching the history of Greenland for my book *Newbeard the Great*, I found out that there were reports of people being able to circumnavigate Greenland prior to the voyage of Columbus. Today that is impossible because of the ice sheet to the north of Greenland.  Could it be that conditions in that area were warmer a thousand years ago???



6
Ice Isotopes
Analyses of stable isotopes in glacial ice provide records of climate changes at high resolution over long time periods. In the low latitudes, this signal is a combination of temperature and hydrologic variables. In the polar ice sheets, the signal is primarily driven by temperature.

Isotope records from Tibet and the Andes show that the climate of the 20th century was unusual with respect to the preceding 2,000 years. Current understanding does not allow us to separate the temperature part of this signal rigorously, but all evidence indicates Tibet warmed over the last century. Andean climate changes have patterns over space and time that are not yet understood.

Greenland had a pronounced period of warmth around A.D. 1000, a cool period from 1600 through 1900, and a modest 20th century warming. Some coastal sites in Antarctica show 20th century warming but interior sites do not. No Antarctic sites show a warming during medieval times.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years


----------



## DavidS (Nov 29, 2008)

Neubarth said:


> The Earth is presently warming, but we do not know if that is a normal thing.  I know in researching the history of Greenland for my book *Newbeard the Great*, I found out that there were reports of people being able to circumnavigate Greenland prior to the voyage of Columbus. Today that is impossible because of the ice sheet to the north of Greenland.  Could it be that conditions in that area were warmer a thousand years ago???



1000 years ago was the medieval warm period. The polar caps were melted and you could grow wine grapes as far north as south Britain. Greenland was named Greenland because.... drumroll please... IT WAS GREEN! Obviously we know that Greenland is NOT Green today.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> We have ample data, from dendochronology to ice cores that go back further than 650,000 years. We also have proxy data from isotopes of oxygen and carbon that go back hundreds of millions of years.



And have you, personally studied and seen this technology? Have you learned dendochronology in ice cores? Have you learned all of this yourself and have you come up with the same conclusion the UN has?



> The earth is warming, and warming with a rapidity only matched in periods that in prior geologic history led to a time of major extinction.



So you're saying that the Earth has, indeed warmed this rapidly before without human intervention?



> The only other major source of CO2 in the atmosphere is volcanos,



This is where you ignorance shows.

CO2 is found in decay of dead plant and animal matter, evaporation from the oceans and respiration (breathing). The increase in CO2 levels could be due to the increase of human beings who emit CO2. Human physiology tells us that a person emits 450 liters of CO2 per day. Annually, that's 6,297,000,000,000 liters of CO2 emitted by 6.6 billion human beings. Are you going to tell us to stop breathing now?



> and, at present, their contribution is less than 1/130th that of man. That is a USGS figure.



USGS - United States Geological Survey = United States government. Government is making billions of dollars off of the green industry, not to mention politicians and lobbyists are making billions as well. 



> Today, virtually all the alpine glaciers are in rapid retreat on all the inhabited contintents. The major ice caps, Greenland and Anarctica, are losing ice mass at the rate of tens of cubic miles per year. The Siberian and North American permafrost areas are melting and beginning to outgass CO2 and CH4. The physical evidence of the warming is undeniable.



Do you see this for yourself? Or are you trusting outside sources again?



> As far as the scientific community is concerned, there is an overwhelming consensus that the earth is warming and that the burning of fossil fuel is the primary cause. Every single scientific society on earth states this in it's policy statement concerning global warming. As does every National Academy of Science, as does every major university.



31,000 scinetests have signed this petition to reject global warming.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Here is a list of scientests opposing global warming
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is another website targetting global warming with hard facts instead of soft facts made up by people who stand to profit greatly in the next decade with the Green Indsutry. 

JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher

As George Bush and Dick Cheney were to oil, Barack Obama will be to the Green Industry. People will make billions of dollars off of the biggest swindle in the history of the world.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> And you are flapping your yap without ever bothering to read the information in the article. Not something that speaks highly of your intellect.



Sorry, I don't read "scientific" data from 100+ years ago when there wasn't even electricity invented yet and a majority of people thought the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the Earth. 

I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV, but I do have common sense knowledge that tells me that man-made global warming is about as real as last month's playmate's breasts.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 29, 2008)

There is no question global warming is real.  Scientists have been observing global warming for years.  We are talking about Mars, right?

Global warming hits Mars too: study


----------



## DavidS (Nov 29, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> There is no question global warming is real.  Scientists have been observing global warming for years.  We are talking about Mars, right?
> 
> Global warming hits Mars too: study



Question: What do Mars and Earth have in common?
Answer: The sun!

Sunspot activity has dramatically decreased. Thus our Earth is cooler this year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

Cooler than when?

Newswise &#8212; Global trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decadehttp://www.newswise.com/articles/view/546585/


October temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (about 0.31° Fahrenheit) above 20-year
average for October.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.26 C (about 0.47° Fahrenheit) above 20-year average
for October.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.07 C (about 0.13° Fahrenheit) above 20-year average
for October.

September temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.16 C above 20-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.22 C above 20-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.11 C above 20-year average

(All temperature variations are based on a 20-year average (1979-1998) for
the month reported.)

Notes on data released Nov. 17, 2008:

As part of an ongoing joint project between The University of Alabama in
Huntsville, NOAA and NASA, Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System
Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr.
Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the ESSC, use data gathered
by microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate
temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth.

This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas for which reliable
climate data are not otherwise available. The satellite-based instruments
measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude
of about eight kilometers above sea level.

Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed
in a &#8220;public&#8221; computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists
in the U.S. and abroad.

Neither Spencer nor Christy receives any research support or funding from
oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or
special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from
state and federal grants or contracts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS, you certainly are not a scientist. Cyclic CO2 is no problem. We breath out CO2, the plants process this and put out O2, which we breathe and exhale CO2. No net gain or loss in the amount of atmospheric CO2. However, by burning massive amounts of sequestered carbon, coal, and oil, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by almost 40%.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

Yes, I have seen the retreat of major glaciers in the Cascades, the Blues, and the Rockies. Up close and personal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2008)

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search



 This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch. 
 This article is part of the Nuclear spin analysis project of SpinWatch (UK) and the Center for Media and Democracy. 
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war. 

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences. 


Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
> From SourceWatch
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> ...



 Can you GUARANTEE that man can keep the climate in it's natural state ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> None at all. Just continued evidence of the accelerating effects of the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.



. . . Or just evidence that the earth is a dynamic and ever-changing place.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Screwing up currents ?  Is that something that humans won't be able to adjust to ?



Well, if we can't, then we deserve to become extinct.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> You're relying on scientific data from over a hundred years ago? Please tell me you're joking. There isn't one scientific community that relies on data from 20 years ago, some 10 and even further some 5 years ago because of the technological advancements we keep making.
> 
> Is it possible that the people advancing and promoting this idea of global warming are making hundreds of billions of dollars from the "Green Industry?"



Well, on the other hand, he probably also still thinks evolution is the cutting edge of modern science, despite being introduced over a hundred years ago, when people still thought that cells were mere globs of protoplasm.

For some people, "science" is defined as "anything that reinforces the beliefs I've already decided to hold".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> OF COURSE it is. Besides being the new secularist dogma of course.



Oh, I also forgot to mention that, while he's pointing to a theory from a hundred years ago, FORTY years ago people thought the globe was in danger from COOLING.

Now, of course, it's just "climate change".  That way, they can claim to be prescient and infallible no matter what happens.  And, after all, they can rest assured that the climate WILL change.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

Neubarth said:


> The Earth is presently warming, but we do not know if that is a normal thing.  I know in researching the history of Greenland for my book *Newbeard the Great*, I found out that there were reports of people being able to circumnavigate Greenland prior to the voyage of Columbus. Today that is impossible because of the ice sheet to the north of Greenland.  Could it be that conditions in that area were warmer a thousand years ago???



Last I heard, there was evidence of people actually living and farming in Greenland.  There IS a reason it's called "GREENland".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> 1000 years ago was the medieval warm period. The polar caps were melted and you could grow wine grapes as far north as south Britain. Greenland was named Greenland because.... drumroll please... IT WAS GREEN! Obviously we know that Greenland is NOT Green today.



Wanna know something else?  Once upon a time, the Sahara Desert was green and fertile and had lots of rain.  In fact, the erosion on the Sphinx comes from heavy rainfall and flooding, not from wind and sand, as with the erosion on the much-younger pyramids.

I swear, if the eco-nuts had been around at the time, they'd have been screaming in horror about having caused the continental drift that broke up Pangea.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, I have seen the retreat of major glaciers in the Cascades, the Blues, and the Rockies. Up close and personal.



YOU can actually observe the movement of glaciers?  Can you also watch continental drift?  Is there anything else you can personally witness that no one else can see with the naked eye, Oh Mighty One?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Can you GUARANTEE that man can keep the climate in it's natural state ?



I want him to first guarantee me, with certification, exactly what the correct "natural state" of the Earth and its climate IS, and that it was intended to become that way and then stay there forever, and would have done so without man's intervention.  THEN he can go about proving that mankind can accomplish what an entire planet couldn't.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 29, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Question: What do Mars and Earth have in common?
> Answer: The sun!
> 
> Sunspot activity has dramatically decreased. Thus our Earth is cooler this year.



Don't be silly.  Global Warming on Mars is caused by SUVs.  Every Martian has one.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 29, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I want him to first guarantee me, with certification, exactly what the correct "natural state" of the Earth and its climate IS, and that it was intended to become that way and then stay there forever, and would have done so without man's intervention.  THEN he can go about proving that mankind can accomplish what an entire planet couldn't.



Well it WOULD be nice to know what the Earth's thermostat SHOULD be at before we decide to give someone a bunch of money to change it. Besides, it might come in handy if we are a little warmer BEFORE a cataclysmic global winter hits.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 29, 2008)




----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Well it WOULD be nice to know what the Earth's thermostat SHOULD be at before we decide to give someone a bunch of money to change it. Besides, it might come in handy if we are a little warmer BEFORE a cataclysmic global winter hits.



I think the point is that there isn't any "should be" about it.  Nothing about the Earth is static and unchanging, and certainly not its climate.  We tend to think of it as such over the long term, only because OUR long term is like the blink of a gnat's eye in comparison to the planet's.  From our perspective, it appears solid and reliable, but it really isn't, and never has been.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I think the point is that there isn't any "should be" about it.  Nothing about the Earth is static and unchanging, and certainly not its climate.  We tend to think of it as such over the long term, only because OUR long term is like the blink of a gnat's eye in comparison to the planet's.  From our perspective, it appears solid and reliable, but it really isn't, and never has been.



No, the point is that* CO2 warms the earth, no one disputes that,* and we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 39% in the last 200 years. Soon we will have doubled it. 

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than at any time ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

We are warming the earth. The only question is, How much?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, the point is that* CO2 warms the earth, no one disputes that,* and we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 39% in the last 200 years. Soon we will have doubled it.
> 
> The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now than at any time ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.
> 
> We are warming the earth. The only question is, How much?



No, the point HERE is that "no one disputes that" is a flat-out lie.  LOTS of people dispute every aspect of global warming.  A corollary point is that science is not decided by taking a vote, and then telling everyone else that it's settled, now sit down and shut the hell up and don't ever, ever, EVER question it again.  In REAL science, EVERYTHING is up for question, and if your argument runs along the line of, "This is how it is, and that's that, and now all that's left is how much we destroy our lives to change it", you have veered away from science and into religion.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, the point HERE is that "no one disputes that" is a flat-out lie.  LOTS of people dispute every aspect of global warming.  A corollary point is that science is not decided by taking a vote, and then telling everyone else that it's settled, now sit down and shut the hell up and don't ever, ever, EVER question it again.  In REAL science, EVERYTHING is up for question, and if your argument runs along the line of, "This is how it is, and that's that, and now all that's left is how much we destroy our lives to change it", you have veered away from science and into religion.



No, CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.

 No one disputes that.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2008)

The greenhouse effect refers to the change in the thermal equilibrium temperature of a planet or moon by the presence of an atmosphere containing gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation.[1] Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, warm the atmosphere by efficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth&#8217;s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. As a result of its warmth, the atmosphere also radiates thermal infrared in all directions, including downward to the Earth&#8217;s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.[2][3][4][5] This mechanism is fundamentally different from the mechanism of an actual greenhouse, which instead isolates air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection and conduction, as discussed below. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in the year 1858 and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper.[6]

In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature[7] of 14 °C (57 °F) could be as low as &#8722;18 °C (&#8722;0.4 °F), the black body temperature of the Earth.[8][9][10]

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Missourian (Nov 29, 2008)

The world is not a static environment.  IMO we only exhibit our monumental arrogance when we state a belief that we can change the course of the global climate.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2008)

Missourian said:


> The world is not a static environment.  IMO we only exhibit or monumental arrogance when we state a belief that we can change the course of the global climate.



No, we state facts.

No one denies where the hole in the ozone came from.


----------



## del (Nov 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, we state facts.
> 
> No one denies where the hole in the ozone came from.



no, you mindlessly parrot talking points. 
my apologies to parrots everywhere.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2008)

del said:


> no, you mindlessly parrot talking points.
> my apologies to parrots everywhere.



And all you do is insult people thru your various sock puppets.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat.
> 
> No one disputes that.



LOTS of people - not just any people, but climatologists and other scientists working in the field of weather, climate, and atmospherics - dispute the idea that CO2 is dangerous or harmful to the Earth's climate, and that mankind is endangering the Earth by producing too much of it.  And don't even try that whole "I will equate one argument with another, superficially related one in order to make mine appear correct" tactic on me.  That's like saying, "See, this species shows microevolution, so that proves that macroevolution exists."  I have very little patience with such intellectual laziness.


----------



## del (Nov 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> And all you do is insult people thru your various sock puppets.



no, it's just me and i'm pretty sure you don't count as "people", kirky.
have an almond, you'll feel better.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, we state facts.
> 
> No one denies where the hole in the ozone came from.



Hole in the ozone?  There isn't a hole in the ozone.  There is a temporary cyclical thinning of the ozone.  The Earth's ozone layer is created by . . . wait for it . . . the sun!  At certain times, in certain places, there is much less sunlight, owing to a phenomenon we call "winter", causing the ozone layer in those areas to thin.  And then it's not winter any more, and the ozone layer replenishes itself.


----------



## Chris (Nov 29, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LOTS of people - not just any people, but climatologists and other scientists working in the field of weather, climate, and atmospherics - dispute the idea that CO2 is dangerous or harmful to the Earth's climate, and that mankind is endangering the Earth by producing too much of it.  And don't even try that whole "I will equate one argument with another, superficially related one in order to make mine appear correct" tactic on me.  That's like saying, "See, this species shows microevolution, so that proves that macroevolution exists."  I have very little patience with such intellectual laziness.



Show me a link where a climatologist says that CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the earth to warm.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Chris said:


> Show me a link where a climatologist says that CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the earth to warm.



What part of "that bullshit don't fly with me, Bubba" do you not understand?  Microevolution isn't macroevolution, and temporary, harmless, natural warming isn't catastrophic, man-made, global warming.

If the best you can do is to fraudulently pretend that 1) I said something I didn't and 2) one thing is automatically another, then you have merely proven my point that man-made global warming is crap with no substantial basis and its preachers are nothing but lying wackjobs.

I'm feeling generous, so you can have one more try at making a REAL argument.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> What part of "that bullshit don't fly with me, Bubba" do you not understand?  Microevolution isn't macroevolution, and temporary, harmless, natural warming isn't catastrophic, man-made, global warming.
> 
> If the best you can do is to fraudulently pretend that 1) I said something I didn't and 2) one thing is automatically another, then you have merely proven my point that man-made global warming is crap with no substantial basis and its preachers are nothing but lying wackjobs.
> 
> I'm feeling generous, so you can have one more try at making a REAL argument.



As I suspected, no facts, only bluster.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> What part of "that bullshit don't fly with me, Bubba" do you not understand?  Microevolution isn't macroevolution, and temporary, harmless, natural warming isn't catastrophic, man-made, global warming.
> 
> If the best you can do is to fraudulently pretend that 1) I said something I didn't and 2) one thing is automatically another, then you have merely proven my point that man-made global warming is crap with no substantial basis and its preachers are nothing but lying wackjobs.
> 
> I'm feeling generous, so you can have one more try at making a REAL argument.



Change in the alleles that control our genetic heritage is evolution, period. Be the results major or minor. 

Since every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university states that the warming is occuring, that it is dangerous, and that the primary cause of the warming is the actions of mankind, why should I give the slightest credance to someone posting their obvious ignorance on a message board?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, I also forgot to mention that, while he's pointing to a theory from a hundred years ago, FORTY years ago people thought the globe was in danger from COOLING.
> 
> Now, of course, it's just "climate change".  That way, they can claim to be prescient and infallible no matter what happens.  And, after all, they can rest assured that the climate WILL change.



Don't you people ever research anything?

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?


----------



## editec (Nov 30, 2008)

Missourian said:


> The world is not a static environment. IMO we only exhibit our monumental arrogance when we state a belief that we can change the course of the global climate.


 
Monumental _arrogance?_

What is arrogant about understanding that we have pumped billions of tons of CO2 into the air, and measuring the change in the earth's overall temperature as a result of that monumental change we have created in our atmosphere?

Nobody who understands science disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Nobody who believes that the global warming is anthrogenic doesn't know that the atmosphere changes _with or without mankind's activities_, either.

But what we also know, but apparently you haven't yet heard, is that right now, THIS TIME, we _seem to be responsible_ for some of the rather alarming changes we are measuring.

We can quibble about to what extent _our CO2_ is changing our environment, but nobody who is reality based is going to deny that it's changing rather quickly.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hole in the ozone?  There isn't a hole in the ozone.  There is a temporary cyclical thinning of the ozone.  The Earth's ozone layer is created by . . . wait for it . . . the sun!  At certain times, in certain places, there is much less sunlight, owing to a phenomenon we call "winter", causing the ozone layer in those areas to thin.  And then it's not winter any more, and the ozone layer replenishes itself.



No, Ceclilie, there is an unnatural thinning of the ozone from CFCs.
CFCs and Ozone Depletion

Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), along with other chlorine- and bromine-containing compounds, have been implicated in the accelerated depletion of ozone in the Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were developed in the early 1930s and are used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and household applications. These substances are non-toxic, non-flammable, and non-reactive with other chemical compounds. These desirable safety characteristics, along with their stable thermodynamic properties, make them ideal for many applications--as coolants for commercial and home refrigeration units, aerosol propellants, electronic cleaning solvents, and blowing agents. Production and Use of Chlorofluorocarbons experienced nearly uninterrupted growth as demand for products requiring their use continued to rise.
Not until 1973 was chlorine found to be a catalytic agent in ozone destruction. Catalytic destruction of ozone removes the odd oxygen species [atomic oxygen (O) and ozone (O3)] while leaving chlorine unaffected. This process was known to be potentially damaging to the ozone layer, but conclusive evidence of stratospheric ozone loss was not discovered until 1984. Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in March 1985 prompted scientific initiatives to discover the Ozone Depletion Processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons. A complex scenario of atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime. Recent expeditions to the Arctic regions show that similar processes can occur in the northern hemisphere, but to a somewhat lesser degree due to warmer temperatures and erratic dynamic patterns.

A primary objective for researchers in addressing this issue has been analysis of Measurements and Trends in Ozone and Chlorofluorocarbon Levels. Global monitoring of ozone levels from space by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument has shown statistically significant downward trends in ozone at all latitudes outside the tropics. Measurements at several ground-based stations have shown corresponding upward trends in CFCs in both the northern and southern hemisphere. Despite rapid phaseout of CFCs, ozone levels are expected to be lower than pre-depletion levels for several decades due to the long tropospheric lifetimes of CFCs. These compounds are carried into the stratosphere, where they can undergo hundreds of catalytic cycles involving ozone before being scavenged by other chemical species.

Replacement compounds for CFCs have also been evaluated for their Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP). Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) still contain chlorine atoms, but the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with chemical species in the troposphere. This greatly reduces the prospects of the chlorine reaching the stratosphere, as chlorine will be removed by chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potential replacements for CFCs that contain no chlorine, have been evaluated for potential effects of fluorine compounds on ozone destruction. McFarland and Kaye give an overview of the CFC-ozone issue in the 1992 paper "Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone."


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Last I heard, there was evidence of people actually living and farming in Greenland.  There IS a reason it's called "GREENland".



It was called Greenland by Eric the Red to get people to migrate there. It was a sales ploy. At the best of times, Greenland was barely habitable, and when the climate changed just slightly, the colony perished. In his book, 'Collapse', Jared Diamond covered the climate, the people, and the reasons for the death of the colony quite well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> YOU can actually observe the movement of glaciers?  Can you also watch continental drift?  Is there anything else you can personally witness that no one else can see with the naked eye, Oh Mighty One?



I have spent most of my life in Washington and Oregon. I have seen, over period longer than 60 years, the retreat of glaciers on all the major peaks. In areas of the Blues where there were once year arround snowfields, there is now bare ground two months of the year. Washington state contains more glacier area than the other lower 47 combined. It is hardly difficult to see and walk to and on glaciers in that state. 

North Cascade Glaciers


----------



## Missourian (Nov 30, 2008)

editec said:


> We can quibble about to what extent _our CO2_ is changing our environment, but nobody who is reality based is going to deny that it's changing *rather quickly*.




Respectfully, we don't know.  I'm not a scientist.  No one has time to be an expert on everything. I only apply common sense to the things I think_*_ I know. 



Here's an example.  During the Ice Ages, the reflective nature of the ice should have diverted a large amount of the solar radiation back out into space, causing terrestial temperatures to continue to drop until the earth was nothing but a frozen sphere.  Why didn't that happen?  And keep in mind it happen four times.  Does this imply a large and somewhat rapid surge in solar radiation (temperatures)?  How else could the earth recover(?) from those Ice Ages?





_*_Meaning "there are times that what I think I know ain't so" (Reagan).


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Respectfully, we don't know.  I'm not a scientist.  No one has time to be an expert on everything. I only apply common sense to the things I think_*_ I know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The sun is the major cause of climate changes on the earth, but the solar scientists say that the sun's radiation has not changed enough to account for the changes we are seeing.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2008)

Chris said:


> The sun is the major cause of climate changes on the earth, but the solar scientists say that the sun's radiation has not changed enough to account for the changes we are seeing.



That's not necessarily true.  I think we're heading into a cold period, such as scientists were predicting back in the 1970s.  Already even the scientists who favor the anthropogenic model for warming are saying we're in a 'temporary' cooling period.  That made news a while back.  I think the cooling period is going to be more protracted.

Right now, the solar cycle is in a period of extremely low activity.  A similar period of low activity correlated with the Little Ice Age, which ran about 450-500 years.  I think we're likely heading that way again.

Also, warming events do precede cooling events, because the warming causes an influx of cold water into the oceans when you get land and floating ice starting to melt.

Based on the scientific literature, I think that's the most likely scenario.

However, one main point that should be taken from climate science is that we don't understand nearly as much as some people (namely, politicians) like to claim we do.  We can speculate and try to predict, but anyone who tells you we know for certain one way or another is selling something.


----------



## Chris (Nov 30, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> That's not necessarily true.  I think we're heading into a cold period, such as scientists were predicting back in the 1970s.  Already even the scientists who favor the anthropogenic model for warming are saying we're in a 'temporary' cooling period.  That made news a while back.  I think the cooling period is going to be more protracted.
> 
> Right now, the solar cycle is in a period of extremely low activity.  A similar period of low activity correlated with the Little Ice Age, which ran about 450-500 years.  I think we're likely heading that way again.
> 
> ...



