Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Mountain glaciers are retreating three times faster than they were in the 1980s, says the World Glacier Monitoring Service. On average, they lost about 66 centimetres in depth in 2005, according to the latest report from the UN-affiliated body, released on 30 January. This loss rate is 1.6 times more than the annual average for the 1990s and three times the 1980s average. While the rate of change is certainly alarming, it is not a surprise, says Michael Zemp of WGMS. He says it fits in with the accelerating trend of the past 25 years, and simply serves to "make it sharper". The truly worrying observation, he says, comes when the past 150 years are analysed in the context of the past 10,000 years of glacial history. Mountain glaciers reached their maximum extent for 10,000 years in 1850. But since then they have lost 50% of their area and retreated to their minimum extent for 10,000 years. For the full story Click Here .


DA Morgan
.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Must be part of the solar system warming.

Really it doesn't prove anything, and least of all, man made global warming.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=eabbe10d-3891-41eb-9ee1-a59b71743bec

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
F
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
interesting read, if your want to be entertained. this quote is entertaining but not at all usefull in understanding the current debate on "global warming"
"Rahmstorf says there are so many possible factors and feedback mechanisms that affect sea level that it is almost impossible to derive a meaningful model of future rises from purely physical modelling. Instead, he uses a method similar to that used for calculating tide tables."
http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...celerating.html

so i gather he is saying there are so many variables to look at i will not use any of them .

more "However, the strongest conclusion of the new work, he says, is that uncertainties in sea level rise predictions are far greater than expected."

I wonder if Rahmstorf is certain of the uncertainties ?
Or that there are just to many uncertainties ?






Barry N Depledge
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
"Doesn't prove anything"

Bmax, certainly, to goodness, the vanishing Glaciers SUGGEST something? And the consequences of what is being suggested are severe and species-threatening? Or, in your view, Humanity is "Special" and cannot possibly go extinct?

What are you, a Real Estate Agent?

Last edited by Wolfman; 02/13/07 05:37 PM.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Wolfman,
Please leave off with the insults. This is a Science forum; please respect your fellow human beings.

Amaranth


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
AR II, you are absolutely right. No one has the right to call somebody else a Realtor. I apologize.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Selling Global Warming seems to even harder than selling Darwinism (do we have a forum for that too?). It's taken 2000 scientists a few years to come to the conclusion that human beings are at least largely responsible for the climate changes. I suppose, if we feel inclined to, we can ignore them and try to analyse the whole thing ourselves; and when that's done do it again, just to be sure; and again - by which time we may find that the process is irreversible, and dear ol' planet Earth is on it's way to becoming another Venus.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
redewenur wrote:
"Selling Global Warming seems to even harder than selling Darwinism"

There is a huge difference. Global warming is indisputable. Darwinism does not exist and never has except in the minds of those fighting with their last breaths to pretend they are direct descendants of Noah.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
F
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
Ok DA Morgan, "global warming is indisputable" Maybe if you break the word down a bit it becomes in dispute able. But it seems it is of no use to you as your mind is closed. Someone who says it is indisputable has stopped being scientific. If you remember back to about this time last year we had over 200 scientist coming to the conclusion that the world was about to run out of Oil. Surely we remember the thousand of media articles backed with science re "The end of Oil". funny how that topic is off the radar now the price of oil is down 30% from its peak. remain open to new ideas. Oh yes, those of us old enough remember the 70s when the world was running out of oil. And then there are those who do the research and have read of the social mania in the 70s over oil. well we have a social mania today on Climate Change.


Barry N Depledge
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
...Darwinism does not exist...

There are many who would reverse your claim, and say that Darwinism is indisputable, and global warming is a myth. Whilst there's strong evidence for both, wouldn't you say that the evidence supporting Darwin's evolution theory has been thoroughly documented over the past century? Those who are well qualified in related subject matter vigorously support Darwinism. I gather that you are not likewise qualified. Perhaps I?m not giving you credit for a sense humour, DA.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
fvf ... global warming is indisputable. The relative contributions caused by human activity and natural cycles may be in dispute but fact that that the planet is warming is simple physics.

Fact 1:
Polar ice is melting. Ice does not melt unless energy is applied.

Fact 2:
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising. CO2 traps energy and it is a violation of the laws of physics for CO2 to not trap energy and it is a violation of the laws of physics for that energy, once trapped, to not cause warming.

If you've got some facts by all means put them up here using simple declarative sentences.

If I disagree I will challenge you to support them by demonstrating a link to a publication I can find at the University of Washington library or a website that does not belong to a special interest group.

Now if you still think the facts are in dispute ... fire away.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
redewenur ... how can Darwinism be in dispute when there is no such thing?

Is relativity referred to as Einsteinism? Is quantum mechanics referred to as Bohrism? Is the theory of an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs referred to as Alvarezism?

