Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: JimmyTheFish on February 15, 2007, 04:22:03 PM
-
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php)
-
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php)
Has Dr. Bromwich's $10,000 check from ExxonMobil cleared yet?
-
Has Dr. Bromwich's $10,000,000,000 check from ExxonMobil cleared yet?
fixed
-
Has Dr. Bromwich's $10,000 check from ExxonMobil cleared yet?
Why is it you believe only Global Warming dissenters have an axe to grind?
-
Jimmy, that article doesn't propose that global warming doesn't exist. It merely says that it's difficult to use global climate models in assessing the effects of climate change on Antarctica.
-
Why is it you believe only Global Warming dissenters have an axe to grind?
Well, if you want to consider "I don't want to run the risk of my grandchildren dying of starvation after climate-change-induced agricultural collapse" to be a kind of axe-grinding, I guess no one can stop you.
I'll simply point out that those axe-grinders did not find it necessary to offer $10,000 payments to anyone to conclude that global warming is real.
-
I'll simply point out that those axe-grinders did not find it necessary to offer $10,000 payments to anyone to conclude that global warming is real.
No, they simply use the money granted to them by environmental lobbyists to support their standard of living.
-
Jimmy, that article doesn't propose that global warming doesn't exist. It merely says that it's difficult to use global climate models in assessing the effects of climate change on Antarctica.
Deedee, yes I read the article and although it doesnt deny there is a warming of the planet it doesnt prove it either............ ;)
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
-
Deedee, yes I read the article and although it doesnt deny there is a warming of the planet it doesnt prove it either............ ;)
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
You're right to be skeptical, let's not declare this debate over yet.
-
Deedee, yes I read the article and although it doesnt deny there is a warming of the planet it doesnt prove it either............ ;)
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Yes, but he also give plausible reasons as to why...
"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming."
"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."
It just doesn't seem like the author is offering any kind of conclusion that climate change is not happening.
-
It just doesn't seem like the author is offering any kind of conclusion that climate change is not happening.
nor that it is happening.............. ;)
-
nor that it is happening.............. ;)
But he says the climate models are performing elsewhere in the world. ???
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
Sounds like he's saying the scientists are able to predict the effects of global warming everywhere except the remote areas. And offering reasons why it would be more difficult to assess damage in these remote areas.
-
Yes, but he also give plausible reasons as to why...
"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming."
"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."
It just doesn't seem like the author is offering any kind of conclusion that climate change is not happening.
As he shouldn't, you'll find it's mostly the Leftist 'end is nigh' reports that actually conclude things with a bang - so to speak.
Unsurprisingly, these reports get the most media coverage and funding - so why wouldn't they predict gloom?
-
Actually, he says the following too. I forgot to include it in my earlier post...
"This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
He's only pointing to one section of Antarctica, which isn't performing to spec with global climate models. The article does seem to validate the whole idea of climate change affecting the planet.
-
But he says the climate models are performing elsewhere in the world. ???
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
Sounds like he's saying the scientists are able to predict the effects of global warming everywhere except the remote areas. And offering reasons why it would be more difficult to assess damage in these remote areas.
Deedee, I read that as well however he takes no position either way and the fact that he offers no comparable data to the fact of warming or even factoring a ratio of good/bad models regardless of locations makes you wonder what the agenda actually is.......I still say the verdict is out that the earth is going to melt in 50 years
-
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php)
He is discussing Antartica specifically. How can you use one climate model in a remote part of antartica to say global warming is not real? The fact is that parts of Antartica are melting.
-
Deedee, I read that as well however he takes no position either way and the fact that he offers no comparable data to the fact of warming or even factoring a ratio of good/bad models regardless of locations makes you wonder what the agenda actually is.......I still say the verdict is out that the earth is going to melt in 50 years
The earth is not going to just melt and we're not gonna be under water any time soon. But steady rise of sea level within decades can be a problem.
-
He is discussing Antartica specifically. How can you use one climate model in a remote part of antartica to say global warming is not real? The fact is that parts of Antartica are melting.
Isn't this testament to how complex the environment is? Perhaps we know far less than some would have us think.
-
The earth is not going to just melt and we're not gonna be under water any time soon. But steady rise of sea level within decades can be a problem.
my point was that this continuous broad stroke without supporting data is scaring the shit out of people and of course creating revenue streams for others.................. .........therefore the question:
Is Global Warming Bullshit?
-
my point was that this continuous broad stroke without supporting data is scaring the shit out of people and of course creating revenue streams for others.................. .........therefore the question:
Is Global Warming Bullshit?
We don't know.
I agree with you in that people should not just automatically jump the gun. But we do need to find out more about climate change, as it can have serious consequences in the future.
-
We don't know.
I agree with you in that people should not just automatically jump the gun. But we do need to find out more about climate change, as it can have serious consequences in the future.
I completely agree.
-
We don't know.
I agree with you in that people should not just automatically jump the gun. But we do need to find out more about climate change, as it can have serious consequences in the future.
There are changes in our climate/environment that you cannot deny are happening.
The human link as the primary cause is what is questionable.
-
Deedee, I read that as well however he takes no position either way and the fact that he offers no comparable data to the fact of warming or even factoring a ratio of good/bad models regardless of locations makes you wonder what the agenda actually is.......I still say the verdict is out that the earth is going to melt in 50 years
Global warming is just a euphemism for climate change. It is predicted that some parts of the world will actually become colder in 50 years.
Whose agenda are you referring to? The author, or global warming activists?
You're making assumptions here, regarding the author's lack of a conclusion concerning global warming. He was merely reporting on climate models based on the findings of one group of scientists. That's all. It doesn't seem to have been his intent to educate anyone on the subject. For that reason I don't know that this particular article is the best example to make a case for the position that climate change is not affecting the world. (I'm referring back to your thread title Global Warming = Bullshit?) Actually, that one sentence -- "This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth" alone, seems to illustrate the opposite.
-
Global warming is just a euphemism for climate change. It is predicted that some parts of the world will actually become colder in 50 years.
Whose agenda are you referring to? The author, or global warming activists?
You're making assumptions here, regarding the author's lack of a conclusion concerning global warming. He was merely reporting on climate models based on the findings of one group of scientists. That's all. It doesn't seem to have been his intent to educate anyone on the subject. For that reason I don't know that this particular article is the best example to make a case for the position that climate change is not affecting the world. (I'm referring back to your thread title Global Warming = Bullshit?) Actually, that one sentence -- "This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth" alone, seems to illustrate the opposite.
Just as Global Warming is a euphemism for climate change, my comment of melting was strictly metaphorical
The agenda refers to the activists -- Agree Deedee, not the best article to prove anything either way, my point in posting and with a ? in title was to spark a discussion.
-
Just as Global Warming is a euphemism for climate change, my comment of melting was strictly metaphorical
The agenda refers to the activists -- Agree Deedee, not the best article to prove anything either way, my point in posting and with a ? in title was to spark a discussion.
She's attacked me before for having the gall to questing Left-Wing pieties such as Global Warming and Polar Bear numbers. So long as we are debating this, and papers such as the one you have posted are written, the issue cannot be declared taboo.
-
you can argue that causes.
you can't argue if it's real.
even if its cyclical, even if man has nothing to do with it, well, it is gonna fck up some food supplies and housing.
-
this is happening for real, look how crazy the weather is for the past 10 years, and this last year was a record.......
-
What I think is funny is that if 4 out of 5 Dr's tell you that drinking some juice will guarantee you to live 15 years longer... We would all do it, but if 99 out of 100 scientists... All PhD's and experts in their field from around the world say that Global Warming is real, we still have a debate?
I just find this hilarious...
It's like 99 out of 100 scientists saying that smoking is bad for you, but because 1 says it's not... we're gonna remove the labels from the packs... It makes me laugh so much I may pee in my pants.