The North Polar Ice Cap is melting.

That we know for certain.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2008)

Chris said:


> The North Polar Ice Cap is melting.
> 
> That we know for certain.



Yes. What we don't know for certain is why and what the climate ramifications will be.  Seems to me the evidence points toward warming from the earth's crust as a primary factor, and I suspect that human activity can contribute to this.  I also suspect that as more ice melts into the ocean we'll continue to move into a colder phase as we seem to have been doing.

But we're not sure what all is at work.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Oh well, it only means humans will become extinct sooner.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Chris said:


> As I suspected, no facts, only bluster.



You suspected that about yourself as well?  Well, then, I don't feel so bad about ignoring you for being a lying sack.  

Come back when you have the testicular fortitude to debate for real.  FLUSH!


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Bottom line:

Gore is an attention hound and no more, he only started this craze to get that attention.

The planet can handle pollution in small amounts, it's not the pollution that's bad because that is a natural cycle of things, it's that we are so over populated now that the levels have exceeded the natural amounts too much.

The planet will live on, life will continue to exist even if drastically different than what we know now, just humans will not, and good riddance at this rate anyway.

Global warming/cooling is really over simplifying the effects, it's a tag line and nothing more, one which is used to rally those who want to tell everyone what is right and wrong behind one side or the other. Global chaos is a better term but even that is still too simplistic.

The effects of our excess pollution is not fully realized with any one term or scientific theory, needless to say, even if we did clean up our pollution our population itself still poses a bigger problem. Those who do not want to stop breeding of course will continue to use the pollution arguments for or against instead of facing the real issue.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Change in the alleles that control our genetic heritage is evolution, period. Be the results major or minor.



Wrong, Spanky.  Changes inside a species are NOT changes from one species to another, and do NOT constitute proof that change between species happens.  Trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.



Old Rocks said:


> Since every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university states that the warming is occuring, that it is dangerous, and that the primary cause of the warming is the actions of mankind, why should I give the slightest credance to someone posting their obvious ignorance on a message board?



Since you're too ignorant to know that science isn't decided by majority vote - the truth isn't a democracy, Einstein - AND you're dumb enough to believe that there even IS a settled consensus on the subject, why should I give any "credance"  to someone posting a buttload of quotes they don't understand AND their ignorance on a message board?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> That's not necessarily true.  I think we're heading into a cold period, such as scientists were predicting back in the 1970s.  Already even the scientists who favor the anthropogenic model for warming are saying we're in a 'temporary' cooling period.  That made news a while back.  I think the cooling period is going to be more protracted.
> 
> Right now, the solar cycle is in a period of extremely low activity.  A similar period of low activity correlated with the Little Ice Age, which ran about 450-500 years.  I think we're likely heading that way again.
> 
> ...



Please, the scientists were not saying that we were heading into a cooling period in the 1970s. This myth was started by an article that the National Acacemies of Science produced in 1975. It was severly misinterpreted and misread by a Newsweek science writer. Here is a complete report on that issue;
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Respectfully, we don't know.  I'm not a scientist.  No one has time to be an expert on everything. I only apply common sense to the things I think_*_ I know.
> 
> SIZE="1"]_*_Meaning "there are times that what I think I know ain't so" (Reagan).[/SIZE]




Here's an example.  During the Ice Ages, the reflective nature of the ice should have diverted a large amount of the solar radiation back out into space, causing terrestial temperatures to continue to drop until the earth was nothing but a frozen sphere.  Why didn't that happen?  And keep in mind it happen four times.  Does this imply a large and somewhat rapid surge in solar radiation (temperatures)?  How else could the earth recover(?) from those Ice Ages?

You are correct, no one has time to know everything. Here is some information on the Milankovic Cycles, you can follow the links for a more complete understanding of the ice age cycles. It is the fact that we are now quite far from where we should be on the global tempretures by these cycles that is indictutive that we have changed how things are working.


Milankovitch Cycles


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Don't you people ever research anything?
> 
> Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?



Since your definition of "research" would be "reading blogs and propaganda sites that confirm my Chicken Little view of the world", the answer to that would be no.  I never waste my time begging people to lie to me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Wrong, Spanky.  Changes inside a species are NOT changes from one species to another, and do NOT constitute proof that change between species happens.  Trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you're too ignorant to know that science isn't decided by majority vote - the truth isn't a democracy, Einstein - AND you're dumb enough to believe that there even IS a settled consensus on the subject, why should I give any "credance"  to someone posting a buttload of quotes they don't understand AND their ignorance on a message board?



Well, Cecilie, evolution has been observed, speciation events have been documented, and your refusal to accept reality hardly changes that reality. Scientific consensus is how we decide what we accept as reality. You may want to believe diamond is soft, but after thousands of tests, the scientific consensus is that diamonds are hard, your belief affected the tests not one whit. Scientific consensus is that the earth orbits the sun. That masses attract each other. That micro-organisms can cause disease. And, based on all the current evidence, that the burning of fossil fuels, and nearly 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 that has resulted, is causing the current global warming.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Ceclilie, there is an unnatural thinning of the ozone from CFCs.
> CFCs and Ozone Depletion
> 
> Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion
> ...



Should I feel like having someone lie to me in order to scare me into authorizing ever-bigger grants from tax money for them, rest assured that I am more than capable of going, finding their propaganda, and reading it for myself.  Since you and I both know that you never understand a damned word of the articles that you regurgitate wholecloth here in place of posting any original thoughts of your own, you might as well not even bother.  "He has a PhD and it's SOOOO SCARY!" works on you, not me.

By the way, if I don't start seeing some posts from you that contain something you've written other than "No, see, this guy says this!" before you blurt out some huge cut-and-paste article that has impressed you with its scads of technical terms, you're going to go join Chris in the Chicken Little Losers Limbo.  This is supposed to be debate, which means you are actually required to occasionally think for yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> It was called Greenland by Eric the Red to get people to migrate there. It was a sales ploy. At the best of times, Greenland was barely habitable, and when the climate changed just slightly, the colony perished. In his book, 'Collapse', Jared Diamond covered the climate, the people, and the reasons for the death of the colony quite well.