Darwin was a scientist who proposed an explanation for observations of nature. He did not start a new religion. He did not ask that his observations and conclusions be accepted as an article of faith. He did not proclaim himself a spokesperson for the almighty and not one biology teacher on the planet has ever said "This is true because it is what is written in a book."

"DarwinISM" is the invention of religious zealots.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Hello everyone,

Fact 1:
Polar ice is actually gaining in mass.

Fact 2:
CO2 only absorbs one type of infrared radiation. CO2 absorbs this radiation when it collides with other molecules, then releases what little heat it managed to maintain, higher in the atmosphere under different atmospheric pressure. The laws of Thermodynamics state that CO2 can not retain this heat. In other words?Heat can not be ?trapped.? Try using about 100 ppm of CO2 as insulation in our walls. (lol) It is physically impossible for 100 ppm of CO2 to produce enough energy to heat the entire planet. The CO2 will start to cool to ambient temperatures the second after it heats. The two oxygen atoms offer almost no insulation for the one carbon atom to retain the heat.

We need to realize that ?global warming? is also happening on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton, and maybe others that we haven?t noticed. Maybe the term should be ?solar warming.?

The IPCC has now admitted that the 2001 report was bogus. They admit they knew the numbers were wrong and never should have been used.

Plate tectonics are the cause of climate change. India used to be connected to Antarctica?Just think about the climate changes recorded in India?s past as it moved from the South Pole, across the equator to its current position. 10,000 years ago, Egypt was a tropical paradise. Climate change has, and will, always occur. The earth has never had a constant climate.

If we pay attention to Gore?s movie, we?ll see he is talking about the effects of the ?atmospheric brown cloud? and not CO2. It?s a shame that so many of us missed the main point of the movie. Here?s a NASA link. Funny, notice the third picture, of China. This picture is proof that sea level has lowered over the years?HMMM.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/brown_cloud.html


?Darwinism? or ?evolutionists? are a cult of people that run around claiming that the theory of evolution proves there is no god. But, the theory of evolution needs a god for life to have started. The theory of evolution avoids the origin of life. Evolution (change) is real?But the theory of evolution is not. The Cambrian Explosion is proof enough. (My opinion)

Fact:
American Heritage Dictionary ?
Dar?win?ism (d?r'wĭ-nĭz'əm)
n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
End fact :-)

I would stick to the LAW of Biogenesis, not the theory of evolution. The law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories.

Abiogenesis is the theory of life from non living matter?or, the start of life. Some claim this theory is no longer valid, but the Miller-Urey experiment proved that amino acids cam form under certain conditions. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. Amino acids are everywhere. Even in space, and in meteorites. I?m sure that the amino acids that started life on Earth simply fell from space. Thousands of tons of organic materials from deep space called micrometeorites, or Brownlee particles, fall on the Earth every year.

The Earth has been warming for over 10,000 years, when the last glacial period ended. We had a brief mini ice age that ended in 1850. Why do all of the GWer?s insist on using charts that start at the end of an ice age? Naturally, the data will show ?warming? from 1850 to present.

You know, I believe that the Earth?s magnetic field has something to do with everything that is wrong today. The magnetic field has been weakening right along with global warming, soaring cancer rates, the moving magnetic poles, stronger geomagnetic storms, even Bermuda triangle phenomenon could be associated with the magnetic field. (My opinion) See this link and think for yourself.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

Peace

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
DA, I have no bone to pick with you over the issue of the nomenclature. If you choose not to call it Darwinism, I'm sure you'll be tolerated. I'll stick with it if you don't mind too much, since it's long since found it's way into common usage. There's really no sense in getting hung up about it. Not all 'isms' are connected with religion.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Max wrote:
"Fact 1:
Polar ice is actually gaining in mass."

Do you really believe this? Based on what? Certainly not on this:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html
or this
www.nasa.gov/pdf/157359main_Comiso_GRL06_AbrChArcWntrRevf1.pdf
or this
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-107
or this
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006091323081.html

Max wrote:
Fact 2:
CO2 only absorbs one type of infrared radiation.

Do you really believe this? If you do it would seem you are the only person on the planet that does.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,4338075350454b5452554d5f7375626b6174092d09436172626f6e2b64696f786964655f434f32093a095350454b5452554d5f6b6174092d09436172626f6e2d6f7869646573093a095350454b5452554d5f73746f66666e616d65092d09636172626f6e2b64696f78696465/Spectra/Catalogue_1m4.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ZhPS...21..893M
http://naftali.aos.wisc.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Algorithms
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

But then why should anyone pay attention to those dolts at NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, and Harvard University when we have an anonymous poster named Max to set us straight.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Max wrote:
Do you really believe this? Based on what? Certainly not on this:


No, not those sites. Try any of these...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...G=Google+Search

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Max wrote:
Do you really believe this? If you do it would seem you are the only person on the planet that does.