-
We only have one earth.
If we do "too much" in order to save it, big fcuking deal. We can live with that.
If we do too little... The future generations are fcuked.
-Hedge
-
Just as Global Warming is a euphemism for climate change, my comment of melting was strictly metaphorical
The agenda refers to the activists -- Agree Deedee, not the best article to prove anything either way, my point in posting and with a ? in title was to spark a discussion.
You did. :)
The last three posts illustrate what many people feel. It seems shocking that people still question whether or not climate change "exists." And since we're already "in it," whether or not man is responsible seems almost irrelevant at this point. The only real entities that profit by still denying its reality are oil and various big business interests. But leaving aside the negative impact of climate change on our planet for a sec, there is also a great opportunity for the cultivation of new industry, speculation, etc. Seems like this guy has the right idea...
http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2006/06/global_warming_.html
Global warming activists may be abrasive and loud, but as always, extreme rhetoric eventually translates into moderate change the majority of people can live with. Burning bras on the village green in the last century was probably not necessary, but it raised awareness of women's issues and paved the way for subsequent change. That's just one example.
-
There are many scientists that don't agree with global warming.
The argument that massive change is required is still a little unfounded.
I posted the climate change report that the IPCC wrote.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
With no changes to how people live and if the population doubled.
The rise in sea levels will be between 10" and 23".
If we spent the billions to try to stop CO2 levels. Then the sea levels will rise between 7" to 15".
This still does address the fact that China, India and many other developing nations believe rightly that they should have the right to build their economies the same way the western world has.
-
She's attacked me before for having the gall to questing Left-Wing pieties such as Global Warming and Polar Bear numbers. So long as we are debating this, and papers such as the one you have posted are written, the issue cannot be declared taboo.
LOL! Your capacity for drama and histrionics is rivalled only by the overly smooth, pompous "wit" you employ in an attempt to belittle and intimidate other people.
You should get over yourself Bruce. You posted a misleading right wing op-ed propaganda piece with flawed data. I very politely pointed out that the data was flawed and kindly agreed, at your request, to take the time to post clear evidence of what I was talking about. If you call that an attack, perhaps you should take a look at the last three days' worth of your own posts. You've engaged in little more than spamming the board with name-calling and abuse, alternating with whinging and crying when someone else gives you some of your own treatment.
You rarely post anything of merit or interest... your contributions are primarily limited to liberal bashing, in fact that bilious obssession seems to be your primary reason for being here ... this thread of course is no different. Signature Bruce. Everyone else has an opinion, or thought-provoking comment, but you. As a side note: perhaps you are a shut-in on your island continent and have no idea what's going on in the world, but I can inform you that it isn't only communists and radicals who are concerned with climate change in North America. There are many republicans who care deeply about the environment. One of them even posted in your propaganda piece.
Finally, the last thing I have to say to you is that your unrelenting liberal-bashing spams, coupled with your childish attention-whoring will probably repel more and more people from this board who consider themselves moderates and prefer to read content that is inspires thought, not bile. You're like a toddler in a jolly jumper banging a spoon and yelling "I want juice" at the top of your lungs. Who, possessed of any intelligence would actively seek that out?
-
We only have one earth.
If we do "too much" in order to save it, big fcuking deal. We can live with that.
If we do too little... The future generations are fcuked.
-Hedge
Agreed... how can anyone argue that being good to the environment is bad?
It doesn't make sense.
-
Agreed... how can anyone argue that being good to the environment is bad?
when making recommended changes will cost a company millions because it "might" change something for their great-grandchildren, CEOs don't do it.
-
when making recommended changes will cost a company millions because it "might" change something for their great-grandchildren, CEOs don't do it.
No question, the corporations want to make their money... if that's ok with these people... then there really is something wrong with them.
-
LOL! Your capacity for drama and histrionics is rivalled only by the overly smooth, pompous "wit" you employ in an attempt to belittle and intimidate other people.
You should get over yourself Bruce. You posted a misleading right wing op-ed propaganda piece with flawed data. I very politely pointed out that the data was flawed and kindly agreed, at your request, to take the time to post clear evidence of what I was talking about. If you call that an attack, perhaps you should take a look at the last three days' worth of your own posts. You've engaged in little more than spamming the board with name-calling and abuse, alternating with whinging and crying when someone else gives you some of your own treatment.
You rarely post anything of merit or interest... your contributions are primarily limited to liberal bashing, in fact that bilious obssession seems to be your primary reason for being here ... this thread of course is no different. Signature Bruce. Everyone else has an opinion, or thought-provoking comment, but you. As a side note: perhaps you are a shut-in on your island continent and have no idea what's going on in the world, but I can inform you that it isn't only communists and radicals who are concerned with climate change in North America. There are many republicans who care deeply about the environment. One of them even posted in your propaganda piece.
Finally, the last thing I have to say to you is that your unrelenting liberal-bashing spams, coupled with your childish attention-whoring will probably repel more and more people from this board who consider themselves moderates and prefer to read content that is inspires thought, not bile. You're like a toddler in a jolly jumper banging a spoon and yelling "I want juice" at the top of your lungs. Who, possessed of any intelligence would actively seek that out?
:o
Deedee lays down the smack.
-
No question, the corporations want to make their money... if that's ok with these people... then there really is something wrong with them.
for them, it's "earn $40 million for my bank account and ignore these recommendations, or be voted out by the board and replaced by someone else who will".
The board loses their job is they don't make money for the stockholder.
It comes down to paying the bills, and when that's the case, short-term horizon issues always win out.
Most everyone here would do the same thing. If you could earn a million dollars, or maybe make the world a little cooler in 80 years, wouldn't you take the mil?
-
for them, it's "earn $40 million for my bank account and ignore these recommendations, or be voted out by the board and replaced by someone else who will".
The board loses their job is they don't make money for the stockholder.
It comes down to paying the bills, and when that's the case, short-term horizon issues always win out.
Most everyone here would do the same thing. If you could earn a million dollars, or maybe make the world a little cooler in 80 years, wouldn't you take the mil?
Honestly... No.
I had this exact conversation with a friend of mine... I guess I really do not have a price when it comes to the future of the earth and my childrens children.
-
that's good, very good. There are some people who wouldn't.
Most of the people who rise to decision making positions at firms are built of a certain ilk. They're typically educated, ambitious, selfish, and by the time they reach CEO status, their #1 goal is shareholder value maximization.
-
LOL! Your capacity for drama and histrionics is rivalled only by the overly smooth, pompous "wit" you employ in an attempt to belittle and intimidate other people.
You should get over yourself Bruce. You posted a misleading right wing op-ed propaganda piece with flawed data. I very politely pointed out that the data was flawed and kindly agreed, at your request, to take the time to post clear evidence of what I was talking about. If you call that an attack, perhaps you should take a look at the last three days' worth of your own posts. You've engaged in little more than spamming the board with name-calling and abuse, alternating with whinging and crying when someone else gives you some of your own treatment.
You rarely post anything of merit or interest... your contributions are primarily limited to liberal bashing, in fact that bilious obssession seems to be your primary reason for being here ... this thread of course is no different. Signature Bruce. Everyone else has an opinion, or thought-provoking comment, but you. As a side note: perhaps you are a shut-in on your island continent and have no idea what's going on in the world, but I can inform you that it isn't only communists and radicals who are concerned with climate change in North America. There are many republicans who care deeply about the environment. One of them even posted in your propaganda piece.
Finally, the last thing I have to say to you is that your unrelenting liberal-bashing spams, coupled with your childish attention-whoring will probably repel more and more people from this board who consider themselves moderates and prefer to read content that is inspires thought, not bile. You're like a toddler in a jolly jumper banging a spoon and yelling "I want juice" at the top of your lungs. Who, possessed of any intelligence would actively seek that out?
:) See, guys?