The key phrase in there is "when the climate changed".  So basically, you wasted a post trying to contradict my statement that Greenland was NOT always as it is now, only to confirm it.

By the way, how was it that the climate changed to make Greenland what it is now?  Those Vikings driving a lot of SUVs, were they?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Should I feel like having someone lie to me in order to scare me into authorizing ever-bigger grants from tax money for them, rest assured that I am more than capable of going, finding their propaganda, and reading it for myself.  Since you and I both know that you never understand a damned word of the articles that you regurgitate wholecloth here in place of posting any original thoughts of your own, you might as well not even bother.  "He has a PhD and it's SOOOO SCARY!" works on you, not me.
> 
> By the way, if I don't start seeing some posts from you that contain something you've written other than "No, see, this guy says this!" before you blurt out some huge cut-and-paste article that has impressed you with its scads of technical terms, you're going to go join Chris in the Chicken Little Losers Limbo.  This is supposed to be debate, which means you are actually required to occasionally think for yourself.




I have yet to see any evidence that you have done any thinking for yourself. Just regurgitated talking points without any evidence to back them up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> I have spent most of my life in Washington and Oregon. I have seen, over period longer than 60 years, the retreat of glaciers on all the major peaks. In areas of the Blues where there were once year arround snowfields, there is now bare ground two months of the year. Washington state contains more glacier area than the other lower 47 combined. It is hardly difficult to see and walk to and on glaciers in that state.
> 
> North Cascade Glaciers



Seeing a glacier and being told that it has retreated is not "seeing it retreat", Brain Trust.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Please, the scientists were not saying that we were heading into a cooling period in the 1970s. This myth was started by an article that the National Acacemies of Science produced in 1975. It was severly misinterpreted and misread by a Newsweek science writer. Here is a complete report on that issue;
> http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html



This is the problem with relying on secondary sources and not going to the original science, which is the only way to evaluate this sort of thing.

See for example Quaternary Research, 2, 261- 9, 1972: "The end of the present interglacial," an entire volume of scientific research devoted to looking at the science around the current interglacial period.  You will find papers there that do in fact indicate that we're coming out of the current interglacial. Of course, we're talking geologic time periods here, not an end to the interglacial in a few decades.  

See also Nature, 1974, v252 p 216-8, which predicts we're leaving the interglacial period and entering a new ice age.

Also look at the book Climatic Change, edited by John Gribbin, 1978, which talks about us having moved into the end period of the current interglacial.  Again we're talking geologic timescales.

B. J. Mason, QJRMS, 1976, p 473 (Symons Memorial Lecture) predicted a 1 in 5 chance we were moving into a prolonged cold period, though not into a glacial in the near future.

H. Flohn, Quaternary Research, 4, 385-404, 1974, "Background of a geophysical model of the initiation of the next glaciation," in which it is noted that the end of the current interglacial is 'undoubtedly near.'

And of course a key point to keep in mind is we don't have any certainty on the issue because of the nature of the problem.

But to say that scientists were not saying we were moving into a cooling period in the 1970s is demonstrably false.  There were certainly scientists saying just that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> This is the problem with relying on secondary sources and not going to the original science, which is the only way to evaluate this sort of thing.
> 
> See for example Quaternary Research, 2, 261- 9, 1972: "The end of the present interglacial," an entire volume of scientific research devoted to looking at the science around the current interglacial period.  You will find papers there that do in fact indicate that we're coming out of the current interglacial. Of course, we're talking geologic time periods here, not an end to the interglacial in a few decades.
> 
> ...



The majority were saying, by a margin of at least two to one that they were worried more about warming from the increasing GHGs. And the article that kicked off the whole thing, the National Academies of Science report, stated that they considered there was only a 5% chance that we were moving into a rapid cooling event. Mostly they stated that at that time, they simply did not have enough information to make a reasonable judgement. 

As far as the Milankovic Cycle cooling, we should be now cooler than we are at present. The climate has deviated from where it should be by past interglacials. The only major change that we can see at present is the massive amounts of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Cecilie, evolution has been observed, speciation events have been documented, and your refusal to accept reality hardly changes that reality.



Well, Spanky, evolution takes millions of years to happen if it exists at all, so would you like to tell me whose life span is long enough to have "observed" it, much less to have "documented" speciation events?  Your willingness to gullibly believe anything you're told, provided the speaker has a degree and a sufficiently impressive grasp of scary technical jargon does not make reality.



Old Rocks said:


> Scientific consensus is how we decide what we accept as reality.



No, it isn't.  Science is about evidence, facts, and questioning, not taking a poll to see what sounds good to everyone.



Old Rocks said:


> You may want to believe diamond is soft, but after thousands of tests, the scientific consensus is that diamonds are hard, your belief affected the tests not one whit.



I love it.  You give me an example of empirical fact to argue that science is about consensus.  Hey, Mensa Boy.  They didn't VOTE on whether or not that diamond is hard.  They didn't say, "All the important organizations accept that it's hard, therefore it's hard."  Dear GOD, you're a halfwit.



Old Rocks said:


> Scientific consensus is that the earth orbits the sun. That masses attract each other.



No, that's not "consensus", dumb shit.  That's observed, demonstrated FACT.  They didn't vote on it.  They didn't take a poll to see if most scientists thought that was the case.  In fact, the scientific "consensus" on the subject was that the sun orbited the Earth, and if REAL scientists were as credulous as you are, that's where the matter would have rested.  Fortunately, REAL scientists knew enough to keep questioning and find the TRUTH instead of accepting the "consensus".



Old Rocks said:


> That micro-organisms can cause disease.



They didn't take a vote on that either, lackwit.



Old Rocks said:


> And, based on all the current evidence, that the burning of fossil fuels, and nearly 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 that has resulted, is causing the current global warming.