Your links seem to agree with me.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Max wrote:
But then why should anyone pay attention to those dolts at NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, and Harvard University when we have an anonymous poster named Max to set us straight.


You mean Soloman and the group? Well, they were wrong about CFC's, and now admit they knew the numbers they used for fear mongering about CO2 were wrong. This means that all of the websites that use info from the 2001 report are wrong. Or, the NASA scientist who admitted to knowingly using high numbers in his Antarctica report? We need to stay away from using links that use data from the 2001 report. The IPCC has admitted the truth. The 2007 report is out, and has much lower numbers.


I like to discuss this topic, but I can't play the link game...too many bogus sites that use info from the 2001 report.

Last edited by Max; 02/19/07 01:22 AM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
You're a mod. Please tell me what I need to do to remove my "anonymous" status. I just joined...give me a chance. lol!

Peace

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Max do you see a problem here?

I posted links to the most reputable government agencies and universities on the planet. You posted a link to google. But to be fair I followed your google link and only one item on the first page was to a site worth more than the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I don't get my science news from Paris Hilton and you shouldn't either. Go to the sites with credibility ... NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, etc. and you will find a very different story.

I teach at the University of Washington and can tell you, for an absolute fact, there isn't a single person studying climatology here who would agree with the statement you made: Not one!

What you have done with your google query is guarantee a prejudicial result. Suppose one were to take your inquery and slant it the other way replacing the word "gaining" with "losing." Would you consider those results equally valid? Why? Why not? Try it. If you want to be a scientist you MUST be objective. Try these queries instead:

"Arctic ice cover"
"Arctic ice coverage"
"Polar ice coverage"

and let the "pro" and "con" show themselves without prejudice.

When you do you will find articles such as this:
Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9717&feedId=online-news_rss20
containing statements such as this:
"The Greenland Ice Sheet shrank at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres per year from April 2002 to November 2005, a team from the University of Texas at Austin, US, found. In the last 18 months of the measurements, ice melting has appeared to accelerate, particularly in southeastern Greenland."

You can't have it both ways. Even the President of the United States has now acknowledged the reality of global warming in his 2007 State of the Union speech.

That pretty much leaves anyone still arguing the point looking a bit like a member of the flat-earth society.

The planet is round ... climb aboard for a spin.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Da Morgan,
I'm not into politics at all. I love science, not politics. Honestly. Let's try to leave politics and religion out of this science conversation.

All of the links I have posted have been NASA links. There is no need to suggest that I leave bogus links...that's a desperate tactic. I left the google list because no matter which link I chose, you would play the "discredit the link" game...I'll let you chose your own link. I don't get my science from bogus websites that use the false data from the 2001 report, but to be fair, I did read your links...did you?
I love this link, thanks...

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Please read it. Scroll down to the part about the linear projections. I love it. Thanks again!

Congrats on the teaching job. I work for a chemical company developing new refrigerants to replace the HFC's that are 10,000 times more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2. I would love to discuss this with you on a civil, at least college level...not a C&P from out dated websites and political assault level.
Here's a link you might like...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-print.cfm?release=2006-112

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I agree with leaving politics and religion out of it.

I didn't suggest your links were bogus. I stated flat out, in plain English, that they have zero credibility on a topic of serious science.

I posted links to actual research conducted by actual researchers with PhD's who are subject-matter experts. Take for example the statement by the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin.
Are they wrong? If so show me a link to peer reviewed research the argues the point that they are wrong. A link to "brneurosci.org" is meaningless if, as you said in your first paragraph ... you are interested in serious science.

I've no argument with the statement about linear projections. But then again I've no reason to believe that this argument isn't bogus as the PhD's I know are remarkably intelligent people.

I'd be happy to discuss refrigerants with you but I will hold you to a standard rather higher than that of the links you have posted so far.

PS: I like the jpl.nasa link you posted. Did you read it? If not here are the salient points:

1. "Short-Term ... 'Speed Bump'"

2. "... the decline is a fraction of the total ocean warming over the previous 48 years. "

3. "The recent cooling episode suggests sea level should have actually decreased in the past two years. Despite this, sea level has continued to rise. This may mean that sea level rise has recently shifted from being mostly caused by warming to being dominated by melting."

Global warming is not about one specific geographic area or one specific year or one specific storm. It is rather the determination of climatology and meteorology experts from all countries looking at serious science covering a very large number of years.

I note you ignored my point about your search criterion being biased. I note you ignored my point about the equally low value of biasing in the other direction. You are conversing with someone who not only teaches at a university but has spent more than a few hours at Stanford and CalTech and who has lectured at NASA and both Lawrence Livermore and Argonne National Laboratories. If you wish serious science from me ... then anticipate that I expect the same from you.

As I have made a promise to Kate ... if you don't post serious science ... I will ignore your response.

Last edited by DA Morgan; 02/19/07 02:10 AM.

DA Morgan
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5