I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

Yeah, because the oceans were running out of water, last year.

 

well it would result in more evaporation and rain  , ice tends to do the opposite

 

think of the Cali folk 

[PeterMP]

thinngs usually melt when ya put heat under them

http://news.utexas.edu/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

 

 

maybe we can nuke em

 

From your 2nd link:

 

"West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers. However, the timing of this retreat is still in question, Schroeder said — it could take hundreds of years, or thousands. It's important to understand which, given that mel****er from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contributes directly to sea level rise."

 

Even the scientists doing the work you are citing are saying climate change is the significant factor.

[twa]

 

 

Even the scientists doing the work you are citing are saying climate change is the significant factor.

 

 

And?

 

Climate change is a catchall nowadays and such a assertion from folk unaware of the extent of volcanic impact a couple years ago leaves something to be desired.

 

Did he use THE or was that you?

 

I certainly agree climate change is A factor    (till the big freeze hits or the major eruptions happen, of course that will be climate change as well  )

[PeterMP]

And?

 

Climate change is a catchall nowadays and such a assertion from folk unaware of the extent of volcanic impact a couple years ago leaves something to be desired.

 

Did he use THE or was that you?

 

I certainly agree climate change is A factor    (till the big freeze hits or the major eruptions happen, of course that will be climate change as well  )

 

Can you give me an example of somebody using the term "climate change" currently (as in the current climate change) to mean something other than what I'm talking about?

 

I know in the past, there have been other mechanisms of climate change, but I don't see people using "climate change" with respect to the current situation as a "catch all".  It means the current warming we are seeing.

 

Just to be clear, people doing the work are saying that the undersea geothermal activity are potentially a component, but climate change is a big issue too.

 

Do you really want to go from there to what is causing the climate change?

Edited May 6, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

they are not saying it is potentially a component, it CLEARLY is a component and demonstrated by the increased melt flow from the discovered hot spots.

 

can ya tell me if geothermal/volcanic activity is part of the present climate change term?

 

how bout tectonic movement?

 

the core shift?

 

[PeterMP]

they are not saying it is potentially a component, it CLEARLY is a component and demonstrated by the increased melt flow from the discovered hot spots.

 

can ya tell me if geothermal/volcanic activity is part of the present climate change term?

 

how bout tectonic movement?

 

the core shift?

 

I wasn't talking about melting.

 

I was talking about stability.

 

A (constant) heat source might make things melt, but it doesn't necessarily make things unstable.

 

If I put something hot in an area that's cold/freezing over time, it is possible and even likely, over time, I will reach a stable situation.  Yes, the things near the heat will melt and then things will refreeze as they travel further out so there is melting, but that doesn't necessarily imply instability.

 

There is no reason to believe these geothermal vents are new, why are we seeing instability now?

 

Everybody knew there were volcanoes in the area.  Nobody believed that they weren't contributing to (some) melting.  The key component of the research here is that they with the water could contribute to instability in a manner not expected.

 

But the root cause of the instability is something else- climate change

 

There's no evidence that any of those things have changed in significant/rapid manner where they are a major contributor to current climate change.

 

Can I give you an exact number?

 

No.

 

But there is very little out there anybody can give you an exact number on and that doesn't prevent us from acting in a large number of circumstances.

 

There is an abundant amount of evidence that the long term temperature trend (e.g. ~1940-present) is caused by various things, including CO2, that are the result of human activity.

 

And the idea that CO2 is a green house gas is old and well tested.

 

Are you really going down that hole?

 

I think it is more likely that climate is currently affecting the things you've listed, then the other way around (based on the available evidence).

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/climate-change-is-linked-to-tectonic-plate-movement/

 

(plate tectonics tends to be slow.  Current climate change has been pretty fast.  The idea that there would be plate tectonic changes that have (significantly) affected climate in this manner without us detecting it seems unlikely.)

Edited May 6, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

your green house is vented and sitting on some leaking hot **** .

 

ain't we tipped already anyway?

 

volcanoes ain't known for being consistent, even the ones we knew about 

 

 

 

maybe the earth jelly has a surprise 

[PeterMP]

your green house is vented and sitting on some leaking hot **** .

 

ain't we tipped already anyway?

