The coming Ice Age

[TreeClimber]

[CrustyJeep;893491][Jaydog]And since they are probly too complicated to ever understand completely, especially when you add in things like anthropogenic CO2 level increases and CFC's in the atmosphere, we should just give up, burn up all the dinojuice on the planet, and then wait for the Rapture.[/Jaydog][/CrustyJeep]

You forgot the "

" logo

 

[Jaydog]

It is disappearing, Jay. http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/07/14/heading-towards-the-summer-minimum-ice-extent/#more-464

For those that like pretty pictures...

Will it disappear completely? Even without a "tipping point" it is possible to lose all polar ice coverage. Warming will melt ice. If our warming trend continues, "the ice [is] going to dissapear [sic] and kill all the polar bears." Anthropogenic or not.

Also, Neither Crusty nor myself said that nobody has said the ice is going to disappear (wow... that's a convoluted sentence). Crusty pointed out that it has been well known for quite some time that the Earth has natural warming/cooling cycles. There are many of them, and they are like waves... sometimes the interference is constructive, sometimes it is destructive.

:eeek: Wait....are we switching sides in the arguement now and I missed the memo????

 

[Jaydog]

[Jaydog]And since they are probly too complicated to ever understand completely, especially when you add in things like anthropogenic CO2 level increases and CFC's in the atmosphere, we should just give up, burn up all the dinojuice on the planet, and then wait for the Rapture.[/Jaydog]

No, what I have been saying all along is that nobody has a clue what is going on, whether there is a consensus saying they are all confused or not, it's nothing more than a politcal soap box.

 

[ZedMikey]

:eeek: Wait....are we switching sides in the arguement now and I missed the memo????

Apparently you haven't understood a word Crusty or I have said. Because we've been saying the same thing the whole time.

 

[ZedMikey]

No, what I have been saying all along is that nobody has a clue what is going on, whether there is a consensus saying they are all confused or not, it's nothing more than a politcal soap box.

We know you've been saying that the whole time, and you've been wrong the whole time. Climate scientists have TONS of clues about what it going on: global average temperatures are rising, polar ice coverage is dropping, the variations in the Earth's orbital dynamics play a role, the sun's output cycle does as well, atmospheric CO2 seems to matter, CO2 levels have risen from our burning of fossil fuels, et cetera, et cetera.

They might not have all the answers, and they might not have figured out all the details (hence Trashy's link about atmospheric energy loss and your link about the Arctic ice "tipping point"). This doesn't change the fact that they have plenty of data to go on, and that the big picture of climate change hasn't changed much in the past 40 years... just the details.

 

[whatthe?]

They just don't know what to do with the data, or what it means for the future. As such the politicians are involved (on both sides) and make it a political argument for what ever side of the fence they're on. It doesn't really matter if "climate change" is happening now and what or who is responsible. It's in the political relm now where facts are interpreted based on the policy a certain politician favors.

 

[Jaydog]

Apparently you haven't understood a word Crusty or I have said. Because we've been saying the same thing the whole time.

Well, if we are all saying the same thing, then why are we arguing over something that nobody has any control over :haha::haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Well, if we are all saying the same thing, then why are we arguing over something that nobody has any control over :haha::haha:

:rolleyes:

Because we aren't saying the same thing, Jay. Try rereading my posts... slooowwwlllyyy. Perhaps reading them out loud would help.

 

[ZedMikey]

They just don't know what to do with the data, or what it means for the future. As such the politicians are involved (on both sides) and make it a political argument for what ever side of the fence they're on. It doesn't really matter if "climate change" is happening now and what or who is responsible. It's in the political relm now where facts are interpreted based on the policy a certain politician favors.

Sure, they can make all sorts of political arguments. Too bad there are far fewer scientific arguments that can be made based upon the available data.

Because the politicians have made a political argument out of it, it doesn't matter anymore. So, we should ignore the science? Is that what you're saying? We shouldn't bother trying to figure out how much the climate will change? Whether we'll lose all our polar ice... whether temperatures will rise so much that we start having droughts that affect global food production... whether it's all just going to go back to normal... It doesn't matter?

 

[whatthe?]

No, it needs to be studied. But what we do about it will not be based on science but political philosophy. The "facts" will be distorted, cherry picked, ect to support what ever is decided. Just look at wheeling and seasonal closures. No science supports that wheelers cause significant erosion but it's a value judgement that we do. Is climate change bad? The earth has survived it so far over the centuries but should we minimize mans contribution to it? Value judgements that science can't answer.

 

[ZedMikey]

No, it needs to be studied. But what we do about it will not be based on science but political philosophy. The "facts" will be distorted, cherry picked, ect to support what ever is decided. Just look at wheeling and seasonal closures. No science supports that wheelers cause significant erosion but it's a value judgement that we do. Is climate change bad? The earth has survived it so far over the centuries but should we minimize mans contribution to it? Value judgements that science can't answer.