Yeah, except there IS no current evidence on that.  Just guesswork.  That's why you have to keep resorting to screaming, "Consensus!"  If it were hard, empirically proven fact, you'd be citing it, instead of telling me about all the terribly impressive PhDs who said so, so it must be true.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> I have yet to see any evidence that you have done any thinking for yourself. Just regurgitated talking points without any evidence to back them up.



You, the master of the cut-and-paste three-page article you don't understand a word of, talking about someone ELSE regurgitating talking points is so damned funny, I can't even describe it adequately.  The one time you DID attempt to post something clever you thought of yourself, you ended up contradicting your own post within the same sentence.  Step on your johnson much?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seeing a glacier and being told that it has retreated is not "seeing it retreat", Brain Trust.



Seeing the retreat of several glaciers over a period of 40 years is seeing that glacier retreat. As I stated, I have walked on many of these glaciers and snowfields, in the Cascades, the Blues, and the Rockies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie;

Hey, Mensa Boy

That is correct..


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

observed speciation events;

Observed Instances of Speciation


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie, I must admit that I cheat like hell when discussing science. I actually quote and post what real scientists are saying and writing. Very terrible habit.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> The majority were saying, by a margin of at least two to one that they were worried more about warming from the increasing GHGs. And the article that kicked off the whole thing, the National Academies of Science report, stated that they considered there was only a 5% chance that we were moving into a rapid cooling event. Mostly they stated that at that time, they simply did not have enough information to make a reasonable judgement.
> 
> As far as the Milankovic Cycle cooling, we should be now cooler than we are at present. The climate has deviated from where it should be by past interglacials. The only major change that we can see at present is the massive amounts of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.



That NAS report didn't "kick off the whole thing."  If you look closely, you will observe that 3 of the 5 citations I gave predate the NAS report, one of them by three years.

As for majority versus minority, that is a separate discussion.  I merely pointed out that "scientists" in the 1970s were predicting cooling.  You said that my statement pertained to a 'myth.'  Simply providing a single reference would have been sufficient to establish your myth comment to be incorrect.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Cecilie, I must admit that I cheat like hell when discussing science. I actually quote and post what real scientists are saying and writing. Very terrible habit.



I'm a Scientist.  If you need any assistance, please don't hesitate to call.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Seeing the retreat of several glaciers over a period of 40 years is seeing that glacier retreat. As I stated, I have walked on many of these glaciers and snowfields, in the Cascades, the Blues, and the Rockies.



Once again, Einstein, no one can SEE a glacier retreat.  They move too slowly to observe with the naked eye.  Looking at a glacier and even walking on a glacier is NOT "seeing a glacier retreat".  One MEASURES glacial movement, which I highly doubt you, personally, have done.  So that brings us back to "someone told you", and we all can see how utterly gullible and credulous you are to being told things by anyone with an impressive enough amount of jargon.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

old Rocks said:


> cecilie;
> 
> Hey, Mensa Boy
> 
> that Is Correct..



Flush!


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, Spanky, evolution takes millions of years to happen if it exists at all, so would you like to tell me whose life span is long enough to have "observed" it,




Wow, you're clueless about a _number_ of subjects.  Consider me shocked!

To answer your question, insects.  Read more on the topic here:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 30, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Cecilie, I must admit that I cheat like hell when discussing science. I actually quote and post what real scientists are saying and writing. Very terrible habit.



If the facts are there to be quoted to make a point, there is no reason to retype it in your own words.  Cecilie just can't keep up in the debate and she has to find _something_ to pick on and when she talks herself into a corner and can't answer without embarrassing herself, she posts "Flush" and then runs like a coward.  She's like 1,000 other trolls I've seen on message boards.  Ho-hum.


----------



## deaddude (Dec 1, 2008)

> Screwing up currents ? Is that something that humans won't be able to adjust to ?



This particular quote is stupid, and not the sort of forgivable stupid that happens to everyone. The fact that I know this person to usually be intelligent can only lead me to believe that this is willfully stupid.

Could we adapt to changing currents? Depending on the severity, maybe. However less adaptable animals, say fish, could not. How many people rely on fisheries for food? How many countries rely on fishing for a large portion of their economy?

If you severely alter the ocean currents you shift weather patterns, you get coral bleachings, it is bad.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2008)

deaddude said:


> This particular quote is stupid, and not the sort of forgivable stupid that happens to everyone. The fact that I know this person to usually be intelligent can only lead me to believe that this is willfully stupid.
> 
> Could we adapt to changing currents? Depending on the severity, maybe. However less adaptable animals, say fish, could not. How many people rely on fisheries for food? How many countries rely on fishing for a large portion of their economy?
> 
> If you severely alter the ocean currents you shift weather patterns, you get coral bleachings, it is bad.



Actually you do much more than that. Look up the effects of the Younger Dryas, and its suspected cause.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 1, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> Wow, you're clueless about a _number_ of subjects.  Consider me shocked!
> 
> To answer your question, insects.  Read more on the topic here:
> 
> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution



I like that page. Thanks for a great link.


----------



## YWN666 (Dec 2, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> I like that page. Thanks for a great link.



You're welcome.  It seems to have shut Cecilie up and that can only be a good thing.  Unfortunately, she'll just go to another thread and pretend to know everything.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Dec 4, 2008)

deaddude said:


> This particular quote is stupid, and not the sort of forgivable stupid that happens to everyone. The fact that I know this person to usually be intelligent can only lead me to believe that this is willfully stupid.
> 
> Could we adapt to changing currents? Depending on the severity, maybe. However less adaptable animals, say fish, could not. How many people rely on fisheries for food? How many countries rely on fishing for a large portion of their economy?
> 
> If you severely alter the ocean currents you shift weather patterns, you get coral bleachings, it is bad.



Global warming is a GOOD thing, I never understood why so many think is such a bad thing.

hundreds of millions of acres of new arable farmland.  Cold water fish will simply migrate to the arctic and be replaced by an explosion of warm water fish.  I'm quite partial to Red Snapper myself...  So what if we can catch them off the Newfoundland coast?

