North pole to melt this year?

thanks Coel.....my point for years.

my main beef is not that man hasn't contributed at all, if pressed i would probably agree that we have contributed some amount. but how much? how much is due to natural cycles? how much could we change the global average temperature by restriction? is it worth it? would innovation be a better expenditure of money? etc etc
 
well hornpharmd...i don't know what conclusion you are "supposed" to come to....but i can share the conclusion i come to. it is that the meltoff we have seen is not necessarily caused by warmer temperatures but has more to do with wind patterns and water temperatures. the air temps are the same or lower than historical while the water temperatures were warmer but are now dropping very quickly. once again...time will tell us what all this means, but some notion that the arctic is a barometer for global warming seems silly and misguided, particularly when the Antarctic is at all time highs for this time of year (based upon the very limited data we have of course!).
 
actually hornpharmd....since you brought it up, this thread is supposedly about you pointing out a ridiculous article 2 years ago that claimed we were heading toward a complete meltoff of summer ice at the north pole by the summer of 2008.....instead? we had a nice rebound for 2 years in a row. this year will probably be higher than 2007 (the low year on the record) but possibly lower than 2009. my bet is that it beats 2008 by a little but comes in a bit lower than 2009.

oh...and here is the article that started it all:


cnn article that hornpharmd posted originally
 
GT:

You're as qualified to tell me about logic as I am to tell a scientist about science.

Let's see where that goes.
 
GT, based upon history, i don't think you should be calling someone's logic out.....but in this case, once again your logic is mistaken and Coel's is correct (do any of us have a chance at comparing to his impeccable logic? not that i have seen).

he is right to suggest that with the countless other factors that must be taken into consideration....simple correlation with the release of CO2 (at a rate that is infinitesimal compared to nature's contribution to CO2) is not a slam dunk to explain the warming....although it very well may. in other words, his statement, which was understated, is not logically fallacious at all.
 
i am fairly certain GT doesn't understand the implications (logically or otherwise) of statements he has made in this past page of posts. but i could be wrong and i will wait to see if GT can prove me wrong. i don't doubt his intelligence, just his clarity. his religious bigotry is rather well-documented at this point and his willingness (not ability) to understand other's arguments seems to be in question.
 
GT....juvenile insult aside i can answer your question.....it is because we have contributed very little in terms of total CO2 output in the earth. in addition to that though, there are countless mechanisms that we know VERY little about to the point that it is quite reasonable to think that our CO2 output has no measurable effect on the earth's temperature. of course Coel (and most of the rest of us skeptics) are open to the possibility that our CO2 does have some measurable effect on the global temperatures, but we are not yet convinced.

at any rate, it is quite "logical" either way. there is nothing illogical about either position, regardless of how much you happen not to like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top