A Note: Global Warming Threads

Well... ok Billy I'll leave you to your word games and etc.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The data you are now clinging to about submarine's showing thinning(at least you stopped clinging to the Northwest Passage) is questionable at best.

It also shows how little you require as to data to form an opinion. A blurb in a BBC article is all it took. Now you hold that be hard and fast fact, the military itself is skeptical of that Rothrock study that drew those conclusions, but not you. No, you have a new pet fact you are holding up as hard proof of something.

You simply don't know enough on this matter to form an opinion. You aren't even skeptical enough to check out a blurb from a news article before holding it to be fact. You might think about that, but seeing a pattern in your posts I doubt you will.

You did actually notice I never said the ice was thinning at least.

btw... You are the second person in this thread to struggle with reading. My post described the ridiculous claims of "the arctic is melting!! It's CAGW" as nonsense. Subject and object is important when you are reading.

The arctic ice recovery this year is as high as it's ever been since 1980, basically almost a record since the rather recent beginning of observation via satellites. Arctic ice is growing this year. So anyone claiming the arctic ice cover is melting is simply wrong. Which again goes to the credibility of the CAGW extremists. Again they are proven to be childishly foolish, spreading nonsense at every turn. But that doesn't stop people, like you apparently, who require no proof of anything, just some wild IPCC claim to hold something up as 'scientific fact'

Al Gore went on the record this year, 2009, saying the arctic would be ice free by 2013 based on his IPCC 'scientists'. We'll see about that claim too. But when it too turns out to be yet another bold claim by the IPCC and alarmists proven to be bullshit, that won't bother the people who gobble up the crap the IPCC puts out, they'll just selectively acknowledge what they want to be true. Like you have done in this thread.

You make so many basic logic errors, you selectively acknowledge points based on your own personal bias, you jump from one pet 'fact' you are clinging to to another so easily, and with so little skepticism or fact checking on any of those things you put forth as such concrete 'fact', it's difficult to hold a discussion with you on a complicated topic like this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Finally the scientific community is starting to come to it's senses. This is an important event because it's the first highly respected group of scientists to admit they allowed themselves to be carried away on the populist wave of CAGW nonsense. They have embarrassed themselves long enough by clinging to Al Gore-type CAGW extremist nonsense, and are now trying to revise their stance and statement on climate change.

This is precisely what I posted in my first post in this thread. Slowly but surely science is picking apart the ridiculous pseudoscience of CAGW extremists and their IPCC ilk.

The American Physical Society is reviewing their embarrassing statement of 2007, and hopefully will revise it to come in line with what actual science is about, and what actual science is finding out about climate change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The first two sentences are 1) false (old and formerly thick ice is not "recovering", the ice cover is not "almost a record") and 2) do not support the "So" in the last sentence - even if this year had seen more ice than the century average, the trend is still thaw.

One thing you might do is check the winter before the record thaw in 2007 - the same bs about "recovery" was in vogue then.

It's not the first time someone claimed that - we've been hearing about these groups of "respected scientists" who have "finally come to their senses" every six months for ten years.

And there's Fred Singer again! I was beginning to worry that Exxon had fired him or something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then again individuals will, as is to be expected, cling to to the nonsense of CAGW extremists to the very end.

Thankfully actual scientists are starting to turn the corner on this stuff.

 

“… The glaciers in Alaska and the state of Washington have shown a “rapid and sustained” loss of mass over the two decades, according to today’s {7 Aug09 in Bloomberg news} report from the U.S. Geological Survey. The South Cascade glacier in Washington is shrinking at a rate that may see it disappear in 50 years …

Melting glaciers add to the rise of sea level, threatening low-lying and coastal communities. The loss of glaciers in the Northwest also affects rivers and streams where species such as bull trout and salmon live, Josberger said. Those fish prefer the colder, highly oxygenated water that runs off the glaciers in the spring and summer.

Maritime, Interior Glaciers
Two of the glaciers, Wolverine on Alaska’s coast and South Cascade, are in maritime climates that are strongly influenced by Pacific Ocean currents and winter storms. The third, Gulkana, is in the interior of Alaska where there is less annual snowfall and the temperatures are colder and drier.

Scientists track the growth and decline of glaciers by taking snow core samples and measuring the height of the annual snowfall. The data are used to estimate the net balance of a glacier, its average mass over a year.

“More than 99 percent of America’s thousands of large glaciers have long-documented records of an overall shrinkage as climate warms,” agency scientist Bruce Molnia said in a statement.

