'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen'

by designs 165 Replies latest social current

  • kurtbethel
    kurtbethel

    Having posted that above, I want to go into the matter of what Designs has been posting about, which is that humans do have an effect on the earth, and sometimes it is a massive effect.

    One thing that humans do effectively is to dig up raw materials from the earth, transport it elsewhere and then bury most of it somewhere nearby. Entire mountains of elements are being relocated from one continent to another this way. If I were an alien that came from elsewhere to observe the processes of the planet, I would suspect that the purpose of humans was to speed up the transport of matter to move it faster than geological processes.

    Those dead trees in the SoCal mountains were mostly killed by beetles which were able to infect the trees because of drought. I lost a few trees to the beetle, and what would happen is that as long as the tree had a good water supply the beetle could not infect it. But if it dried out the beetles could drill under the bark and consume the inside layer, which killed the tree. I was able to water the surviving trees and keep the beetles away. Some details about the tree plague are here. http://www.forestdata.com/deadtree.htm

    One of the massive human changes on the earth that fascinates me, is nearby and I went to go see a couple weeks ago is the Salton Sea. It was formed over a century ago when irrigation from the Colorado river flooded and water that would normally flow into the Gulf of California in Mexico started to fill a large basin in California that was below sea level. It took a couple years to control the flooding and by then there was a a large lake in the basin. It gets replenished by agricultural runoff, and is saltier than the ocean. For many decades in the 1950s, 60s and 70s it had marinas and was quite a recreation zone within a short distance of Palm Springs, offering boating and sport fishing. But something happened on the way to paradise and the salinity level went up, algae blooms would occur and they would die, consuming oxygen, which led to fish die offs. The resulting stench and shores littered with dead fish bones killed off the desire for recreation there. The one benefit is that it is a stopping ground for migratory birds, but as a whole it is a monument to the sometimes folly of human tampering with the earth.

  • kurtbethel
    kurtbethel
    There is no "liberal political party".

    Not in the US.

    There is a fascist party.

    Then there is an even more fascist party.

    There are several parties that are not fascist, but most American voters don't like that idea enough to vote that way so they never get more that a single digit percentage of votes.

  • villagegirl
    villagegirl

    Shouldn't you conspiracy theory ignoramuses be in school ?

    Naaah its easier to find other ignoramuses on the intenet and

    discuss things you haven't a clue about, like Science.

    Then go pick up your welfare check.

    There seems to be a lot of anger towards a man who

    got himself through Harvard University, with no help,

    from his parents, and became a Law professor and actually

    did something with his life. Oh yeah he's the idiot, and your the genius.

  • Resistance is Futile
    Resistance is Futile

    Very interesting thread. I suspect that the Koch brothers would love to get their money back that funded a study that confirmed global warming.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming

    Something that's rarely mentioned in the media is the positive feedback loop that occurs as polar ice melts. It's a pretty simple concept actually; ice reflects more solar radiation than open water. A decrease in ice surface area causes an increase in solar radiation absorption.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142324.htm

    I'm assuming that everyone here understands what a greenhouse gas is.

  • besty
    besty

    stonewall and tt2c - lets go back a few steps:

    Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? (yes or no)

  • besty
    besty

    @stonewall:

    I was able to google it and found some interesting articles realted to that study and it backs up what I thought about the numbers.

    From the blog you quoted:

    There are two concerns here. The first is sample size. While climate science isn't a massive field, 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.

    and

    I also e-mailed several prominent climate scientists who would be considered 'skeptics' to get their opinions on the study.

    You don't see the irony of the blogger cherry-picking selecting a few well known climate skeptics to get their opinion on why a survey with a small sample size of self-selected climate scientists might not be 'representative'?

    He then goes on to question the motives of the researchers and looks for flaws in the way the questions are structured, despite the question structure being verified independently. In other words he is attempting tp undermine the study because he doesn't like the result. He hasn't attempted to replicate the survey to see if he gets a different result. I wonder why not? (I could argue that you have done exactly the same as this blogger - you didn't like the survey and scoured the web for support to your preconceived viewpoint - you pretty much admit that)

    This is why science is not advanced in the blogosphere. If you or the blogger have a different theory on climate change then have it published for peer review in any of the reputable scientific journals, as this consensus study was.

    Another consensus study was carried out by Oreskes in 2004 - http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full# - it broadly agrees with the Doran 2009 study, which broadly agrees with the IPCC reports.

    As well as having the burden of proof please bear in mind taking a denier viewpoint puts you at odds with every scientific body of national and international standing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    It also puts you at odds with US Department of Defense, the US Army, Navy etc http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change

    There comes a point when scientists stop arguing about things like gravity and evolution and move on further into the details. Climate change caused by human activity is now in that category and has been for some decades now.

    Maybe its time to move on?

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    I also e-mailed several prominent climate scientists who would be considered 'skeptics' to get their opinions on the study

    Classic confirmation bias

  • besty
    besty

    @tt2c and stonewall

    my original 3 questions were:

    1 - Why human originated CO2 emmissions are not causing warming, if it is accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    2 - Why any poster denying the consensus is better qualified than the 98% of climate scientists who agree with the majority opinion that human caused climate change is a fact, similar to evolution and gravity. (putting the deniers in the Flat Earth Club)
    3 - The role of deep ocean warming and its relative importance to land surface temperature (may as well throw in some discussion on ocean acidification as well)

    I think you are both focused on the 2nd question, but your replies have been based on trashing the 98% consensus, not so much on why you - YOU - are better qualified than these climate scientists.

    I am interested in that, along with your thoughts on questions 1 and 3.

  • besty
    besty
    Classic confirmation bias

    :-) noted that stonewall said:

    I was able to google it and found some interesting articles realted to that study and it backs up what I thought about the numbers.
  • mP
    mP

    @besty

    Do you see where the burden of proof lies?

    If you don't accept the 98% consensus view and you have a testable hypothesis that will stand up to peer review, then you you are well on the way to becoming the most famous scientist of this generation.

    Otherwise you are just a denier with a keyboard.

    mP:

    Unfortunately this argument of authority is flawed, because looking at the data shows soemthing else. CO2 has become very political. Such quotes are always very small grabs without showing the full picture.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit