Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

[Chris]

Antarctica doesn't have to all melt to have a significant effect. Just a couple grounded ice shelves break up, and we have a couple of meters of sea level rise.

As only something over 40% of Anarctica has ice shelves and only about 1/9th of those extend above the ocean surface, they all could melt without causing significantl rise in the ocean levels though it could cause some desalinization which could have other effects. If the anarctic ice that is grounded should melt, that would be a real problem, but as already posted, there is little or no chance of that happening in a future we need to worry about.

That is not true.

If the permafrost melts and releases all the methane, we will have a lot to worry about.

 

[saveliberty]

Antarctica doesn't have to all melt to have a significant effect. Just a couple grounded ice shelves break up, and we have a couple of meters of sea level rise.

As only something over 40% of Anarctica has ice shelves and only about 1/9th of those extend above the ocean surface, they all could melt without causing significantl rise in the ocean levels though it could cause some desalinization which could have other effects. If the anarctic ice that is grounded should melt, that would be a real problem, but as already posted, there is little or no chance of that happening in a future we need to worry about.

That is not true.

If the permafrost melts and releases all the methane, we will have a lot to worry about.

You a smoker Chris?

 

[Foxfyre]

As only something over 40% of Anarctica has ice shelves and only about 1/9th of those extend above the ocean surface, they all could melt without causing significantl rise in the ocean levels though it could cause some desalinization which could have other effects. If the anarctic ice that is grounded should melt, that would be a real problem, but as already posted, there is little or no chance of that happening in a future we need to worry about.

That is not true.

If the permafrost melts and releases all the methane, we will have a lot to worry about.

You a smoker Chris?

You didn't ask what he smoked. (j/k)

Seriously, if all the Anarctic permafrost melts, then the Anarctic ice cap is gone and we'll have a lot more to deal with than a bit more methane concentration in the atmosphere. On the bright side, if the worst case scenario should prove to be right, we'll have a couple hundred more kilometers of depth of ocean water to be the sink for CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

 

[woodjack]

ok so if global warming is a big danger, what is the fix? have everyone buy solar panels for their house at 150k a pop? tax the hell out of everyone and shrink the economy to nothing so nobody produces anything, thus killing the carbon imprint and killing jobs? subsidize lower wage people by charging an arm and a leg for power consumption thus shrinking the economy.....ummm doing the cap and trade plan our genuis government came up with which does not at all lower emmissions but just charges billions in tax revenue for our government? so they in turn can throw money at it, thats all they do throw money at problems and so when its not fixed they say but I threw 300 billion dollars at it....We all know thats a lie...

so you think there is a problem....so come up with an idea to fix it......and if there is a big demand for power reducing tech....the prices also go up supply and demand. or are you just going to try to convince people that don't believe a word of it? I see no quick fix for your theory on climate change and then even if we do all of that, other nations would flip us the bird and do what they will anyway...

war is a good start kills people reduces emmissions.....plague also worked in the middle ages....


I see all these scenarios of the worst case but very little on how to combat it, kind of like a bum holding a sign saying the end is near along the road side.

some other facts that all the glaciers will melt by 2035 in the himalayas, oops they meant 2350....kind of a long time frame error, the cycle that I have looked up is a cooling and warming trend ....we are now due for a cooling trend since the temp has risen since 1850. The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

and they think Antonio Stradivari, the famous violin maker, produced his instruments during the Little Ice Age. It has been proposed that the colder climate caused the wood used in his violins to be denser than in warmer periods, contributing to the tone of Stradivari's instruments.

so a little climate change is good I think.

 

[Big Fitz]

big mouth, if you had any common sense, you would just slink away and shut your mouth instead of making any new "points" to try to keep some sort of dignity.

Deflect, run away and hide, chicken little. You prove nothing but your support for a phony religion.

stop lying about me, lil fitz.

Then prove you're not beholden to a failed religion of earth worship based on scientific fraud. Till then, I'm not lying. Just observing.

