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

[China]

You're missing the point.

We don't have to change anything we can just kill all the ants!

 

Pssst....killing all the ants would be changing something.

[China]

 

 

nya nya

 

I think the question is how rapidly is the change occurring, and is that change faster than normal.

 

Two Sub-Glacial Lakes in Greenland Surprise Scientists

 

Two teams of researchers – one led by Dr Ian Howat of the Ohio State University, and the other led by Dr Michael Willis of Cornell University – have discovered two lakes of mel****er that pooled beneath the ice and suddenly drained away.

 

One lake, described in the journal Cryosphere, once held billions of gallons of water and emptied to form a giant crater – 2 km across and around 70 m deep – in just a few weeks.

 

Dr Howat and his colleagues detected the crater on a spot about 50 km inland from the southwest Greenland coast earlier in 2014.

 

There, previous aerial and satellite imagery indicates that a sub-glacial lake pooled for more than forty years. More recent images suggest that the lake likely emptied through a mel****er tunnel beneath the ice sheet some time in 2011.

 

“The fact that our lake appears to have been stable for at least several decades, and then drained in a matter of weeks – or less – after a few very hot summers, may signal a fundamental change happening in the ice sheet,” Dr Howat said.

 

Dr Howat’s group calculated that the lake that formed it likely contained some 6.7 billion gallons of water.

 

And it disappeared in a single season – remarkably quickly by geologic standards. The scientists characterized the sudden drainage as catastrophic.

 

Click on the link for more

[No Excuses]

If ya expect me to pay ya you will need to up your game..

If multi-tasking isn't in your skill set or your temperament gets in the way I understand......or as much as my ignorance allows me.

Our jobs require multi tasking in the form of grant writing, teaching, research work and mentorship. We usually work 10 hour days. Certainly in the skill set of every scientist.

I used to spare some room for "internet time debating dummies". It took a while but at some point you realize that debating illiterate folk is a fruitless exercise. Oh well.

[Predicto]

lol - can't type melt-water.   hehehe

[PeterMP]

nya nya

 

It is called GLOBAL warming for a reason.  Not Greenland warming.  (and 2014 is warmer than 2004 and 2015 is warmer than 2014 so far).

Each line represents a different study (or region).  The thick black line is then a combination of all of that so a representation of our best knowledge.

 

 

 

 

This is a little older, but sort of at the time of the "hockey stick" controversy some statisticians who up to that point in time had been not involved in climate change got involved and looked at the different data sets, and this is what they came up with (for the northern hemisphere, we have less data for the southern hemisphere.

 

 

The key thing you can see is the rate of change (the site I took that from added the hockey stick image to the figure), and again, we're still getting warmer.

 

Here's the actual paper.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-b59c9c20a1b95cab00dceba8aa742bbc-mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf

 

I feel like I've posted this for you before in this thread.

 

(Okay, it wasn't directly to you.  It was directly to tshile, but was realistically a response to one of your posts

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/380491-i-want-to-sue-the-republican-party-for-willful-denial-of-scientific-evidence-about-climate-change/?p=10252708. I guess somethings never change.)

Edited September 25, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

It is called GLOBAL warming for a reason.  Not Greenland warming. 

 

 before it became climate change of course

[PeterMP]

before it became climate change of course

Well, it became climate change because more than JUST global warming is happening AND there was a realization that some people would take the idea of global warming as an indication that every single part of the world was going to warm.

And if one part of the world wasn't warming, that then global warming wasn't happening.

Might we know anybody that's done that?

[twa]

I'm sure that would never happen.

 

I'll await further revisions ....it being science

[Corcaigh]

In using arguments based on facts and science you are wasting your time with folks like twa.

 

Instead, classify the environment as a large Wall Street institution and no resources would be spared to protect it.

[twa]

In using arguments based on facts and science you are wasting your time with folks like twa.

 

Instead, classify the environment as a large Wall Street institution and no resources would be spared to protect it.

 

Perhaps you are confusing me with Obama?

 

[PeterMP]

In using arguments based on facts and science you are wasting your time with folks like twa.

 

Instead, classify the environment as a large Wall Street institution and no resources would be spared to protect it.

