Science: In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills

[Old Rocks]

Stating the obvious seems lost on these guys. They seem completely unable to grasp the fact that the ice has been melting back for 14,000 years now. It has melted back damned near 2,000 miles. For the life of me, I can't see what is upsetting, or surprising about the fact that a trend that is now 14,000 years old is continuing.

If you can't see what's so upsetting, you're not paying attention. Thousands of communities worldwide depend on the fresh water from melting glaciers for their domestic use. Some countries depend on the melting water from glaciers for their production of electricity. Agriculture in many nations depends primarily on melting glacier water that flows in their rivers. All this melting water is constantly replaced by fresh snow that compresses into ice over time and will subsequently melt into water. This cycle goes on and on maintaining a perfect balance in the generation of fresh water and size of the glacier.

Ahhhhhh yes, the infamous Himalayan glacier report....I guess you didn't get the memo? It turns out they were, well, let'sbe charitible, less then honest with their reporting (yes sunshine, that's correct, Pechauri willfully lied about the report) it seems those glaciers are going to be around for a few thousand years more then they were originally saying.
They also neglected to tell people that many glaciers were in fact ADVANCING.

If this is the best you've got you'd best tuck tail and run, you're about three years behind the curve.

Real stupid of you to post such an obvious lie concerning the Himalyan glaciers.

Asia's Vanishing Glaciers (Complete) | Asia Society

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia

But then we all know that Walleyes claims to be so much more knowledgeable than the USGS.

By the way, dumb ass, I was around during the paradigm change of plate tectonics, and it was the working scientists that drove that change, not useless drones like you. People in the background like Dr. Allen of Portland State University, and Dr. Tom Thayer of the USGS. Met them both on the Eastern Oregon leg of an International Conferance on Ophiolites. An outdoor hands on conferance with presentations at night.

I find it interesting that you constantly denigrate real working scientists while presenting lies concerning the science you claim to have a degree in.

 

[Old Rocks]

One of the things I love about this debate is that the environment cannot be propaganized, beaten down, intimidated or fooled.

It IS going to do what it is going to do regardless of what we might personally think.

You think Global Weirding is happening? Nature doesn't care.

You think Global Weirding is not happening? Nature doesn't care.

Time will tell.

Some of us think it is already quite telling, others deny it.

Some of us will live long enough to see who was right.

One can only HOPE that the vast majority of scientific community is wrong.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

Feb 2010

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Nature does not care what Phil Jones thinks.

Environmental science is NOT social science.

Unlike the social sciences (where right and wrong answers do not exist) there are RIGHT and WRONG answers in hard science.

Let's just HOPE that the majority of environmental scientists are WRONG this time, shall we?

I sincerely doubt anything mankind can do or not do right now is going to make a tinkers damn difference.

Problem is, it is not just the environmental scientists that are stating that the GHGs are going to cause us major grief. It is the Physicists, Chemists, and virtually everybody in the 'Hard' sciences.

From Arrnhenius in 1896 to Hansen at present, the scientists have stated the basis for GHG caused warming and climate change, and made predictions as to what would happen as the world warmed. We are now seeing those predictions come to pass.

Those denying the science are at present even trying to deny those changes. As with Walleyes and his denial that most of the Himalayan glaciers are undergoing rapid retreat. Even though we have thousands of photos, from satellites and the ground showing the retreat, he still denys it.

Also the constant denial that the physicists have any knowledge of what they are talking about when they present their data concerning the absorption bands of CO2 and other GHGs. The early work on this was done in 1858 by Tyndall, and continues right up to the present, as we track the effect of industrial gases that have no analogs in nature.

What we are seeing is the denial of basic science by those with a vested political and economic interest in the present order of energy structure. A denial that the knowledgeable ones know is wrong, but care more about money and political power than the welfare of the nation. And the willfully ignorant follow like good little brainless sheep.

 

[Old Rocks]

although I cant remember which society it was, the APS perhaps; a group of the members were astonished to find that their society's AGW statement included the word incontrovertible in it. as scientists are supposed to believe nothing is incontrovertible they pushed for a formal hearing to change the policy statement. the politically active committee formed to look into it simply reaffirmed the existing statement to the dismay of every scientist who cared about the reputation of their profession.

Ian, that is hearsay, and this is supposed to be a scientific discussion. You want to present evidence for your opinion, do so, but presenting hearsay is verboten. It is done like this;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

The American Geophysical Union is the scientific society that has the largest number of climate scientists in it of any scientific society in the world.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tell me flopper, what do you suppose we can do about the changing climate? Do you really believe that a trace gas in the atmosphere which has no capacity to absorb and retain heat can actually be responsible for a changing climate?

If you really believe it, then describe the mechanism by which you believe it happens.

I'm not a climate scientist. I don't need to understand the scientific details of climate change, but I do understand the recommendations and positions of the most prestigious scientific organizations on earth. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with the findings that the earth is warming and the vast majority state man is likely cause.