So, 7mm a year for 1000 years. Think we can adapt?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Deflect, run away and hide, chicken little. You prove nothing but your support for a phony religion.

stop lying about me, lil fitz.

Then prove you're not beholden to a failed religion of earth worship based on scientific fraud. Till then, I'm not lying. Just observing.

So, 7mm a year for 1000 years. Think we can adapt?

you'd manage to drown in a puddle that is 7mm deep. so you should be afraid.

 

[Big Fitz]

And yet, you cannot state with any honesty or integrity that the sea change is negligible.

But yet Global Warming is real and it's all mankind's fault.

It's hot it's our fault.
It's cold it's our fault.
It's wet it's our fault.
It's dry it's our fault.

What more proof of this being a religion do you need? Even a magic 8 ball has more variety in answers.

 

[L.K.Eder]

And yet, you cannot state with any honesty or integrity that the sea change is negligible.

But yet Global Warming is real and it's all mankind's fault.

It's hot it's our fault.
It's cold it's our fault.
It's wet it's our fault.
It's dry it's our fault.

What more proof of this being a religion do you need? Even a magic 8 ball has more variety in answers.

prove to me that you can manage to not drown in a 7 mm deep puddle.

i think i have a solid case here . unlike you who obviously does not have the capacity of sorting, digesting and correctly using the talking points you have been inundated with. that is your fault. and my fun. now go fuck yourself.

 

[Big Fitz]

And yet, you cannot state with any honesty or integrity that the sea change is negligible.

But yet Global Warming is real and it's all mankind's fault.

It's hot it's our fault.
It's cold it's our fault.
It's wet it's our fault.
It's dry it's our fault.

What more proof of this being a religion do you need? Even a magic 8 ball has more variety in answers.

prove to me that you can manage to not drown in a 7 mm deep puddle.

i think i have a solid case here . unlike you who obviously does not have the capacity of sorting, digesting and correctly using the talking points you have been inundated with. that is your fault. and my fun. now go fuck yourself.

Glad to see you got nothing but epithets (curses for you in Rio Linda).

And don't forget, you're the one claiming that something is happening with only frauds and a hoax to back it up. The onus is on you to prove it IS happening.

Till then, there is no need for all these green-fascist initiatives, and capitalism crippling laws.

 

[L.K.Eder]

And yet, you cannot state with any honesty or integrity that the sea change is negligible.

But yet Global Warming is real and it's all mankind's fault.

It's hot it's our fault.
It's cold it's our fault.
It's wet it's our fault.
It's dry it's our fault.

What more proof of this being a religion do you need? Even a magic 8 ball has more variety in answers.

prove to me that you can manage to not drown in a 7 mm deep puddle.

i think i have a solid case here . unlike you who obviously does not have the capacity of sorting, digesting and correctly using the talking points you have been inundated with. that is your fault. and my fun. now go fuck yourself.

Glad to see you got nothing but epithets (curses for you in Rio Linda).

And don't forget, you're the one claiming that something is happening with only frauds and a hoax to back it up. The onus is on you to prove it IS happening.

Till then, there is no need for all these green-fascist initiatives, and capitalism crippling laws.

ok, show me where i am claiming something, i mean something besides that you are a moron, of course, and that you are lying about me, which you just did again, you pathetic tossbucket.
you made several extreme boneheaded posts in this thread, and i commented on that. remember the ice cubes, and your rough math, hahahahaha. now you are reduced to posting cat pics, again.

 

[Big Fitz]

Awww look... Debunked and angry and nothing to back it up.

So, you want to then derive credibility, where you have none, when I make a math error. At least I admitted I could be wrong, you saw I was, fine. I was wrong. But then again, I am proven right because the melt rate is still only millimeters a year. A fact you are running away from screaming like a little girl.

And now you are making a vain attempt at discrediting my mocking of you with cuteness. Go back to the DU where your faith is unchallenged and you an lie safe in the Algorian echo chamber.

