Arctic ice melt 'like adding 20 years of CO2 emissions'

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
Your story is rubbish about the carbon foot print denying medical care btw. If you in a state facility (same as here) you HAVE to go to your closes facility, you are not allowed to go where you want without referals.

whose jobs ? and whose lives?

Shutting down coal-fired plants (electricity) in the name of global warming. The US economy will come to a grinding halt soon if they continue to shut down more plants. SA and China on the other hand continue to build new ones.

There are no conspiracies, earth is getting hotter period. Dont believe it? go do your own research and plot the average temperatures for your own city.

You've missed the point entirely.

No one argues that the planet hasn't gotten warmer! The argument is that man's contribution is minimal -- the earth has gone through hot / cold cycles for thousands of years......
 

RiaX

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
7,211
Shutting down coal-fired plants (electricity) in the name of global warming. The US economy will come to a grinding halt soon if they continue to shut down more plants. SA and China on the other hand continue to build new ones.

The US economy is already in the bush

The argument is that man's contribution is minimal

So you saying adding 9 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere yearly is minimal ?
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
Last edited:

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
The US economy is already in the bush



So you saying adding 9 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere yearly is minimal ?

EmpireX is just spreading common climate change lies. This is an excellent website for tracking the lies and finding the real information behind them: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php . Its like Talkorigins for evolution, except this deals with climate science and around 100 of the most common lies that are spread.

Even techne`s "Antarctic ice" half truth is covered there: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
 

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
EmpireX is just spreading common climate change lies. This is an excellent website for tracking the lies and finding the real information behind them: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php . Its like Talkorigins for evolution, except this deals with climate science and around 100 of the most common lies that are spread.

Even techne`s "Antarctic ice" half truth is covered there: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm


From Techne's source:

ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

The results of ICEsat measurements are in for Antarctica, and it seems those claims of ice mass loss in Antarctica have melted now that a continent wide tally has been made. This was presented in the SCAR ISMASS Workshop in Portland, OR, July 14, 2012 and was added to NASA’s Technical Reports server on September 7th, 2012. H/T to WUWT reader “Brad”. What’s interesting (besides the result) is that the report was prepared by Jay Zwally, whose “ice free Arctic by the end of summer 2012″ prediction is about to be tested in 12 days. It also puts the kibosh on GRACE studies that suggested a net loss in Antarctica. Note there’s the mention of the “climate warming, consistent with model predictions” at the end of the report. They’d say the same thing if ICEsat had measured loss instead of gain, because as we’ve seen before, almost everything is consistent with warming and models no matter which direction it goes.


Perhaps you should be "skeptical" of settled science ghoti.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
Um, I would take a look at the comments section below those stats....

The fact that global warming is considered settled science by some should in itself raise some serious flags.
Check number two, the claims about positive feedbacks are problematic from an evidence-based point of view.
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months.

Read the rest: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
 

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,571

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php is where ghoti gets all his info.

My gosh that website looks like all those religious websites haha. Horrific website that looks dodgy.

Year after year they are proven wrong, you can go back to the 70's, they got it wrong then and they are still getting it wrong. Instead of saying we have no idea they tell us we are doing it. Cult anyone?

Niburu website debunking all the liars:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/myth_of_nibiru_and_the_end_of_the_world_in_2012/

Kinda reminds me of ghoti's website :D.
 
Last edited:

RiaX

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
7,211
So if man isnt causing global warming what is ?
 

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,571
So if man isnt causing global warming what is ?

The sun possibly. Man never caused the earth to change in the past but it did. At one point the earth went from a freezing planet to warm, was man present back then?

The sun and our magnetic field in my opinion hold the key. Imagine the sun being the reason we have warmth, unheard of. Now imagine the sun can cause periods of extreme cooling and heating. Again unheard of.
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
393194_456091327768507_1600365022_n.jpg
 

Archer

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
22,423
The sun possibly. Man never caused the earth to change in the past but it did. At one point the earth went from a freezing planet to warm, was man present back then?

This argument is hilarious. So if something happened naturally sometime in the past, its impossible for it to happen now because of our influence? LOLOLOL. Yes, it could be happening naturally again, but it also could be due to us, or it could even be a combination.
 

empirex

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
2,518
This argument is hilarious. So if something happened naturally sometime in the past, its impossible for it to happen now because of our influence? LOLOLOL. Yes, it could be happening naturally again, but it also could be due to us, or it could even be a combination.