 

Realistically, I'm not trying to convince twa of anything, and I'm not really sure I have to.  There have been a (very) few times since I've been here when twa has been "honest" (in quotes to indicate I'm not really trying to suggest that he's actually lying most of the time), and I suspect if it was up to him and me, we could sit down in a room and hammer out an agreement that would move the US forward in a long term and significant (at least from my perspective) manner.

 

It wouldn't "solve" the climate change problem and almost certainly wouldn't make the far left or right happy (and I'm not honestly sure that the things that the far left want or things that would really "solve" the problem are good right now).  Politics (and really that's what this thread is about) and the internet tend to push people to the extremes in conversations, especially when they don't have the power/authority to actually do anything.

 

Realistically, there are very few people here that have ever posted regularly where I read there stuff and say there is just no way I could come to some sort of significant agreement with that person on that issue.

Edited September 25, 2015 by PeterMP

[Predicto]

 before it became climate change of course

 

stick and move

stick and move

[twa]

stick and move

stick and move

 

**** and moan

**** and moan

 

[China]

 

 

 

 

Two Sub-Glacial Lakes in Greenland Surprise Scientists

 

Two teams of researchers – one led by Dr Ian Howat of the Ohio State University, and the other led by Dr Michael Willis of Cornell University – have discovered two lakes of mel****er that pooled beneath the ice and suddenly drained away.

 

One lake, described in the journal Cryosphere, once held billions of gallons of water and emptied to form a giant crater – 2 km across and around 70 m deep – in just a few weeks.

 

...

 

“The fact that our lake appears to have been stable for at least several decades, and then drained in a matter of weeks – or less – after a few very hot summers, may signal a fundamental change happening in the ice sheet,” Dr Howat said.

 

Dr Howat’s group calculated that the lake that formed it likely contained some 6.7 billion gallons of water.

 

And it disappeared in a single season – remarkably quickly by geologic standards. The scientists characterized the sudden drainage as catastrophic.

 

 

 

Cold Atlantic 'blob' puzzles scientists

 

(CNN)At first glance, it stands out like a sore thumb. That blob of blue and purple on the map. One of the only places on the globe that is abnormally cold in a year that will likely shatter records as the warmest globally.

 

It's being called the Atlantic "blob." It's a large area in the North Atlantic that is seeing a pronounced cooling trend. The ocean surface is much cooler than normal and in fact record cold in some locations.

 

...

 

The Atlantic cold blob is near Greenland. You may not expect to see such a pronounced cooling that far north. After all, we know that most of the documented climate change has impacted the poles much more than equatorial regions. Greenland is home to an enormous sheet of ice.

 

In fact, if you combine the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, you will find 99% of the freshwater ice on Earth. Scientists believe it is the melting of ice in Greenland that is causing the cold anomaly.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[btfoom]

 

 

And finally, science knows a ton about how and why the environment changes - unless we stick our fingers in our ears and go "nya nya nya."   

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

 

As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

 

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

 

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assimilate.<rest at link>

 

Yup, so much is known.  Not sure you understand exactly what science is.

[No Excuses]

 

Yup, so much is known.  Not sure you understand exactly what science is.

 

 

Here is the actual research paper your article is quoting.

 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

 

If you really understand science so well (still laughing at your termite claim from earlier), read it for yourself and come back and tell us if the statements in the article are supported by the findings of the researchers.

 

But of course, you will never do that. Your job in this thread is to do hit and runs and move on from one baseless claim to the other.

[PeterMP]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

 

As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

 

A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

 

The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assimilate.<rest at link>

 

Yup, so much is known.  Not sure you understand exactly what science is.

Unless the process is changing it doesn't even really matter.  It certainly isn't "new" in terms of being a natural process. It has been going on.

 

For it to make a difference, it would have to be increasing.

 

And even then that would be a flawed argument.  Yes increasing the release the right types of VOCs into the atmosphere MIGHT minimize the effect of CO2 production by causing more aerosol production and the "right" clouds.

 

But what affects would more aerosols, clouds, and VOCs have other than affecting temperatures.

 

Yeah, temperatures aren't going up, but we don't know what else is going to change because of the changes made that to keep temperatures from going up.