 

[Foxfyre]

ok so if global warming is a big danger, what is the fix? have everyone buy solar panels for their house at 150k a pop? tax the hell out of everyone and shrink the economy to nothing so nobody produces anything, thus killing the carbon imprint and killing jobs? subsidize lower wage people by charging an arm and a leg for power consumption thus shrinking the economy.....ummm doing the cap and trade plan our genuis government came up with which does not at all lower emmissions but just charges billions in tax revenue for our government? so they in turn can throw money at it, thats all they do throw money at problems and so when its not fixed they say but I threw 300 billion dollars at it....We all know thats a lie...

so you think there is a problem....so come up with an idea to fix it......and if there is a big demand for power reducing tech....the prices also go up supply and demand. or are you just going to try to convince people that don't believe a word of it? I see no quick fix for your theory on climate change and then even if we do all of that, other nations would flip us the bird and do what they will anyway...

war is a good start kills people reduces emmissions.....plague also worked in the middle ages....


I see all these scenarios of the worst case but very little on how to combat it, kind of like a bum holding a sign saying the end is near along the road side.

some other facts that all the glaciers will melt by 2035 in the himalayas, oops they meant 2350....kind of a long time frame error, the cycle that I have looked up is a cooling and warming trend ....we are now due for a cooling trend since the temp has risen since 1850. The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

and they think Antonio Stradivari, the famous violin maker, produced his instruments during the Little Ice Age. It has been proposed that the colder climate caused the wood used in his violins to be denser than in warmer periods, contributing to the tone of Stradivari's instruments.

so a little climate change is good I think.

Welcome to USMB Woodjack and thanks for some pertinent observations.

While I don't relish the idea of another 'little ice age' just to get really superb violins, you underscore the fact that our planet is in a constant state of longterm flux between very cold periods and very warm periods, and it is highly unlikely that we will have any technology to significantly affect that for some generations to come. Humankind, distinct from most other species, however, has a tremendous capacity to adapt to whatever conditions exist.

I want us to keep right on researching and studying climate and climate change to help people prepare for what we will need to adapt to on down the line. But until they come up with some scientific evidence that is pretty well accepted by all credible scientists--something akin to Darwin or Einstein's theory for instance--I don't want to give up my freedoms, choices, options, opportunities for what so far is most likely flawed scientific theory put out there mostly by those who do or will personally benefit from it.

 

[saveliberty]

I suppose all of you ocean front dwellers could just sit in your houses as sea level rises even six inches every six months and drown. That would be a worst case scenario. Not a very realistic possibility.

An earthquake could occur and California fall into the ocean. The resulting tsunami could wipe out 2/3's the world's population. Biden or Obama could start a nuclear war too. An asteroid could slam into the Earth and kill all the dinosaurs. A massive solar flare would emit enough gamma rays to wipe us out and we would never even know what hit us. Get a grip alarmist lemmings.

 

[Big Fitz]

All right, I decided it was worth going back over the thread.

I am not sure why you even bothered to start posting in this thread other than to assert the raising sea levels point because you took umbrage with my Ice Cube analogy.

In this point you were right and I was wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet is supported by land. That was my error, while I was certain it was more sea based. In this you corrected me. Fine, done deal. On the other hand, I am dead on right with all sea supported ice caps.

Where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong is that even if you DID melt the whole ice cap, it would not be catastrophic due to a variety of factors ranging from basic evaporation and length of time.

Some warmists push the theory that this will happen in several hundred years. Unfortunately their data is compromised due to the Hadley Hoaxers deliberately creating models that presented artificial change to fit their theory, not reflect real events. Plus the fact that they have thrown out original data to cover up their fraud makes their science all the less believable.

Your support though, unwaivered from this scientific expose is what baffles me above all. It tells me that you are devoted to the goals, rather than the science. Now if they could come out and prove that the AAGW science has been doctored, I'd be much more inclined to believe that mankind may have a greater role than I have seen in the changing of the climate. But more likely, I'd demand the science redone, since you cannot prove anything with fraudulant science for political gain.

