Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Who cares? This is just another excuse for the politicians and rich folks to enact legislation which only screws us normal people over. Meanwhile, their luxurious lifestyles remain unchanged.
I've already answered your question before about who cares.
I said people in low-lying islands probably care. You said screw them. I said that that wasn't really a humane answer. You said it's their own fault. Someone else said that we shouldn't care because they're Muslim.
It really went down an ugly path.
But in short, I've answered your "who cares?" question already.
What does summer have to do with it? This is over the past decade/century, not the past three months. Props to your reading comprehension.
Um, a lot of people on this board have denied that the planet is warming. That's part of the problem with right-wing deniers. Some of them say "the planet's getting colder," some of them say "the temperature is still the same," some of them say "yeah, it's getting warmer, but it's not our fault," and some of them say "it's fine that we're warming the planet." So my advice would be to synchronize all your arguments because deniers contradict other deniers. Makes you guys look bad.
It was kind of a joke, not that you leftists have much of a sense of humor anyway.
When you restrict yourself to Fox News and the blogs of global warming deniers willing to spin a story any-which-way to make it suit them, you'll get a bunch of posters like Pub who never seek out the true story for themselves.
I always enjoy rhetoric like "global warming deniers" as if equating this position to the equivalent of a holocaust denier is adding to what should be an open discussion.
Here is some truth for you....
That video is a crock. He states that the ice cover is increasing but he declines the mention of why the video he has shows the entire interior of the ice sheet changing hue from a whitish magenta to a darker hue, which suggests a significant change in temperature in the interior ice sheet. I could be mistaken but that is very likely a temperature increase throughout the interior ice sheet.
The straight near the Bearing Sea is not a valid contradiction to global warming, it has more to do with local weather than some global reversal in climate.
Serreze points out that the satellite data his graph is based on offers no information on ice thickness. He suggests that most of the recent ice in the Bering Sea is likely to be very thin and won't last.
"Once the winds change, temperatures change, we'll probably lose it pretty quickly."
Serreze said the more important figure is sea-ice minimum, but that won't be evident until the end of the Arctic summer.
Someone explain the "arctic melting" headlines to me ... when I freeze a plastic bottle of water, it gets all warped because the water expands.
When an iceberg melts in the arctic, doesn't that cause an extremely minute DROP in the world's sea level?
No. Ice in Water melting doesn't cause any significant change in the water level. For example an ice cube in your glass won't overflow the glass when it melts and it won't recede much either. This is because the ice displaces that much water and most of the ice cube is under water.
However, we do not expect the sea level to rise because of sea-borne ice melting, but because land-based ice melting, e.g. ice in Greenland, Antarctica, or in glaciers. Take the glass of water again. If you fill more water into it from outside the glass, of course the water level will rise.
The arctic melting headlines you are referring to are probably not even about sea level rise. What scientists observe from the arctic melting is the warming trend the global climate is in, especially ice that stays frozen over multiple years which is becoming less and less.
Last edited by chaosof99*: 08-02-2010 at 04:05 AM.
I've already answered your question before about who cares.
I said people in low-lying islands probably care. You said screw them. I said that that wasn't really a humane answer. You said it's their own fault. Someone else said that we shouldn't care because they're Muslim.
It really went down an ugly path.
But in short, I've answered your "who cares?" question already.
Not my ****ing problem. Tell them to move somewhere else. I'm not going to sit here and subsidize some tropical way of life when there is still plenty of land available around the world.
Not my ****ing problem. Tell them to move somewhere else. I'm not going to sit here and subsidize some tropical way of life when there is still plenty of land available around the world.
I can't say I've seen someone advocate the position of "I'm going to do whatever the hell I want and **** the consequences" with a straight face before. I can only hope you're giggling somewhere behind a computer.
That video is a crock. He states that the ice cover is increasing but he declines the mention of why the video he has shows the entire interior of the ice sheet changing hue from a whitish magenta to a darker hue, which suggests a significant change in temperature in the interior ice sheet. I could be mistaken but that is very likely a temperature increase throughout the interior ice sheet.
The straight near the Bearing Sea is not a valid contradiction to global warming, it has more to do with local weather than some global reversal in climate.
