Climate Warming Undeniable according to NOAA and UK

[DasBlunt]

Glaciers have been melting for 400 years or more....so warming has been occurring, no denying that, unless you are dumb.

The thrust of any movement has to have many big prongs to push through the agenda (OIL IS RUNNING OUT). There is no way anyone would consider just conserving oil on their own. Has that worked when we send species to extinction? How about cutting down of the rain forest in Brazil? Or dumb asses on the highway who run out of gas?

[OSECS]

it's easy: you don't. figuring out that the data is faulty is the hard part.

edit to say that what you describe is perfectly valid scientific process -- you keep digging into the data to find if it makes sense or not given the current theoretical framework. on the other hand your approach is faulty -- you know the answer you want to hear, therefore you're biased towards anything that supports it. if natgeo or discovery operated that way you wouldn't hear any word about re-melted layers in the cores (whatever that may mean) just like you don't hear any pro-atheism views from the pulpit.

It means a great deal. Co2 levels trapped in ice and the temps from that time have been used as evidence of warming based on C02 levels. If the ice has melted and the Co2 content altered there is no common correlation any more. Is that a wrong assumption on my part ?

[ilikecandy]

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

wow, what a raging homophobe

[Downbound Train]

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

I like the Precautionary Principle. If used, it would effectively shut down the Fedral Government!!

[f2f]

It means a great deal. Co2 levels trapped in ice and the temps from that time have been used as evidence of warming based on C02 levels. If the ice has melted and the Co2 content altered there is no common correlation any more. Is that a wrong assumption on my part ?

i don't get the mechanism though -- did the layers in the core melted somehow? or was it just the top layer that may have melted and re-frozen? if the former, than where did the co2 go? the layers are sealed in the ice, unless there's a mechanism for co2 to move through the frozen ice then it should still be there. if the latter, then that should be fine, as the level of co2 in the air should still be recorded at the time the layer finally froze.

or are they saying there's a break in the continuity of the layers and what we think is a 450k yo sample is much older?

[OSECS]

i don't get the mechanism though -- did the layers in the core melted somehow? or was it just the top layer that may have melted and re-frozen? if the former, than where did the co2 go? the layers are sealed in the ice, unless there's a mechanism for co2 to move through the frozen ice then it should still be there. if the latter, then that should be fine, as the level of co2 in the air should still be recorded at the time the layer finally froze.

or are they saying there's a break in the continuity of the layers and what we think is a 450k yo sample is much older?

What they're saying is the theory that snow piles up layer by layer from the top down while true doesn't give you an accurate record of Co2 in the air at the time because: Some of layers of ice below the surface have actually melted. Wild thought, moving water below, up to a mile of ice and snow above. The melting comes from internal earth temps melting the ice and it re freezing. The re freezing process alters the Co2 record through chemical processes that occur during melting. So the correlation of known temp[s and Co2 levels in ice layers do not match up in a predictable way as previously theorized.


It doesn't say global warming isn't occurring, it calls into question thetheory of temp and Co2 being in lock step because of this new discovery.

[Downbound Train]

NO ONE wants to talk about reality of the debate; that fossil fuels are running out and it will be much worse if we don't find another source NOW.

Thanks for making some sense.

Oh, I get it. The REAL reason there is global warming is because we are running out of oil!

Since elitist douchebags who have proven they are enemies of free markets and want the energy billions in their own pockets instead of the evil private sector decide the market can't determine when it's time to find an alternative, we have to construct an elaborate hoax to scare the freedom lovers into giving up their freedom for their own good.

WOW, thanks for the real truth buddy. I didn't know you cared so much about me.

[iscariot]

What they're saying is the theory that snow piles up layer by layer from the top down while true doesn't give you an accurate record of Co2 in the air at the time because: Some of layers of ice below the surface have actually melted. Wild thought, moving water below, up to a mile of ice and snow above. The melting comes from internal earth temps melting the ice and it re freezing. The re freezing process alters the Co2 record through chemical processes that occur during melting. So the correlation of known temp[s and Co2 levels in ice layers do not match up in a predictable way as previously theorized.


It doesn't say global warming isn't occurring, it calls into question thetheory of temp and Co2 being in lock step because of this new discovery.