You've still to prove anything yourself. You have only attempted to derive credibility through attacking my error in math and geography. So, I'll be the bigger man here. What have you got to prove your point, or was this all about being a dick about my mistaken analogy?

 

[Foxfyre]

All right, I decided it was worth going back over the thread.

I am not sure why you even bothered to start posting in this thread other than to assert the raising sea levels point because you took umbrage with my Ice Cube analogy.

In this point you were right and I was wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet is supported by land. That was my error, while I was certain it was more sea based. In this you corrected me. Fine, done deal. On the other hand, I am dead on right with all sea supported ice caps.

Where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong is that even if you DID melt the whole ice cap, it would not be catastrophic due to a variety of factors ranging from basic evaporation and length of time.

Some warmists push the theory that this will happen in several hundred years. Unfortunately their data is compromised due to the Hadley Hoaxers deliberately creating models that presented artificial change to fit their theory, not reflect real events. Plus the fact that they have thrown out original data to cover up their fraud makes their science all the less believable.

Your support though, unwaivered from this scientific expose is what baffles me above all. It tells me that you are devoted to the goals, rather than the science. Now if they could come out and prove that the AAGW science has been doctored, I'd be much more inclined to believe that mankind may have a greater role than I have seen in the changing of the climate. But more likely, I'd demand the science redone, since you cannot prove anything with fraudulant science for political gain.

You've still to prove anything yourself. You have only attempted to derive credibility through attacking my error in math and geography. So, I'll be the bigger man here. What have you got to prove your point, or was this all about being a dick about my mistaken analogy?

Umm, you might want to specify who this is directed to?

 

[Foxfyre]

All right, I decided it was worth going back over the thread.

I am not sure why you even bothered to start posting in this thread other than to assert the raising sea levels point because you took umbrage with my Ice Cube analogy.

In this point you were right and I was wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet is supported by land. That was my error, while I was certain it was more sea based. In this you corrected me. Fine, done deal. On the other hand, I am dead on right with all sea supported ice caps.

Where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong is that even if you DID melt the whole ice cap, it would not be catastrophic due to a variety of factors ranging from basic evaporation and length of time.

Some warmists push the theory that this will happen in several hundred years. Unfortunately their data is compromised due to the Hadley Hoaxers deliberately creating models that presented artificial change to fit their theory, not reflect real events. Plus the fact that they have thrown out original data to cover up their fraud makes their science all the less believable.

Your support though, unwaivered from this scientific expose is what baffles me above all. It tells me that you are devoted to the goals, rather than the science. Now if they could come out and prove that the AAGW science has been doctored, I'd be much more inclined to believe that mankind may have a greater role than I have seen in the changing of the climate. But more likely, I'd demand the science redone, since you cannot prove anything with fraudulant science for political gain.

You've still to prove anything yourself. You have only attempted to derive credibility through attacking my error in math and geography. So, I'll be the bigger man here. What have you got to prove your point, or was this all about being a dick about my mistaken analogy?

Umm, you might want to specify who this is directed to? I don't have any quarrel with most of it, but it doesn't compute with the posts that immediately precede it.

 

[Big Fitz]

All right, I decided it was worth going back over the thread.

I am not sure why you even bothered to start posting in this thread other than to assert the raising sea levels point because you took umbrage with my Ice Cube analogy.

In this point you were right and I was wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet is supported by land. That was my error, while I was certain it was more sea based. In this you corrected me. Fine, done deal. On the other hand, I am dead on right with all sea supported ice caps.

Where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong is that even if you DID melt the whole ice cap, it would not be catastrophic due to a variety of factors ranging from basic evaporation and length of time.

Some warmists push the theory that this will happen in several hundred years. Unfortunately their data is compromised due to the Hadley Hoaxers deliberately creating models that presented artificial change to fit their theory, not reflect real events. Plus the fact that they have thrown out original data to cover up their fraud makes their science all the less believable.