So you claim the video is a crock and then go on to say that your reason for saying this could be a mistake. Meanwhile the Neumayer III station, operated by Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute, has recorded the lowest temperature at their Antarctic location since the start of operations there 29 years ago. The mercury dropped to -50.2°C (-58.36°F). That clearly must be the result of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
You then trot out data from an organization (who is nothing more than a government funded/ Al Gore cheering section) who's data should be questioned....
Quote:
Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist").
Finally there was the strange case of the vanishing Arctic ice. Just how far Arctic sea-ice is melting or growing is one of the issues which arouses most passionate interest in the global-warming debate. Observers were therefore startled last week to see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing a very dramatic drop in sea-ice cover, 500,000 square kilometres of ice suddenly disappearing in the depths of the Arctic winter.
When this was queried by a puzzled Anthony Watts, the NSIDC somewhat shamefacedly admitted that a problem had developed with one of its satellites. The data for the previous 45 days was found to be so faulty that it had been withdrawn. But inevitably this provoked the question as to why quality control seemed to be so poor on one of the world's leading official sources of climate data that it had taken an outside observer to point out that something was wrong,
This is by no means the first time that data on which the official case for global warming rests have had to be corrected, some of the more notorious instances involving temperature data supplied by Dr Hansen's GISS. Yet this is one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC itself relies. When politicians plan measures to "combat climate change" costing tens of trillions of dollars, we can at least expect them to ensure that their figures are halfway believable.
When it comes to questionable accounting, independent researchers cite the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its National Climate Data Center (NCDC) as the most egregious offenders. The NCDC is the world's largest repository of weather data, responsible for maintaining global historical climate information. But researchers, led by meteorology expert Anthony Watts, grew so frustrated with what they describe as the organization's failure to quality-control the data, that they created Surfacestations.org to provide an up-to-date, standardized database for the continental U.S.
If Al Gore and his supporting agencies have any credibility at all they would engage in a debate. However the excuses about faulty data and using less than qualified "experts" abound and the credibility deficit continues to grow. The real problem is that the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory has become like a religion.
I can't say I've seen someone advocate the position of "I'm going to do whatever the hell I want and **** the consequences" with a straight face before. I can only hope you're giggling somewhere behind a computer.
Everyone else is doing it. Why do I and my nation have to be the "responsible" ones? Why do I have to cut down my lifestyle while the rich and famous can live frivolously while talking down to me?
So this island is sinking.... holy crap! Maybe they should grow a brain and either find a way to float, or move somewhere else. Not my fault they built their house on a foundation of sand.
Everyone else is doing it. Why do I and my nation have to be the "responsible" ones? Why do I have to cut down my lifestyle while the rich and famous can live frivolously while talking down to me?
So this island is sinking.... holy crap! Maybe they should grow a brain and either find a way to float, or move somewhere else. Not my fault they built their house on a foundation of sand.
I lose track of the amount of times I see you say you do or don't do something becuase 'no else does/doesn't!'. Argument from popularity, I guess.
No. Ice in Water melting doesn't cause any significant change in the water level. For example an ice cube in your glass won't overflow the glass when it melts and it won't recede much either. This is because the ice displaces that much water and most of the ice cube is under water.
However, we do not expect the sea level to rise because of sea-borne ice melting, but because land-based ice melting, e.g. ice in Greenland, Antarctica, or in glaciers. Take the glass of water again. If you fill more water into it from outside the glass, of course the water level will rise.
The arctic melting headlines you are referring to are probably not even about sea level rise. What scientists observe from the arctic melting is the warming trend the global climate is in, especially ice that stays frozen over multiple years which is becoming less and less.
Look at the scale you're talking about.
Wikipedia says Greenland is ~2m square km, and the world's oceans are 2.56 x 10 to the 14th meters ... so 128 Greenlands = the surface area of the world's oceans? (someone double-check my arithmetic)
If 100% of Greenland is covered with 128 inches of ice and 100% of that melts, the world's oceans will collectively rise by 1 inch? If Greenland is covered by more than 120 feet of ice and 100% of that melts, we're talking about a foot. (Less than a foot, because as ocean level rises and overtakes land, there's additional ocean surface area with which to disperse water).