 

volcanoes ain't known for being consistent, even the ones we knew about 

 

 

maybe the earth jelly has a surprise 

 

Changes in my green house gas being vented from non-human causes appear to be minimal with respect to the rate of change that it is being produced by human related activities and that coincides with measured increases in the atmosphere.

 

Other than the very rare super eruption sort of thing that we would have noticed and affects the climate for decades and even centuries, on a global/total population level at a time scale measured in decades, it seems to me that they are known for being consistent.

 

Do you have any evidence that they aren't?

 

I'll even take data based on 2 decades.

 

For any pair of decades (e.g. the 70s and 80s vs. the 90s and 00s)  is there any evidence that globally there was a difference in volcanic activity of the ones we know about?

Edited May 6, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

I have evidence we learn of more all the time, and still know little.

 

meanwhile 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/updated-satellite-data-shows-even-less-global-warming-than-before/

 

El nino right?

[PeterMP]

I have evidence we learn of more all the time, and still know little.

 

meanwhile 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/updated-satellite-data-shows-even-less-global-warming-than-before/

 

El nino right?

 

I'll take that as a no you don't have any evidence that at a global level the activity of known volcanoes has not changed over the course of any 2 decades.

 

You claimed things weren't consistent, but have no actual evidence that they aren't.

 

Why aren't you asking why they had to lower the temperatures?

 

Doesn't it seem fishy?

 

(I'm good with 0.114/decade starting in the 1980s.)

 

Where is the skepticism?

 

**EDIT**

This is actually good because it bring them pretty much in line with the other satellite data set.  It eliminates one of the issues out there.

Edited May 7, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

I'll take that as a no you don't have any evidence that at a global level the activity of known volcanoes has not changed over the course of any 2 decades.

 

 

 

There is the study claiming the cause of the pause is the number of smaller eruptions.

 

Who knew the smaller cooled more than the larger?....seems like.witchcraft

 

or is there a pause? 

 

add 

http://www.livescience.com/43588-volcanoes-global-warming-pause.html

 

In 2011, scientists discovered that small volcanoes can significantly change the planet's climate. Before then, researchers thought that only big eruptions the size of 1991's Mount Pinatubo blast could effectively cool the Earth. Most climate models reflected this bias toward big eruptions, ignoring climate shifts from smaller blasts. [Video: The Painterly Mixing Of Aerosols In Our Atmosphere]

"The most recent [climate] simulations include all the major volcanoes up until Pinatubo in 1991; then the aerosols decay back to zero," said Mark Zelinka, a study co-author and LLNL climate scientist. "It was only recently that it was known that these medium-sized volcanoes were putting a lot of highly reflective particles into the stratosphere." The stratosphere is the layer of the atmosphere above the one in which people live (the troposphere), and extends about 6 to 31 miles (10 to 50 kilometers) above Earth's surface.

In the new study, the researchers correlated 17 volcanic eruptions since 2000 with shifts in troposphere temperatures, for which there is a global satellite record of temperature trends. The same stumble in warming trends since 1998 also hit the troposphere.

The 17 volcanoes include some that made worldwide headlines, such asIceland's troublesome Eyjafjallajökull, and less-disruptive eruptions, such as 2011's lava flows at Nabro, in Eritrea.

Using computer models and statistical tests, the researchers calculated that aerosols from the volcanoes reduced global troposphere temperatures. The aerosols also cooled the troposphere by reflecting sunlight.

"We see a statistically significant correlation with not only temperature, but reflected sunlight — which are both independent measures," Zelinka said. "That is a pretty key advance."

The results show that the slowdown in global warming can't be pinned on a single culprit, the researchers said

Edited May 7, 2015 by twa

[PeterMP]

There is the study claiming the cause of the pause is the number of smaller eruptions.

 

Who knew the smaller cooled more than the larger?....seems like.witchcraft

 

or is there a pause? 

 

First, they aren't claiming it is the cause.  They are claiming it is a possible contributing factor.

 

Second, they aren't claiming an affect difference 2 decades.  It has been completely clear that over shorter periods of times volcanoes can have an effect.

 

And they aren't claiming that the smaller cool more than larger.  Just that a lot of smaller ones can have an effect.