Your support though, unwaivered from this scientific expose is what baffles me above all. It tells me that you are devoted to the goals, rather than the science. Now if they could come out and prove that the AAGW science has been doctored, I'd be much more inclined to believe that mankind may have a greater role than I have seen in the changing of the climate. But more likely, I'd demand the science redone, since you cannot prove anything with fraudulant science for political gain.

You've still to prove anything yourself. You have only attempted to derive credibility through attacking my error in math and geography. So, I'll be the bigger man here. What have you got to prove your point, or was this all about being a dick about my mistaken analogy?

Umm, you might want to specify who this is directed to? I don't have any quarrel with most of it, but it doesn't compute with the posts that immediately precede it.

Oops... that was to L.K. This site seems to like to forget to put the quick response quote target often for me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oops... that was to L.K. This site seems to like to forget to put the quick response quote target often for me.

I understand completely.

 

[L.K.Eder]

All right, I decided it was worth going back over the thread.

I am not sure why you even bothered to start posting in this thread other than to assert the raising sea levels point because you took umbrage with my Ice Cube analogy.

In this point you were right and I was wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet is supported by land. That was my error, while I was certain it was more sea based. In this you corrected me. Fine, done deal. On the other hand, I am dead on right with all sea supported ice caps.

Where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong is that even if you DID melt the whole ice cap, it would not be catastrophic due to a variety of factors ranging from basic evaporation and length of time.

Some warmists push the theory that this will happen in several hundred years. Unfortunately their data is compromised due to the Hadley Hoaxers deliberately creating models that presented artificial change to fit their theory, not reflect real events. Plus the fact that they have thrown out original data to cover up their fraud makes their science all the less believable.

Your support though, unwaivered from this scientific expose is what baffles me above all. It tells me that you are devoted to the goals, rather than the science. Now if they could come out and prove that the AAGW science has been doctored, I'd be much more inclined to believe that mankind may have a greater role than I have seen in the changing of the climate. But more likely, I'd demand the science redone, since you cannot prove anything with fraudulant science for political gain.

You've still to prove anything yourself. You have only attempted to derive credibility through attacking my error in math and geography. So, I'll be the bigger man here. What have you got to prove your point, or was this all about being a dick about my mistaken analogy?

thanks for that post. i was primarily a dick to you, because you made those mistakes in the manner of an obnoxious loudmouth who cannot understand where he is wrong and tries to compensate by being even more of an obnoxious loudmouth. but now you stated you were wrong, and i can quit being a dick to you. for now. lol.
i usually don't argue this kind of issues on an internet board, because it is infested with indoctrinated pundit-wannabes, most of them having no idea what they are spouting off. the rare good posts will be mocked, or deflected. but you made such glaring beginners' errors, i had to post.

 

[Foxfyre]

i usually don't argue this kind of issues on an internet board, because it is infested with indoctrinated pundit-wannabes, most of them having no idea what they are spouting off. the rare good posts will be mocked, or deflected. but you made such glaring beginners' errors, i had to post.

On the other hand, many of us are actually interested in our planet, weather, climate, and human condition as well as concerned about what our government, much of which is even more ignorant than we are, intend to do to us. You can be sure that there are people assigned to watch the content of internet boards like this which helps them be aware of what the public is thinking. Any individual post probably has little or no impact, but all of them together do not go unnoticed by either the media or those responsible to craft public policy.

We currently have a mostly corrupt and partisan meda that often sits on stories unfavorable to their ideology or chosen heroes of the day. But once it is out there via internet traffic, talk radio, etc. they often have to deal with it to preserve any semblance of credibility. Those falsified emails proving that much of the scientific community is not telling us the truth about global warming, for instance, would probably have been mostly buried by the media if a few sources had not taken that bit in their teeth and made them public. I give the internet and talk radio much of the credit for educating the public about cap & trade and making that too hot for Washington to want to do to us right now.

I participate partly to have a voice in the process and inform policy makers what we are thinking out here, partly to help persuade the media to do its job, and partly to learn myself. Many of you come up with links, studies, resources etc. that I haven't seen. While most of those are poorly supported propaganda, every now and then one is actually useful.