You really need to go to University and study snow, glacier, and ice sheet physics and dynamics.

[f2f]

The melting comes from internal earth temps melting the ice and it re freezing

that's sounds rather more complicated an explanation, doesn't it? you know of occam's razor, surely. this theory must provide for a mechanism for the layers to melt, the co2 to escape and then the same layers to re-freeze again, several times repeatedly and across all continents where glaciers persist. and what does it prove? that for _some_ parts of the glacial historic record _some_ co2 readings may be suspect. well, what about the rest of them? or is this process continuous and therefore continuing right now? if the latter it'd be easy to check for it -- just see how much CO2 glaciers are emitting in the atmosphere (and therefore are not keeping in their refrozen layers) et voila: you may actually find the source for the increase of co2 in the atmosphere.

all i'm saying is, it's bad science for you to base your argument on a single thing you misheard on a channel you don't remember, just like it's bad science to base all our Global Warming knowledge on a single core sample from antarctica.

[DasBlunt]

Oh, I get it. The REAL reason there is global warming is because we are running out of oil!

Since elitist douchebags who have proven they are enemies of free markets and want the energy billions in their own pockets instead of the evil private sector decide the market can't determine when it's time to find an alternative, we have to construct an elaborate hoax to scare the freedom lovers into giving up their freedom for their own good.

WOW, thanks for the real truth buddy. I didn't know you cared so much about me.

There is no way anyone would consider just conserving oil on their own. Has that worked when we send species to extinction? How about cutting down of the rain forest in Brazil? Or dumb asses on the highway who run out of gas?

But in reality, you are too stupid to get it. War would be your answer for the truth? Would you be more proud to have WW3 happen, like next week?

I think the charade has past, as no one really believes in the GW scare, but they had surly believe in something, and soon.

[Downbound Train]

There is no way anyone would consider just conserving oil on their own. Has that worked when we send species to extinction? How about cutting down of the rain forest in Brazil? Or dumb asses on the highway who run out of gas?

But in reality, you are too stupid to get it. War would be your answer for the truth? Would you be more proud to have WW3 happen, like next week?

I think the charade has past, as no one really believes in the GW scare, but they had surly believe in something, and soon.

Well let's start by telling the truth to people and see what happens.

[OSECS]

You really need to go to University and study snow, glacier, and ice sheet physics and dynamics.

No I don't. The nice people on the television (Nat Geo or Discovery channel) explained the entire process of what was happening (based on their conclusions). The researchers were absolutely amazed that ice could have been melted (so deeply) below a frozen ice sheet. This wasn't glacial ice, this was South Pole pack ice, tens of thousands of years old, sitting atop the polar land mass. Again this was not glacial ice. This was ice that was at one point snow falling and settling on the surface and buried over time.

The entire concept of ice core data mining is that the snow contains a snap shot of the atmosphere at the time it fell. This new revelation shows that there are many variables that affect that snow once it's fallen, that can and do alter conclusions and data. If the snow melts an re freezes as a layer it will not contain the same Co2 record after freezing and thus changes the temp to Co2 relationship.

Doesn't prove or disprove global warming as a result of Co2 emissions, but it does add another factor that now must be considered when looking at ice cores around the world.

[DasBlunt]

Well let's start by telling the truth to people and see what happens.

Greed and war is what happens.....conservation lets us at least have an out, and a fighting chance.

[Jer]

WW3 would kill a whole lotta humans (which are the real problem).

Conservation? Howsabout not breeding like rats? That'd be a great start.

[f2f]

Jer, it's not us who are breeding like rats. it's them.

[iscariot]

This wasn't glacial ice, this was South Pole pack ice, tens of thousands of years old, sitting atop the polar land mass. Again this was not glacial ice.

No shit sherlock. That's why I included snow, glaciers, and ice sheets in my previous post.

This was ice that was at one point snow falling and settling on the surface and buried over time.

Again, no shit sherlock. Glacial ice forms this way too...

Again. Go study the subject. In a first or second year class, you'd learn that much of what you are saying is incorrect and confused.



I also watch Nat. Geo. and Discovery from time to time. There is a lot of false information, speculation, and entertainment in the form of exaggeration on many of those shows. You'd get the real information and could ask much more intelligent questions if you studied the subject for a few years.