 

O fer 3.

 

I hope you're not batting in the top of the order.

[twa]

I'm pitching 

[Mad Mike]

The G.O.P.’s War on Science Gets Worse - The New Yorker

 

 

Last week, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, headed by Texas Republican Lamar Smith, approved a bill that would slash at least three hundred million dollars from NASA’s earth-science budget. “Earth science, of course, includes climate science,” Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat who is also on the committee, noted. (Smith said that the White House’s NASA budget request favored the earth sciences “at the expense of the other science divisions and human and robotic space exploration.”) Johnson tried to get the cuts eliminated from the bill, but her proposed amendment was rejected. Defunding NASA’s earth-science program takes willed ignorance one giant leap further. It means that not only will climate studies be ignored; some potentially useful data won’t even be collected.

 

The vote brought howls of protest from NASA itself and from wider earth-science circles. The agency’s administrator, Charles Bolden, issued a statementsaying that the bill “guts our Earth science program and threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate.” In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Marshall Shepherd, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Georgia and the former president of the American Meteorological Association, said that he could not sleep after hearing about the vote. “None of us has a ‘vacation planet’ we can go to for the weekend, so I argue that NASA’s mission to study planet Earth should be a ‘no-brainer,’ ” he wrote.

 

This is stupidity on a criminal scale. It's like choosing to text rather than keep your eyes on the road while driving. Worse, It is enforced ignorance and a willful attempt to suppress the truth.

 

There are two reasons to support this budget. You are either a criminal working for big oil or a complete moron.

[twa]

or ya would rather see 300 million elsewhere and NASA keep looking at the sky instead of being distracted

 

insanity

[Mad Mike]

or ya would rather see 300 million elsewhere and NASA keep looking at the sky instead of being distracted

 

insanity

 

Instead of being distracted... BY THE FACT THAT BIG OIL HAS PURCHASED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

 

Insanity indeed. And that child in your sig will pay the price.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

ever seen Clintons oil connections?

 

ya can only buy what is for sale.

[Mad Mike]

ever seen Clintons oil connections?

ya can only buy what is for sale.

*BAM!* I think about 50 brain cells died that time.

The above comment is not relative in any way shape or form to this debate. As a form of argument it is only admissible to third grade school yards. I hereby deduct points from your score, and may God have mercy on your silly little soul.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Mad Mike

[Mad Mike]

Friends with Benefactors - The Daily Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

"The question remains, to whom does Cruz owe favors because of the oil money" 

 

Sen. Ted Cruz: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2014 | OpenSecrets

Edited May 8, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

this is what you call a debate? 

[Larry]

*BAM!* I think about 50 brain cells died that time.

The above comment is not relative in any way shape or form to this debate. As a form of argument it is only admissible to third grade school yards. I hereby deduct points from your score, and may God have mercy on your silly little soul.

1). You're making a post like this, and accusing somebody else of childish debating?

2). Me, I was admiring you pointing out that the entire GOP has been bought, and him responding that you can only buy what's for sale.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Larry

[Mad Mike]

this is what you call a debate?

You are correct. A debate would require some form of credible counter argument to mine. You have not provided one.

1). You're making a post like this, and accusing somebody else of childish debating?

2). Me, I was admiring you pointing out that the entire GOP has been bought, and him responding that you can only buy what's for sale.

Not for the first time will I say I really don't care what you think Larry.

[Larry]

Not for the first time will I say I really don't care what you think Larry.

I also admire the people who don't care about things so much, that they have to make posts, saying that they don't care about the thing they have to post about.

[twa]

2). Me, I was admiring you pointing out that the entire GOP has been bought, and him responding that you can only buy what's for sale.

 

rather obvious Congress is for sale or rent.

 

He is just focused on one part ,comically so what with Texas's oil connection ......any Senator from here is getting oil money

[Larry]

rather obvious Congress is for sale or rent.

 

He is just focused on one part ,comically so what with Texas's oil connection ......any Senator from here is getting oil money

Which might be important if he were pointing out that one Senator from Texas has been bought by Big Oil.

 

But his point is that the entire Republican Party has been.  (Including, it would appear, you.) 

 

And it is glaringly obvious that he is correct.