You and Jay both keep talking about "the "facts" [being] distorted, cherry picked, ect to support what ever is decided." Do you have any evidence showing that this is done by scientists? Not by politicians... not by the media... certainly not by any nutjob (left or right... they're still nutjobs) with a blog... by scientists. Any evidence at all?

 

[CrustyJeep]

You and Jay both keep talking about "the "facts" [being] distorted, cherry picked, ect

Ironically, Jay and whatthe seem to be the ones cherry picking "facts" to suit some sort of preconceived notion.

 

[ZedMikey]

Is climate change bad? The earth has survived it so far over the centuries but should we minimize mans contribution to it? Value judgements that science can't answer.

As I've said before. I'm not concerned with the Earth's ability to survive climate change; the Earth will do just fine. We don't have the means to affect it's long-term survivability by any measurable amount.

I'm more concerned with OUR ability to survive climate change. We are far more fragile than our planet, and as it sits now, we are far more likely to perish than it is.

I agree that "Should we minimize man's contribution to it?" isn't a question science can answer. Good thing science isn't trying to answer that question. Science is working on questions like "How big is man's contribution to global climate change?" and "How can we make predictions based upon the climate data we have?"

You will note that I've stayed away from the question of "What should we do about it?" There's a reason for that.

 

[whatthe?]

You and Jay both keep talking about "the "facts" [being] distorted, cherry picked, ect to support what ever is decided." Do you have any evidence showing that this is done by scientists? Not by politicians... not by the media... certainly not by any nutjob (left or right... they're still nutjobs) with a blog... by scientists. Any evidence at all?

I didn't say all scientists were distorting facts, that is what politicians are for. There are scientists who distort data, there are bad apples in every tree but I would agree the number is pretty small.

 

[ZedMikey]

I didn't say all scientists were distorting facts, that is what politicians are for. There are scientists who distort data, there are bad apples in every tree but I would agree the number is pretty small.

That's why I don't give a **** what the politicians say. When it comes to science, I listen to the scientists. :awesomework:

 

[whatthe?]

As I've said before. I'm not concerned with the Earth's ability to survive climate change; the Earth will do just fine. We don't have the means to affect it's long-term survivability by any measurable amount.

I'm more concerned with OUR ability to survive climate change. We are far more fragile than our planet, and as it sits now, we are far more likely to perish than it is.

I agree that "Should we minimize man's contribution to it?" isn't a question science can answer. Good thing science isn't trying to answer that question. Science is working on questions like "How big is man's contribution to global climate change?" and "How can we make predictions based upon the climate data we have?"

You will note that I've stayed away from the question of "What should we do about it?" There's a reason for that.

You should wade in a answer what we should do about it. Facts are useless unless something is done with them. You could have a whole book on human anatomy and physiology but if a doc doesn't read it and apply it, it is useless. Don't fool yourself, there a plenty of scientists who are stating what we should do about mans contribution to climate change, as is their right. Scientist don't just collect data and then remain silent on what they think the data means and what should be done with it.

 

[ZedMikey]

You should wade in a answer what we should do about it. Facts are useless unless something is done with them. You could have a whole book on human anatomy and physiology but if a doc doesn't read it and apply it, it is useless.

I (mostly) agree. That's why I'm an engineer and not a scientist.

Don't fool yourself, there a plenty of scientists who are stating what we should do about mans contribution to climate change, as is their right. Scientist don't just collect data and then remain silent on what they think the data means and what should be done with it.

I'm well aware of this. And I have my opinions on what should be done, too. I just prefer not to get involved in those discussions online.

 

[whatthe?]

That's why I don't give a **** what the politicians say. When it comes to science, I listen to the scientists. :awesomework:

You should, they're the ones who set policy and laws. When you listen to the scientists be careful they only tell you facts because they have opinions and bias too.:awesomework:

 

[whatthe?]

I'm well aware of this. And I have my opinions on what should be done, too. I just prefer not to get involved in those discussions online.

Fair enough.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Fair enough.

18 pages and it ends like this? :booo:

 

[whatthe?]

We can only hope.

 

[Jaydog]

You and Jay both keep talking about "the "facts" [being] distorted, cherry picked, ect to support what ever is decided." Do you have any evidence showing that this is done by scientists? Not by politicians... not by the media... certainly not by any nutjob (left or right... they're still nutjobs) with a blog... by scientists. Any evidence at all?

I have, your come back was that science later corrected it and that's good science, now you are completely dismissing it? You are either forgetful, or just playing games now.