What would be simpler ... more cost-effective ... a more useful way to spend our time and energy? Guessing as to why this is happening and hoping that the sole cause is human intervention and fundamentally changing every aspect of our lives and our civilization before the mid-term elections?
Or thinking logically and rationally about how your town's shoreline (if your town even has one), would best deal with a 12-inch rise in the tide.
Slightly larger storm wall? Perhaps relocate a few streets / square kilometers of shoreline development? Might need to renovate a river's flood wall?
Nono ... let's go for the "completely change everything about the way the entire world functions and just hope that works" option ...
So you claim the video is a crock and then go on to say that your reason for saying this could be a mistake.
While I think it's reasonable to assume that the video you linked contained a few omissions within its limited scope I will concede that I am not perfect and I try to make it plain where I'm bridging a gap (and therefore cannot be absolutely certain). The link I provided was more evidence to add to discrediting for the limited scope of the video you posted, something I am far more certain of.
I couldn't find the 07 comparasion from your video but this link has the image from the same source. It shows the sea ice concentration over the last 30 days and the fluctuations. Guess commenting on the concentration of sea ice for one particular day is irrelevant because it fluctuates too much.
Meanwhile the Neumayer III station, operated by Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute, has recorded the lowest temperature at their Antarctic location since the start of operations there 29 years ago. The mercury dropped to -50.2°C (-58.36°F). That clearly must be the result of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
We could quote examples from all over the world and the things that make up. If you were trying to prove the world is warming you would have no difficulty looking up local regions that would prove the point. Here let me find some more record colds for you.
I only bothered with 2009 but after seeing 9 in a row record colds you will see nearly 5x as many consecutive record highs with a about a 7:1 ratio or record high to record low. I could do the others piecemeal but I don't want to bother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guymez
You then trot out data from an organization (who is nothing more than a government funded/ Al Gore cheering section) who's data should be questioned....
I don't know where you get the Al Gore cheering section from, they agree with much of what he says but that's hardly cheering him on. The government funded part is asinine, who else is going to pay for satellite observations of the earth's surface? Should we discredit all meteorological reports because they use data from government funded equipment?
Both points are logical fallacies, the evidence is important not whether it's funded by the government or some political celebrity agrees with it.
That article is a waste of time, they talk about a technological error which caused a gap in the knowledge, something they didn't cover up or try to fit in but instead omitted it due to its unreliability. Yet, this is evidence of the unreliable rhetoric of climate change science? When asked they were upfront about it, they didn't include the data since it was unreliable.
Wikipedia says Greenland is ~2m square km, and the world's oceans are 2.56 x 10 to the 14th meters ... so 128 Greenlands = the surface area of the world's oceans? (someone double-check my arithmetic)
If 100% of Greenland is covered with 128 inches of ice and 100% of that melts, the world's oceans will collectively rise by 1 inch? If Greenland is covered by more than 120 feet of ice and 100% of that melts, we're talking about a foot. (Less than a foot, because as ocean level rises and overtakes land, there's additional ocean surface area with which to disperse water).
What would be simpler ... more cost-effective ... a more useful way to spend our time and energy? Guessing as to why this is happening and hoping that the sole cause is human intervention and fundamentally changing every aspect of our lives and our civilization before the mid-term elections?
Or thinking logically and rationally about how your town's shoreline (if your town even has one), would best deal with a 12-inch rise in the tide.
Slightly larger storm wall? Perhaps relocate a few streets / square kilometers of shoreline development? Might need to renovate a river's flood wall?
Nono ... let's go for the "completely change everything about the way the entire world functions and just hope that works" option ...
If Google is correct, 120 feet is approximately 36.57 meters. You do realize that Greenland is covered by 3,000 meters of ice?
Of course you are also completely ignoring any Antarctic or glacial melt from other continents, which would obviously also be very significant if Greenland would melt entirely.
And apparently you don't know me yet, but I am not one of these alarmists who is for going all out and "change everything about the way the entire world functions." You are committing a logical fallacy in that you only think in extremes. I do not think that we are in dire straits already and that we have to sandbag every city by tomorrow afternoon. I am much more advocating the development of alternative energy sources and thus the reduction of fossil fuel consumption which would lead to a reduction in carbon emissions.