And if my winters warmed up 20deg it would only get down to 0 here instead of -20.  That's a GOOD thing, too.  I'd use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint and a larger bank account


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 4, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Global warming is a GOOD thing, I never understood why so many think is such a bad thing.
> 
> hundreds of millions of acres of new arable farmland.  Cold water fish will simply migrate to the arctic and be replaced by an explosion of warm water fish.  I'm quite partial to Red Snapper myself...  So what if we can catch them off the Newfoundland coast?
> 
> And if my winters warmed up 20deg it would only get down to 0 here instead of -20.  That's a GOOD thing, too.  I'd use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint and a larger bank account



Um ... you do realize that a large amount of our water is frozen right? That if all that ice melts our land area will decrease to almost nothing. This is the reason 'global warming' would be a bad thing, problem is that people are just too stupid to look at the root of a problem, instead they just go for the symptoms.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 4, 2008)

Global warming can has significant impacts.  It has in the past, and we've had periods of rapid warming in the past.

The problem with the people who focus solely on the anthropogenic model is that they've somehow managed to believe that there's no doubt the model is accurate.  That, of course, isn't true.  It is by no means certain that humanity is a primary cause of warming.

Now, from my perspective, I agree with most of the environmental measures the anthropogenic people want because I think they're just good sense.  Reducing emissions, etc. makes sense whether there is a link to warming or not, and if you couple that with the possibility that it is linked to warming it makes even more sense.

But I feel in all likelihood that warming is a combination of natural cycle and human activity, with the natural cycles being predominant.  That's just my sense from reading a lot of the scientific literature directly rather than relying on popular media reports.

So here's the problem:  Al Gore and his fellow subscribers to the anthropogenic forces as "primary" are betting everything on the idea that we can reverse warming by changing our activities.  I think they're wrong.  We may be able to slow it somewhat (or maybe not), but in the meantime while they've focused all their efforts on prevention no one has focused much on adapting to the change.

We need to look more at adaptation because we likely can't stop the warming.  The impact could be extremely costly in terms of dollars, lives, economy, etc. But as usual we have to be hit over the head and then react retroactively.

The anthropogenic side of the argument have convinced so many people that we can actually stop climate change that we're not doing hardly anything to deal with the reality that we probably cannot.  That makes the people who have blinders on in the anthropogenic crowd as dangerous as the people who say there is no climate change at all.

Fact is, the climate is changing.  While we try to understand it better, we need to start making preparations for the change.  We're probably not going to be able to do anything to avert it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 4, 2008)

To point out one fact: Gore doesn't really care, he is just interested in the money and attention so pretends to care, like all cult leaders.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 4, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> To point out one fact: Gore doesn't really care, he is just interested in the money and attention so pretends to care, like all cult leaders.



I suspect that is true.


----------



## editec (Dec 4, 2008)

> *Antarctic ice shelf showing signs of breaking away *




Maybe the Antactic ice shelf is standing still and the rest of the world is breaking away?

I defy you to prove me wrong.


----------



## Chris (Dec 4, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> To point out one fact: Gore doesn't really care, he is just interested in the money and attention so pretends to care, like all cult leaders.



Yea, it's a blast to go around the country lecturing at colleges and staying in Mariotts.

No, it's not.

Believe me, I've done it.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 4, 2008)

Chris said:


> Yea, it's a blast to go around the country lecturing at colleges and staying in Mariotts.
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> Believe me, I've done it.



Clearly you weren't making the kind of money Gore makes off of Global Warming. Gore makes about $175,000 per speech and his net worth has gone up quite a bit since he hitched his star to the global warming wagon.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 4, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Clearly you weren't making the kind of money Gore makes off of Global Warming. Gore makes about $175,000 per speech and his net worth has gone up quite a bit since he hitched his star to the global warming wagon.



Not to mention that people who crave attention will do ANYTHING, no matter how vile or tedious, just to get it. Ever wonder why the kid in the store won't stop throwing a tantrum? It can't feel that good to scream, cry, and roll around on the floor like that. Gore is just like that kid.


----------



## deaddude (Dec 4, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Global warming is a GOOD thing, I never understood why so many think is such a bad thing.
> 
> hundreds of millions of acres of new arable farmland.  Cold water fish will simply migrate to the arctic and be replaced by an explosion of warm water fish.  I'm quite partial to Red Snapper myself...  So what if we can catch them off the Newfoundland coast?
> 
> And if my winters warmed up 20deg it would only get down to 0 here instead of -20.  That's a GOOD thing, too.  I'd use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint and a larger bank account



Where will coral migrate to? What about all of the life forms that depend on healthy coral reefs? Global warming is not a good thing. Move somewhere warmer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 4, 2008)

Here is ample reason to take the present warming seriously;

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 4, 2008)

In the last 50 years we have seen very rapid warming, and changes in the arctic that are far more serious than even the most pessimistic model. During that time the output of the sun, the total solar irradiance, has hardly changed, and insignificant decrease. In fact, the only major change that has occured is the accelerating increase of the anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere. About a 39% increase in CO2 alone. a 250% increase in CH4.

There have been periods in the Earth's geological history when there was rapid increase in the GHGs in the atmosphere due to natural processes. These led up to major and minor extinction events. However, as far as we can tell by the proxies, there was never a time when the percentage of the GHGs increase was as rapid as it is today. And there are none of the processes that caused the natural increases going on today. The only source of the excess GHGs today is the actions of mankind.

Were we to cease putting GHGs into the atmosphere today, we would still face another 30 to 50 years of effects from the present level of GHGs. Most of us will not live to see any improvement from actions we take now. 

As far as Gore goes, he successfully got his message out. He made a lot of money in the high tech market when it was on a downer. Seems to me that he is the very ideal of Adam Smith capitalism, doing well while doing good.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 4, 2008)

Here is one major issue, if it's natural we should not stop it, if it's not then we need to find out why and try to stop it. But just cutting back pollution we know isn't helping anyway.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 7, 2008)

Kitten, you need to read Hansen's article on pollution and GHGs. The pollution actually masked the effects of the GHGs for a while in the '70s. However, now the pollution is actively part of the problem as the particulates are increasing the speed of the melts on the glaciers and ice caps.


----------

