Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

  1. #21
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    So apparently the climate is not a static, stable system? Who knew?
    Moon, we're not even discussing that. Even the pro-Global warming "is happening" people know its a volatile system.

    The question is, have we sped it up, or is what we are currently experiencing a man-made phenomena which ALSO occurs naturally, or is it just part of a pattern we have witnessed in our ancient past?

    There is facts to suggest it is happening, facts to suggest is isn't, facts to suggest it happens either way with or without our CO2 emissions. You cannot come to a conclusion today, and neither can i. One day we will find out, however.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    It is the height of human conceit to think we have anything to do with climate change, and the height of stupidity to think we could do anything about it. It's natural, and it will happen time and again.
    No, it is the height of human conceit to think that we can do whatever we want and the earth will just adapt; it is the height of human conceit to think that we can continually exceed the limits of the earth's natural bounty each year and expect the system to recover; it is the height of human conceit to think that we ourselves are immune from the effects of our own polluting.

    Even if the American right wants to continue to water down the climate change debate in order to subjectify it for political reasons, there are plenty of other valid, proven reasons to reduce the output of human pollution. Never before in human history has cancer, heart disease, diabetes, genetic disorders, infertility, and mental illness been as high as it is now.

    One in three people develop heart disease or stroke in their lifetimes and the age bracket is becoming younger each year; one in four will get cancer. How long will we wait before we decide to change our lifestyle of excess? When it's one in two? Or every person?

    Honestly. How long are the apologists and deniers going to keep spinning the propaganda that things are going to be ok? They're not. The industrial revolution is only a couple of hundred years in the making, and the consumer era is about 50 years in the making. Fossil fuel use has the same shelf life. Our entire paradigm of how we think things should operate is going to come crashing down, the only thing we have a choice in is whether the transition is smooth or if it will be traumatic.

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    So apparently the climate is not a static, stable system? Who knew?
    And amazingly things like asteroids hitting the Earth, volcanoes and quite possibly human activity can affect the climate.

  4. #24
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,774

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    The proportion of Americans who think that the earth is warming due to human activites is somewhere in the range of 50%. Are you really trying to suggest that there's no real debate because millions are being paid by the oil industry to dispute the effects of fossil fuels?

    Maybe you're trying to insinuate that only scientists - certain scientists at that, are qualified to debate the topic. Is this where we get the wiki link to studies showing that the small proportion of scientists who receive their funding to study anthropogenic climate change belive that climate change is anthropogenic?
    Well, first of all, in a scientific discussion the public's opinion is not particularly important. Although this does bring up an interesting point: While obviously not funded by the oil industry, the America public does have a bit of a stake in this. People are resistant to the idea that their way of life is harmful to our future. Next, this may shock you, but people who do research on climate might actually be the best qualified to comment on changes in climate. I know skeptics like to trot out that "30,000 scientists sign petition opposing AGW," but you'll have to forgive me for not really caring what a guy with a bachelor's in metallurgy thinks about climate science.

    Still, kudos on the attempted straw man. It's the scientific skeptics who are getting the oil funding, not the American public.

    But really, none of that is important. The science is important. Skeptics always attempt to confuse the issue with politics and made-up scandal. Rather than addressing the science, you've just hedged your bets by making an insinuation that climate scientists are paid to do climate science, and therefore can't be trusted. That's not an argument, that's plugging your ears and saying "LALALA CANT HEAR YOU." You've just pre-judged the discussion as being already won because the other side doesn't have credibility, and yet you use the word "debate."

    Every time an interesting skeptic's scientific argument comes up, I read it thoroughly. I'm very interested in the topic and have a pretty insatiable curiosity. The next thing I do is poke around google looking for someone to respond to that skeptic's arguments. Every single time I manage to find a pretty handy and thorough debunking. Most of the time, the skeptic's flaws are a result of straight up misrepresentation of findings of actual scientists. My personal favorite is the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle," where they took scientist's words out of context so as to mean the exact opposite of their intent, terminated a graph of solar energy at 1980 because after that year the data clearly deviates from the point they were trying to make, and even straight up falsified data on a temperature chart and falsely attributes the chart to NASA.

    Other times, it's a mistake. One guy ran a very complex and well-done calculation that showed mankind's contribution to global warming was .5%, based on CO2 emissions and their relative strength in climate forcing. Two glaring errors were made: He ignored an entire half of nature's carbon cycle, where every year plants across the globe absorb CO2 from the atmosphere in order to grow, and he also made some ocean CO2 circulation calculations that would only hold true if the ocean was already saturated. (it's not)

    Others engage in what I call "flak," throwing up accusations that point towards uncertainty but never actually addressing the impact of that uncertainty. Anthony Watts is a rather prominent skeptic. He ran a project where people went around photographing temperature stations in an attempt to prove that the stations are unreliable and therefore the temperature record is unreliable. It's true that there are quite a few stations out there that don't meet the established standards, as urban sprawl or new construction do change over time. What he didn't bother to tell you is that even if you use only the stations that his team labeled as "good" or "best," and re-run the temperature chart, you get an identical chart.

    Then there's the cherry-pickers. If you've ever heard "global warming stopped in 1995," you're a victim of this. First, this is based on the Daily FMail misrepresenting a quote made by a scientist, but it's also blatant cherry picking. Since 1995 was a particularly warm year, if you pick a time-span from 1995 to ~2005 (I forget exactly which year) you get "no statistically significant warming." This doesn't mean no warming, in fact in the very next sentence of the interview that Daily Mail "quoted," the scientist states that the warming was .12C per decade during that period. "Not statistically significant" means that you can't establish a warming trend at the 95% confidence level because it's a short timeframe and global average temperture is a "noisy" signal. (temperature varies from year to year, longer periods are needed to smooth these variations and establish an actual trend) Another great cherry-pick is saying that "1934 was the hottest year on record!" Well, yes, in the United States it was. The US compromises only 2% of the planet, though. Globally, the hottest years on record have all occurred in the last decade. 2010 looks to be breaking the record yet again.