Wikipedia says Greenland is ~2m square km, and the world's oceans are 2.56 x 10 to the 14th meters ... so 128 Greenlands = the surface area of the world's oceans? (someone double-check my arithmetic)
If 100% of Greenland is covered with 128 inches of ice and 100% of that melts, the world's oceans will collectively rise by 1 inch? If Greenland is covered by more than 120 feet of ice and 100% of that melts, we're talking about a foot. (Less than a foot, because as ocean level rises and overtakes land, there's additional ocean surface area with which to disperse water).
You also would have to take into account molar density of ice and water (.92 and 1.00 g/mol respectively) and the density of the ice in the Greenland glacier (g/m^3), which gets denser as you get deeper into the ice. Your math on the depth of the Greenland Glacier is off too, you're stating that it's 128inches (about 3.3m) where it ranges from 1500m to 3000m.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ck26
What would be simpler ... more cost-effective ... a more useful way to spend our time and energy? Guessing as to why this is happening and hoping that the sole cause is human intervention and fundamentally changing every aspect of our lives and our civilization before the mid-term elections?
Or thinking logically and rationally about how your town's shoreline (if your town even has one), would best deal with a 12-inch rise in the tide.
Slightly larger storm wall? Perhaps relocate a few streets / square kilometers of shoreline development? Might need to renovate a river's flood wall?
Nono ... let's go for the "completely change everything about the way the entire world functions and just hope that works" option ...
We need to do all those things you mentioned, it isn't enough to know that something is occurring but we have to know what started it so we can get an idea of how to prevent it or at least mitigate the effects. We can't do that without thorough observations and regarding the cause of the global temperature rising.
Just using levies isn't going to fix the problem that global warming presents, there is a huge potential for high ocean acidity, severe and unpredictable ecological shifts in some regions (ie: prairie or savanna to dessert) and the change to more consistently severe weather phenomena like hurricanes and tornadoes. Since it's hard to predict, we don't know how bad it will be but we have an idea of how bad it could be and things going bad is much more likely than things working out because the temperature jumped in a few ecosystems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosof99
And apparently you don't know me yet, but I am not one of these alarmists who is for going all out and "change everything about the way the entire world functions." You are committing a logical fallacy in that you only think in extremes. I do not think that we are in dire straits already and that we have to sandbag every city by tomorrow afternoon. I am much more advocating the development of alternative energy sources and thus the reduction of fossil fuel consumption which would lead to a reduction in carbon emissions.
Thanks for that too, I think it's important that some people understand that the majority of people who want to slow down climate change by changing our interaction with the environment don't want to destroy or sabotage the system. I look at it from the sake of the human interest and it's in our best interests to improve our infrastructure so that we don't pollute as much.
Last edited by ArizonaGreenTea: 08-02-2010 at 02:49 PM.
I am much more advocating the development of alternative energy sources and thus the reduction of fossil fuel consumption which would lead to a reduction in carbon emissions.
I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't feel this way. It's smart, logical, and the right thing to do.
The process is key, and THAT'S what the entire argument is about. (or it should be anyway)
You reduce carbon emissions by making them cheaper alternatives. You don't tax/fine someone for using older, fossil-fuel types of energy. And you damn sure don't mandate anything.
I am much more advocating the development of alternative energy sources and thus the reduction of fossil fuel consumption which would lead to a reduction in carbon emissions.
Is there a point? I understand the value of what you're saying, but can this happen?
You just criticized me for using an extreme example and rightfully so, but I'll use another: because there's no widespread desire nor practical way to implement a worldwide moratorium / ban on the burning of oil / gas, what's the purpose? Even if the world's biggest polluters immediately stopped polluting, others would step up in their place. The USA and China and whoever else stop burning, you're faced with the old "equal supply + reduced demand = reduced price" economic model. Developing economies would jump on this newly-cheap energy with abandon, and themselves consume some significant percentage of the newly cheap surplus.