Global warming is shrinking glaciers in the Himalayan mountains, threatening water supplies in China and India, and increasing the likelihood of regional disputes, according to a report earlier this year from the Asia Society, a New York-based nonprofit group that promotes Asian-U.S. relations. …”

FROM: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aEGcNnT1qzuw

 

Anybody know what happens to all the water that we pump from aquifers that hold ancient water (fossil water)? If it leads to higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, then we need to think about this as a cause of global warming. Mostly we must consider water because it is the single most important molecule keeping heat from escaping into space (~65% of energy according Physical Hydrology, by Dingman 2002). If water vapor has not increased in the atmosphere it must mean that it has either remained in the living organisms using it (e.g. plants, cows, humans, etc.) or has returned to the Earth's surface or oceans. Anybody have some facts about this... I'm really curious.

 

Aquifers recharge. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthgwaquifer.html

 

Unfortunately, in most places where humans drill wells the water table is dropping. I.e. the recharge rate is significantly less than the extraction rate. So yes, ground water of aquifers is in net being added to the oceans.

The effect on Global warming however is very slight. Probably less than water cooled evaporation cooling towers at power plants, plus the H2O many release as a combustion product, I would guess. (Local clouds make cooling during the day usually greater than the heat retention at night.)

If the temperature of the ocean surface were constant, the annual evaporation from it would fall to Earth as rain and snow etc. Ground water from most wells is approximate the same temperature as the average annual average air temperature at the location (or slightly higher) so not much effect on the ocean temperature if added to the oceans. The fractional increase in ocean surface due to ground water addition is entirely negligible. Dutch dikes alone are more important and reduce ocean surface. Currently melting ice is also more important and that cold water tends to have little direct effect on ocean surface temperature (indirectly some as it is the main driver of the ocean currents.)

Like too rapid extraction of oil, the water well can cause the porosity of the rocks near the well tip to compact and this is basically irreversible. I am of the opinion that when Saudi Arabia pumped fast to punish Saddam for starting to sell in non-dollars (part of the deal they had with the Bush family)* to drive the price down to ~$10/ barrel that they seriously damaged their oil fields but their production capacity is a closely held state secrete. However, it has never again reached anything like what they produced back then to flood the market with oil, priced below Saddam’s production cost.
------------------
*Other side of the deal was US kept troops and bases there to support the Royal Family and suppress any movement towards democracy or an Islamic state. The Saudi, Osama Ben Lauden, was exiled and hated the Royal family even more than the US, especially because the Royal Family invited foreign troops to occupy the country of Meca. His constant theme his entrie life (including when fighting the Russians with US supplied stinger Ground to Air missles) was to drive the foreigner occupiers out of the Arab lands. Just as US oil embargo on Japan forced Peal Harbor, the Saudi / Bush family deal caused 9/11. - It is not by chance that 15 of the 19 who died were Saudis.

 

For those who say there are no (or few and they're by Exxon lackeys in second rate journals) peer reviewed studies that refute CAGW:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sometimes I'm asked for some peer reviewed papers that refute the bullshit of CAGW. I have sent people to some places for one or two at a time but now there's a source that pulls them together. I'm sure they've missed plenty of others and people will email them about them and I trust they will keep adding as more are published.

 

If you would be so kind as to go through that list and edit out all the papers that are 1) not "studies" of physical reality 2) not "peer reviewed" by anyone with relevant expertise 3) do not actually refute any of the real-life findings or studies that support a danger of unusual or damaging warming via CO2 buildup 4) present outdated or itself refuted findings 5) deal with economic or political issues unrelated to the physical reality

and so forth

it would be easier to justify devoting the effort to looking up the remainder, and seeing what they had to say.

 

And who confirmed the data presented to the independent statisticians was accurate, and hadn't been biased in it's original collection, or reporting?

Yes a single blind study, I hope I am correct that you have your doubts about this to.

 

Some enlightinment please.

But much of the data that is bandied about as proof of Global Warming has massive collection bias due to the location of the monitoring equipment.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about." - H. Jackson Brown

 

To my discredit, I do know more than anyone should need to about the propaganda efforts aimed at politically smearing any consideration of the likely effects of CO2 boosting in the atmosphere.

A quick perusal shows the common themes well represented in the titles and subjects of the papers linked. (The common tactic of listing a whole lot of scientists and papers as if they supported one's claim, when they don't, is of course the immediate topic.).

Since you have stated that you wish to make your argument based on the actual science relevant and available, I'm sure the inclusion of studies of the economics of the Kyoto Protocol based on naive assumptions about markets, outdated and refuted studies of past decades' concerns, studies of features of tangential matters not bearing on the central issues, studies which do not support even their own author's claims about them, and so forth, were merely oversight on your part, and the situation will be rectified shortly.