 

[ZedMikey]

You should, they're the ones who set policy and laws. When you listen to the scientists be careful they only tell you facts because they have opinions and bias too.:awesomework:

You make a good point... let me clarify my position. I don't listen to what the politicians say when I am trying to determine what is really going on. I only give a **** when they are attempting to base policy on their inane ramblings.

 

[ZedMikey]

I have, your come back was that science later corrected it and that's good science, now you are completely dismissing it? You are either forgetful, or just playing games now.

Sorry, I was unclear just a moment ago; I meant evidence for foul play in the context of climate change (not the evolution stuff... most of which wasn't really foul play, either... and most of which was also decades old). I can only recall one relevant link from you, and it was just bad statistical analysis. It was also bad analysis in a paper that stated nothing more than that there was a discrepancy between the computer models and observed data, so it wouldn't even be much for furthering your point.

So, again, I ask. Do you have anything to support your claim that climate scientists are falsifying data, fudging numbers, lying, etc.?

 

[Jaydog]

So, again, I ask. Do you have anything to support your claim that climate scientists are falsifying data, fudging numbers, lying, etc.?

Here's a few :redneck:

http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9887/...ishonesty--Can-anyone-defend-hide-the-decline

http://www.qando.net/?p=10366

http://www.nationalreview.com/plane...mislead-americans-about-air-pollution-and-cli

 

[ZedMikey]

Here's a few :redneck:

http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9887/...ishonesty--Can-anyone-defend-hide-the-decline

http://www.qando.net/?p=10366

http://www.nationalreview.com/plane...mislead-americans-about-air-pollution-and-cli

First off... the first two links are the same topic, so you've really only posted two things here. I can't access climatedepot.com from work, for some reason, so I'll address the last link first.

Here's the link to the text of the study in question. http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/heatadvisory/heatadvisory.pdf

Researchers compared the ozone concentrations for the 1990s with climate simulations for three periods in the future, holding constant all other human contributions to ozone pollution.

...

Note that this work investigated the effect of changes in climate and not changes in anthropogenic emissions. Thus, the corresponding increases in ozone levels are in response to changes in climate (for example, higher temperatures) rather than changes in anthropogenic emissions. (The model accounts for changes in biogenic emissions as a function of temperature.) This research was not intended to provide realistic estimates of future ozone concentrations, but rather the increase in ozone in direct response to changes in climate, holding anthropogenic emissions constant.

Seems pretty clear to me that you didn't read the paper. I think Joel Schwartz did read at least some of the paper... so, I assume he is an idiot and/or a liar. I still assert that you need to find better editorial sources. Yours suck.

The paper clearly states their intentions and their actions. They did not fudge any data, lie about any conclusions, or do anything dishonest. They stated matter-of-factly that they weren't making predictions of future ozone levels and the methods they used.

So far, you're batting 0 for 1, Jay.

 

[Jaydog]

I'm sure you will believe NASA is lying too, but here's a link to the new data that just came out. :haha:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-Warming-Alarmists/2011/07/28/id/405200

 

[Jaydog]

First off... the first two links are the same topic, so you've really only posted two things here. I can't access climatedepot.com from work, for some reason, so I'll address the last link first.

Here's the link to the text of the study in question. http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/heatadvisory/heatadvisory.pdf


Seems pretty clear to me that you didn't read the paper. I think Joel Schwartz did read at least some of the paper... so, I assume he is an idiot and/or a liar. I still assert that you need to find better editorial sources. Yours suck.

The paper clearly states their intentions and their actions. They did not fudge any data, lie about any conclusions, or do anything dishonest. They stated matter-of-factly that they weren't making predictions of future ozone levels and the methods they used.

So far, you're batting 0 for 1, Jay.

So all the scientists that called the "hide the decline" scandel a gross manipulation were all liars, but the ones hiding it were not lying :eeek:

I think you're starting to show your true side, and here all along I thought I was the only biased one here :D

 

[Jaydog]

Here is a great article, it is a long read, but well worth it, I figured you would like it since the author is a physics professor at Princeton University, I really don't think he's lying.



http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

 

[ZedMikey]

So all the scientists that called the "hide the decline" scandel a gross manipulation were all liars, but the ones hiding it were not lying :eeek:

I think you're starting to show your true side, and here all along I thought I was the only biased one here :D

What? Jay, now you're just being thick. I wasn't even talking about the "hide the decline" links. Pull your head out of your ass, please.

My post was only in response to the link about the NRDC paper about temperature effects on ozone levels.

I haven't had a chance to read through the stuff from Dr. Curry. And besides... I wasn't calling any scientist a liar. I was calling the jackass that wrote that editorial piece a liar, because he blatantly misrepresents what the paper was about.

Not that I expect you to let pesky things like facts get in the way of accusing me of whatever you feel like.