There's no way to put the cat back into the bag on oil ... I see no reason why the Saudis / Iraqis / etc would stop producing their only real valuable export, nor a reason why developing countries would stop buying it. I could even envision some countries (North Korea?) doing it just out of spite. Unless you're willing to provide free energy (build them the turbines, etc) to the entire planet + back that up by actively enforcing a ban on oil, I'm not sure what the purpose is of unilaterally curbing my country's use. It will go away when it's gone, whenever that happens, if it happens. Until then I see no point.
I lose track of the amount of times I see you say you do or don't do something becuase 'no else does/doesn't!'. Argument from popularity, I guess.
I get it though, personal responsibility is hard.
WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES ONE HAVE TO MAKE YOU HAPPY?
I feel bad an island is sinking. Maybe we can give to a donation pool to move them to Hawaii which is rising? It would be a free choice to do so....so don't get angry over the lack of mandate.
Maybe he and his family and well being should be ignored. Stalin thought along those lines when he murdered so many for the greater good.
How will his cutting off his use of fuel and breathing (CO2 devil!) help keep the island from sinking, BTW?
I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't feel this way. It's smart, logical, and the right thing to do.
The process is key, and THAT'S what the entire argument is about. (or it should be anyway)
You reduce carbon emissions by making them cheaper alternatives. You don't tax/fine someone for using older, fossil-fuel types of energy. And you damn sure don't mandate anything.
The low income drivers in TPRoKalifornia have been assaulted by the save-the-planet legislation yet again ths year, with emissions levels reduced to near-new levels for cars. I just rebuilt my motor to comply.
New catalytic convertor.
New tailpipie repairs.
New pollution pump.
New head rebuild.
New cam.
ALL gaskets replaced.
This is a car I wanted as a possession which I have invested in upkeep I was required by the STATE to remove from the roads because of sinking islands and fear of glaciers melting. I have to pay dearly now. Many will.
Now a poor person having a car they can afford will soon have to buy a new car to meet the next emissions czar's guidelines. The wealthy won't have issues. The Senator from San Fran won't have a care in her private jet.
I'm relieved after reading your comment above to see some believe in individual liberty being maintained in any fight to improve the environment. Just don't ever move to Kalifornia. I'm moving when able to.
Is there a point? I understand the value of what you're saying, but can this happen?
You just criticized me for using an extreme example and rightfully so, but I'll use another: because there's no widespread desire nor practical way to implement a worldwide moratorium / ban on the burning of oil / gas, what's the purpose? Even if the world's biggest polluters immediately stopped polluting, others would step up in their place. The USA and China and whoever else stop burning, you're faced with the old "equal supply + reduced demand = reduced price" economic model. Developing economies would jump on this newly-cheap energy with abandon, and themselves consume some significant percentage of the newly cheap surplus.
There's no way to put the cat back into the bag on oil ... I see no reason why the Saudis / Iraqis / etc would stop producing their only real valuable export, nor a reason why developing countries would stop buying it. I could even envision some countries (North Korea?) doing it just out of spite. Unless you're willing to provide free energy (build them the turbines, etc) to the entire planet + back that up by actively enforcing a ban on oil, I'm not sure what the purpose is of unilaterally curbing my country's use. It will go away when it's gone, whenever that happens, if it happens. Until then I see no point.
1) The incentive in finding alternative energy solutions is that these will likely be more efficient than oil-usage. In fact this is necessary to make them attractive for the energy market. This also provides financial incentive to the consumer. Countries would stop buying oil because there would be a better alternative on the market.
2) Apparently you are willing to steer people right into a complete energy crisis. You are telling me straight up that it's senseless to develop alternative energy sources until we run out of oil. You do know what will happen when there will be no oil and no alternative for energy production? Global energy crisis and economic collapse, that's what!
Last edited by chaosof99*: 08-03-2010 at 09:35 AM.
I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't feel this way. It's smart, logical, and the right thing to do.
The process is key, and THAT'S what the entire argument is about. (or it should be anyway)
You reduce carbon emissions by making them cheaper alternatives. You don't tax/fine someone for using older, fossil-fuel types of energy. And you damn sure don't mandate anything.
While I agree that the consumer should not be punished for having a substandard car right now, I believe the government has the right and the obligation to mandate better emission and fuel consumption standards to manufacturers. This way better, more efficient and less polluting cars will cycle themselves into the public.