Yes, you could be right.

But why the need for such a dismissive tone? If you disagree, express it.

It's not a religion as Al Gore would have you believe, it's science. And certainly not settled science.

Why do people get so worked up about this stuff, when nothing is settled. Why are people so opposed to debate on this.
It really boggles the mind, that people get so fundamental about it. Debate almost seems offensive to some people.....
 

RiaX

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
7,211
Uhm, well it happens often actually. Its not unknown, the sun has summer and winter cycles itself. Its solarmax and solarmin. Keeping simple it switches every 11 years. Thats one of the reasons people went ape s**t for 2012 end of days because the sun will be entering solarmax soon. That and a combination of lining up with the galactic core.

So to explain, the planet has gotten hotter in the past years, but the sun has been in solarmin, it hasnt been very violent and its pretty stable. In terms of stellar activity that means a cooler star, meaning that sun cannot be responsible for such a rapid hike in temperature.

The earth's magnetic field atm is weaker than what it was, its overdue for magnetic shift, however this process does not happen in a day, it takes over approximately 10 000 years for the poles to shift and it occurs on earth estimately every 500 000 years, the last shift taken (if memory serves me correctly) is 740 000 years ago. Again the increase in temperature versus time in the past 50 years, since man became heavily indrustrialised mind you. The magnetic field's weakening plus solar activity cannot justify the rise in temperature.

Very interesting, they could contribute but it would be minimal. Remember there are two satelites focused on studying the sun. If it was the source of global warming, scientists wouldve picked up its increased activity long ago.
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
Well, there are studies suggesting a link between sunspots and global temperatures. Initially there was no mechanism to explain this link as increases in total solar irradiance cannot explain the increase in temperature.

But now the theory for the mechanism goes something like this:
1) Galactic cosmic rays are able to ionize particles in the atmosphere and this contribute towards cloud formation. i.e. the more galactic cosmic rays gets into the atmosphere, the more particles form, the more clouds form = more cooling due to clouds preventing solar energy from entering earth's terrestrial system. This mechanism was tested by CERN recently. Google the CERN CLOUD experiment.
2) Neutron monitors measure cosmic ray activity. They have discovered that solar flares that form during sun spots are able to decrease ion formation in the atmosphere due to cosmic ray activity. Check out this site, it has live monitoring of solar activity. Notice that whenever there is a solar flare and an increase in solar X-ray activity, neutron counts drop. We are also approaching a solar maximum and you can see that the neutron counts drop steadily.

So from here it is argued that the connection between sunspot activity and temperatures (check the maunder minimum or the Dalton minimums that coincides with previous cool periods or the increased solar activity in the 20th century that is accompanied with the increases in global temps) can be explained by cloud formation and galactic cosmic rays.

What makes this theory interesting is that we appear to be entering a phase where sun spot activity is busy decreasing to levels previously associated with the Dalton minimum. So if this theory is correct, we should expect decreases in global temperatures in the coming years (predicted to be 2016 when the next solar minimum kicks in until 2030 and maybe even later).

Nature is carrying out the experiment for us so we live in interesting times...
 

RiaX

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
7,211
the next solarmin is not in 2016, its around 2023.

This doesnt support your theory at all. If cosmic rays are ionizing particles, keep in mind they providing energy to the particles. Explain why the sky isnt green then ? since its 70% nitgrogen and when comic rays ionize the air it glows.

When that happens when the air is ionized, you see an aurora.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
the next solarmin is not in 2016, its around 2023.

This doesnt support your theory at all. If cosmic rays are ionizing particles, keep in mind they providing energy to the particles. Explain why the sky isnt green then ? since its 70% nitgrogen and when comic rays ionize the air it glows.

When that happens when the air is ionized, you see an aurora.
Fair enough. If I understand correctly, around 2013 is when the next maximum will be. The next solar mimimum should then be 5-8 years later. Point being, 2016 will be a period when solar activity is busy declining again.

Cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere all the time. This does not imply the sky should turn green. It's not my theory, check it out for yourself.
 
Top