List of Academies of Science that agree that the planet is warming and man is the likely cause:
Australia,
Belgium,
Brazil,
Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
Caribbean,
China,
Institut de France,
Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
Indonesia,
Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
India,
Japan,
Kenya,
Madagascar,
Malaysia,
Mexico,
Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Senegal,
South Africa,
Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
Tanzania,
Turkey,
Uganda,
United Kingdom,
United States,
Zambia,
Zimbabwe.

List of Academies of Science that disagree that the planet is warming and man is the likely cause:
None

List of Scientific Societies that agree that the planet is warming and man is the likely cause:

General science:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Earth sciences:
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Meteorology and oceanography:
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization

Paleoclimatology:
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research

Biology and life sciences:
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)

Human Health:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization

Miscellaneous:
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

I hate to tell you pal but appeals to authority died out years ago. Your clone olfraud prints that useless list at least 6 times a year and you know what? We still don't care. Those same societies swore that plate tectonics didn't exist till the 1960's in the face of overwhelming evidence 20 years before that. They were as wrong then as they are now.

You are still lying, Walleyes. It was the scientists of those societies that presented the proof of Plate Tectonics. Prior to the discovery of the movement at the rift zones, there was no known way for the continents to 'drift'. So, while the geological community acknowledged the evidence for the movement of the continents, there was no known physical process known by which they could move.

It would be as if we were presenting the evidence for the present warming, and stating that we thought it was caused by man's use of fossil fuels, without the evidence of the absorption bands of the gases involved. But that is not the case. For the absorption bands were discovered before we were observing any of the warming that we are seeing today. And the warming that we are seeing today was predicted on the basis of those bands by Arrnhenius in 1896.

 

[Old Rocks]

Repeatable lab experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature = 0.

Is the Earth Warming?

"This is equal to only 0.25% of one Alka-Seltzer tablet (a quarter of 1%); this is a very small amount."

BRAVO!!

I've been saying this for years!!

MIT Never did it.

And note, the results weren't posted

Realizing that this may be difficult for you, much more advanced than your normal activities, the suggestion is that you actually do the experiment yourself. Of course, that would challenge your 'the way things oughta be' beliefs, so you will not do it.

And the results are obvious.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is the Earth Warming?

"This is equal to only 0.25% of one Alka-Seltzer tablet (a quarter of 1%); this is a very small amount."

BRAVO!!

I've been saying this for years!!

MIT Never did it.

And note, the results weren't posted

Realizing that this may be difficult for you, much more advanced than your normal activities, the suggestion is that you actually do the experiment yourself. Of course, that would challenge your 'the way things oughta be' beliefs, so you will not do it.

And the results are obvious.

Why hasn't MIT posted the results? The little college in LA does real science, why can't the climate "Scientists" at MIT do the same?

Why, instead are we treated to the Wheel of Climate Change?

 

[gslack]

I find it very telling that oldsocks and company have completely ignored the OP article and the completely asinine contention that animals are migrating 15 meters per day from the equator, by burying it under nonsense already being argued in other threads. All this just to keep up appearances of AGW being factual.... TOO funny!

 

[westwall]

Maybe you would care to list the scientific societies, academies, and university that support your contention.

I don't care about them. They are the same fools who said plate tectonics wasn't the way the world works. They are as wrong now as they were then olfraud.

Yeah, the most prestigious scientific academies and societies on the planet have got it all wrong and you've got it right. This thread isn't worth my time.

These global warming threads should be posted under conspiracy theories.

In that I agree with you. You never did answer the 65 degree swing issue though did you?
It amazes me that someone can claim that a one degree global temp rise is going to cause the end of the world and yet they experience 30 degree swings almost every day of their lives and they just don't get it.

When you figure out your conspiracy theory is worthless feel free to come on back.

 

[westwall]

One of the things I love about this debate is that the environment cannot be propaganized, beaten down, intimidated or fooled.

It IS going to do what it is going to do regardless of what we might personally think.

You think Global Weirding is happening? Nature doesn't care.

You think Global Weirding is not happening? Nature doesn't care.

Time will tell.

Some of us think it is already quite telling, others deny it.

Some of us will live long enough to see who was right.

One can only HOPE that the vast majority of scientific community is wrong.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes..."

Feb 2010

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Nature does not care what Phil Jones thinks.

Environmental science is NOT social science.

Unlike the social sciences (where right and wrong answers do not exist) there are RIGHT and WRONG answers in hard science.

Let's just HOPE that the majority of environmental scientists are WRONG this time, shall we?

I sincerely doubt anything mankind can do or not do right now is going to make a tinkers damn difference.

Let's assume a worst case IPCC scenario editec. What are the negs vs the pros? In my research of paleoclimate when it has been warmer then the current day it has been a hell of a lot nicer world. I see very few negatives with a warmer world. A colder world is a miserable world.

The amount of money they want to steal from you in the hope of a pithy one degree drop in temperature in a 100 years is an amount so great that it could be used by others to do real work that actually would help the planet in many ways.

Instead they with to piss it down a rat hole. That's unforgivable.