[Rubicon]

You really need to go to University and study snow, glacier, and ice sheet physics and dynamics.

Hey iscariot, you are very fond of telling other people they need more education. You have also dropped a few fact that might lead people to conclude you have been a student your entire life. If I can ask, what is your field of study?

[iscariot]

Hey iscariot, you are very fond of telling other people they need more education. You have also dropped a few fact that might lead people to conclude you have been a student your entire life. If I can ask, what is your field of study?

Certainly not a student my entire life. The reason I tell people to get educated is because information and analysis based on first hand data supersedes 3rd grade speculation.

[ilikecandy]

Certainly not a student my entire life. The reason I tell people to get educated is because information and analysis based on first hand data supersedes 3rd grade speculation.

you mean like this?

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...63#post3215663

[Rubicon]

Certainly not a student my entire life. The reason I tell people to get educated is because information and analysis based on data supersedes 3rd grade speculation.

And what about post grad speculation?

Did you look at the data before you began disagreeing with the information OSECS was relaying? I'm guessing you didn't.

You are not going to say what your field of study is, are you? I've asked you this question in the past after you mentioned working on your phd as an excuse for not answering questions that illustrated how sloppy you had been in your reading of an article before ripping into it. You ducked the question then too. You want the prestige of the title without admitting(or accepting the responsibility inherent with) where your expertise are, and in the process, where they aren't. Too fond of begin a wizard of smart? Don't want to pigeon hole yourself by revealing where your knowledge base really lies?

you mean like this?

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...63#post3215663

I'm guessing something along these lines is what he is talking about.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...59#post3015259

[f2f]

Did you look at the data before you began disagreeing with the information OSECS was relaying? I'm guessing you didn't.

there was no information in what osecs was relaying.

[Rubicon]

there was no information in what osecs was relaying.

There was information. It was the veracity of that information that iscariot took issue with. But there was no data presented and iscariot didn't seek any before taking issue with the(supposedly new) information.

He has a tendency to do this then retreat to the "you should just go educate yourself" line when he runs out of steam.

[spook]

And what about post grad speculation?

Did you look at the data before you began disagreeing with the information OSECS was relaying? I'm guessing you didn't.

You are not going to say what your field of study is, are you? I've asked you this question in the past after you mentioned working on your phd as an excuse for not answering questions that illustrated how sloppy you had been in your reading of an article before ripping into it. You ducked the question then too. You want the prestige of the title without admitting where your expertise(and I use the term loosely) are, and in the process, where they aren't. Too fond of begin a wizard of smart? Don't want to pigeon hole yourself by revealing where your knowledge base really lies?

i'm an astrophysicist by trade.

[f2f]

But there was no data presented and iscariot didn't seek any before taking issue with the(supposedly new) information.

examining the data is not always necessary in order to dismiss a claim. it is necessary only when proving one.

i'm sorry this sounds so wishy-washy, but in reality if i told you i'm blowing unicorns out of my ass you won't need to see a picture of my behind before you dismiss me. what OSECS described lacked several important details such as physical mechanism and theorized observable effects to be believable. if you want to take what he described seriously then why not everything else that was said in this thread supporting global warming?

[iscariot]

there was no information in what osecs was relaying.

Exactly.

A secondary reason that I suggest education is that many of the posters here don't believe the expertise of people who have dedicated decades to the intricacies surrounding a myriad of issues.


They believe that cigarettes cause cancer, and that the birth control pill stops pregnancy 99.9% of the time, and condoms work 90% of the time.

The percentage of climate scientists on the planet that agree that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, is greater than the confidence level at which a condom prevents pregnancy and disease, and is on par with the confidence levels of using the birth control pill.


Thus, it is clear that the only opinion they will believe is their own, yet their opinion is hopelessly uninformed.



I noted long ago after posting long diatribes with references, etc... that nothing I type will change their minds. Hell, despite the support of the majority of climate scientists in the world, they don't understand what the experts are saying.



Most topics are more complicated than they appear, with nuance and lexicon that occur when a subject has been studied and understood; this is why proper language use and choice is so important when discussing these issues. I continuously suggest education because the only way that many of these posters will understand the subject and its consequences is by actually doing the work themselves...