 

This is realistically, an issue with all of the "feed back" arguments.  The implicit assumption in making the argument that we don't need to worry about CO2 because there might be some feed back to prevent temperatures from going up is that the effect on temperatures is going to be the ONLY consequence of the feed back.

 

It is an idiotic argument.

 

(Beyond the fact that we know temperatures can get higher because they have been in the past so you then actually have to imagine scenarios where the feed back wasn't functional in the past due to other warming events, but will be now.)

 

(I'll also point out that there is nothing that has happened with respect to the temperature that can't be explained by the models, especially when you do an apples-to-apples comparison.  The models do predict, due to just random chance, periods of time where there is little warming.

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/380491-i-want-to-sue-the-republican-party-for-willful-denial-of-scientific-evidence-about-climate-change/?p=10283703

 

)

Edited October 1, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

I rethought it.

 

Ok, done.  I'm still correct.   

 

what say we shake the public money tree and see what falls?

 

 

 

is a Inquisition a science or a art?

 

 

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/10-1-15%20CLS%20to%20Shukla.pdf

 

http://universitypolicy.gmu.edu/policies/financial-conflicts-of-interest-in-federally-funded-research/

[btfoom]

Here is the actual research paper your article is quoting.

 

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

 

If you really understand science so well (still laughing at your termite claim from earlier), read it for yourself and come back and tell us if the statements in the article are supported by the findings of the researchers.

 

But of course, you will never do that. Your job in this thread is to do hit and runs and move on from one baseless claim to the other.

 

You quote an article that has been proven to be false, but 'laugh' at me.

 

No problem, because the overall science shows that AGW is a false 'science' and that the supposed correlation between CO2 and warming does not exist.  You believe in models.  I believe in facts.  Keep believing in programming that is made with bad input to give a desired output. I'll keep believing in the real numbers.  Sorry it doesn't match your political beliefs.

[PeterMP]

You quote an article that has been proven to be false, but 'laugh' at me.

 

No problem, because the overall science shows that AGW is a false 'science' and that the supposed correlation between CO2 and warming does not exist.  You believe in models.  I believe in facts.  Keep believing in programming that is made with bad input to give a desired output. I'll keep believing in the real numbers.  Sorry it doesn't match your political beliefs.

 

What article did he quote?

 

He simply posted the link to the actual scientific paper that your news story was about.  You posted a news story that seems to be a bad distortion of what the actual scientific paper says.  He gave you the link to the actual scientific paper.

 

Do you understand that two things can be related, but there can be multiple other dependent factors?

Edited October 5, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

 

Do you understand that two things can be related, but there can be multiple other dependent factors?

 

I think he does....wish more did.

[PeterMP]

I think he does....wish more did.

 

I'm pretty sure most people do.  

 

I'm not sure that somebody that claims that recent temperatures (especially given the link I gave him) indicate there isn't a correlation (which doesn't have to be completely linear in nature given multiple interacting dependent values) between CO2 and temperatures does.

 

I mean solar output has generally down for the last decade, and we're still putting up record (or near record) temps.

[Predicto]

You quote an article that has been proven to be false, but 'laugh' at me.

 

No problem, because the overall science shows that AGW is a false 'science' and that the supposed correlation between CO2 and warming does not exist.  You believe in models.  I believe in facts.  Keep believing in programming that is made with bad input to give a desired output. I'll keep believing in the real numbers.  Sorry it doesn't match your political beliefs.

 

 

Please direct me to this "overall science" of which you speak.   Because I've been looking for a long time, and I haven't seen it.  

[DogofWar1]

We knew it was there, but until company financials get revealed, we don't get to know for certain that it's happening.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/coal-company-backed-high-profile-climate-denier/

 

 

 

The smog has lifted from the financial ties between high-profile climate denier Christopher Horner and the coal industry. The now-bankrupt Alpha Natural Resources Inc., one of the largest coal companies in the country, paid Horner $18,600 in three equal installments, according to documents filed as part of the company’s bankruptcy case.

[Larry]

I wouldn't jump to the assumption that that's a huge smoking gun. To me, that's not much money, and might simply be a legit payment.