    To suggest that scientists are unreliable because they're paid to do science is ludicrous. If that's the logic you're going to use, you're going to have to be skeptical of literally everything any scientist has ever said. Also, don't watch television. Everyone you see on it is paid to say what they're saying.

    You can't counter science with politics. Reality does not have a liberal bias.

    I wrote a post on some of the basic science behind the theory, but nobody reads the environment forum so I'm going to blatantly plug my own writing here.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/enviro...favor-agw.html
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #25
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    No, it is the height of human conceit to think that we can do whatever we want and the earth will just adapt; it is the height of human conceit to think that we can continually exceed the limits of the earth's natural bounty each year and expect the system to recover; it is the height of human conceit to think that we ourselves are immune from the effects of our own polluting.

    Even if the American right wants to continue to water down the climate change debate in order to subjectify it for political reasons, there are plenty of other valid, proven reasons to reduce the output of human pollution. Never before in human history has cancer, heart disease, diabetes, genetic disorders, infertility, and mental illness been as high as it is now.

    One in three people develop heart disease or stroke in their lifetimes and the age bracket is becoming younger each year; one in four will get cancer. How long will we wait before we decide to change our lifestyle of excess? When it's one in two? Or every person?

    Honestly. How long are the apologists and deniers going to keep spinning the propaganda that things are going to be ok? They're not. The industrial revolution is only a couple of hundred years in the making, and the consumer era is about 50 years in the making. Fossil fuel use has the same shelf life. Our entire paradigm of how we think things should operate is going to come crashing down, the only thing we have a choice in is whether the transition is smooth or if it will be traumatic.
    Do you drive a car? Live in a house? Buy your food at the store? Spend time posting on debate forums?

    Practice what you preach before you preach it.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  6. #26
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,774

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    The History of Greenland - ExploreNorth

    Damn those Vikings and their SUV's.
    Ahh yes, the old "mideval warm period" trope. Some key words are missing from that article:
    The climate at this time was very warm in Northern Europe, much warmer than it is today.
    When you run the temperature reconstruction using the whole planet, you get a temperature cooler than today. The mideval warm period was a regional effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    Do you drive a car? Live in a house? Buy your food at the store? Spend time posting on debate forums?

    Practice what you preach before you preach it.
    Oh hey, another trope that doesn't actually address the science. Nobody has argued that we stop using fossil fuels cold turkey and revert ourselves to the stone age.
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-16-10 at 07:14 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #27
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    And amazingly things like asteroids hitting the Earth, volcanoes and quite possibly human activity can affect the climate.
    You forgot the Sun....

    GOODBYE, GLOBAL WARMING
    Deepest Solar Minimum in Nearly a Century
    by Gregory Murphy and Laurence Hecht
    The authors are editors of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine.
    [PDF version of this article]
    April 9, 2009—A continued low in solar activity, as measured by the appearance of irregularities on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, may be responsible for the recent phase of cooling experienced in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere. In the opinion of many specialists, the downturn in solar activity likely marks the beginning of a prolonged cooling period.
    The expected cooling will produce many hardships for a human population already stressed by a prolonged downturn in global physical-economic productive capability. But the bright side may be that such bloated windbags as Al Gore and his leaner companion James Hansen, who have led Royal Consort Prince Philip's genocidal global warming promotion, will finally be silenced.
    For students of the Sun, the length of the solar cycle, which lasts an average of 11 years but may go longer or shorter, has proven the best historical indicator of short-term climate. At the ends of these solar cycles, sunspot activity first declines, and then picks up markedly, indicating the beginning of a new cycle. The precise relationship between the sunspots, which are thought to be determined by magnetic activity within the Sun, and the energy output of the Sun, is not known. However, long-term studies of the historical record have shown that when the minima in sunspot activity extend beyond the average 11 years, significant declines in temperatures on Earth are experienced. Regular records of sunspot activity go back to the 17th Century.
    Goodbye, Global Warming: Deepest Solar Minimum in Nearly a Century
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  8. #28
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Ahh yes, the old "mideval warm period" trope. Some key words are missing from that article:
    The climate at this time was very warm in Northern Europe, much warmer than it is today.
    When you run the temperature reconstruction using the whole planet, you get a temperature cooler than today. The mideval warm period was a regional effect.
    You don't bother reading links that refute you, do you? Here..... try again.

    temperature
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  9. #29
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,774

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    Yes, we're well aware that the sun cycles up and down. It's easily measured and calculated for. What the skeptics don't tell you is that while the sun's long-term trend has been completely flat since 1950, temperature has continued to rise during that period. Or that there have been periods where the sun was in the downward side of the 11-year cycle yet temperature rose.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #30
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Comparative photos of Mount Everest 'confirm ice loss'

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Yes, we're well aware that the sun cycles up and down. It's easily measured and calculated for. What the skeptics don't tell you is that while the sun's long-term trend has been completely flat since 1950, temperature has continued to rise during that period. Or that there have been periods where the sun was in the downward side of the 11-year cycle yet temperature rose.
    One thing a person can count on with you..... you never link anythink to back up your bull ****.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •