North pole to melt this year?
- Thread starter hornpharmd
- Start date
hornpharmd.....first of all this year is 600,000 ABOVE 2007's minimum (you no doubt had a typo but since others are reading this i wanted that to be clear)
tell you what, i will bother looking for 2 links as soon as you give me some links providing what i have been asking for the past 2 years or so. give me a link that provides a plan with clear benchmarks for reduction, the cost and what the expected effect those benchmarks will get us in terms of real temperature drop.
tell you what, i will bother looking for 2 links as soon as you give me some links providing what i have been asking for the past 2 years or so. give me a link that provides a plan with clear benchmarks for reduction, the cost and what the expected effect those benchmarks will get us in terms of real temperature drop.
an interesting new article in Scientific American claims that it is black carbon, not CO2 that is responsible for as much as 94% of Arctic warming and subsequent meltoff. this is the sort of thing that would NOT be terribly expensive to rectify compared to trying to reduce and/or sequester a colorless odorless gas. this is a perfect example of why i say CO2 is a huge distraction from good sound environmentalism.
article
article
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Yes
The Scientific American article is about an actual scientific paper. marcus has obviously read the actual scientific paper and had extremely relevant comments on its contents well beyond the blurb in Scientific American especially if you know what he is talking about.
The Scientific American article is about an actual scientific paper. marcus has obviously read the actual scientific paper and had extremely relevant comments on its contents well beyond the blurb in Scientific American especially if you know what he is talking about.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
mop,
You did not understand his comments just as you did and do not realize that the article you linked was about a peer reviewed paper not the actual peer reviewed paper. There is a huge difference and the person who wrote the comment had obviously read the actual peer reviewed paper (unlike you or me).
You did not understand his comments just as you did and do not realize that the article you linked was about a peer reviewed paper not the actual peer reviewed paper. There is a huge difference and the person who wrote the comment had obviously read the actual peer reviewed paper (unlike you or me).
GT...i have already read the articles about that days ago. i have not yet read the Nature article but i read several takes on the paper about a week ago (see Watts is good for lots of stuff....you should read him more because you would be way ahead of where you normally are on this stuff).
the paper is interesting because it cuts both ways....it cuts skeptics because it says that the sun has not been warming as much as skeptics have thought, but it swipes the AGW believers because it says that much of the past 5 years have been during a time when the sun actually creates MORE warming because of a lack of spots (contrary to what everyone thought).
as for svensmark...i have been aware of him for 2 or 3 years because he frequently comments on skeptic sites i frequent. so see, you should read more skeptics sites and you wouldn't be so behind and out of the loop!
the paper is interesting because it cuts both ways....it cuts skeptics because it says that the sun has not been warming as much as skeptics have thought, but it swipes the AGW believers because it says that much of the past 5 years have been during a time when the sun actually creates MORE warming because of a lack of spots (contrary to what everyone thought).
as for svensmark...i have been aware of him for 2 or 3 years because he frequently comments on skeptic sites i frequent. so see, you should read more skeptics sites and you wouldn't be so behind and out of the loop!
you are a good man GT.
actually, i am serious....my thoughts on you are that you are quite sincere in your desire to save the earth and i appreciate it about you. i will be right there with you if i ever get convinced it ever needs saving (from this issue anyways). i will probably have very different solutions, but you get the idea.
actually, i am serious....my thoughts on you are that you are quite sincere in your desire to save the earth and i appreciate it about you. i will be right there with you if i ever get convinced it ever needs saving (from this issue anyways). i will probably have very different solutions, but you get the idea.
interesting to see Britain's Royal society backtracking a bit on AGW. they are admitting a lot of uncertainty in their new publication. i am very pleased to report this.
calgary herald reporting
calgary herald reporting
GT...everything i quoted was directly from their position paper and i agree with it. i even agree with the very modest (and scientific) statement you wanted to insist upon. it was very fairly put and i have no real problem with it. i am inclined to think that man's role is not too big, but they seem to allow for that possibility.
I agree with P. J. O'Rourke (recently on Bill Maher): in all practical terms we probably can't do anything to stop this.
1) Is gw caused, or exacerbated, by man? We don't know that.
2) If we stop all carbon "activity" what would be the effect? What if we stop 50%? 25%
3) Can we, or will we, reduce our carbon footprint?
The realistic answer to 3) is hell no. Unless you institute some kind of supreme world government you're not going to have any kinds of significant action. Just look at the number of cars that China and India are going to be putting on the roads in the next few decades.
And not to get all political but if this is such a big deal then why isn't the "liberal" crowd calling for more nuclear power plants to be constructed in the US? I mean, let's get serious, right? Let's reduce our carbon output.
People, and human nature, will not change over this. We still want what we want and won't really give up too much for some iffy outcome.
So, if this is really ruining the earth, enjoy your time here while it lasts. Maybe things will turn around in 250,000 years. Humans are just a blip on the geologic time chart anyway. We're nothing special when it comes to this planet.
1) Is gw caused, or exacerbated, by man? We don't know that.
2) If we stop all carbon "activity" what would be the effect? What if we stop 50%? 25%
3) Can we, or will we, reduce our carbon footprint?
The realistic answer to 3) is hell no. Unless you institute some kind of supreme world government you're not going to have any kinds of significant action. Just look at the number of cars that China and India are going to be putting on the roads in the next few decades.
And not to get all political but if this is such a big deal then why isn't the "liberal" crowd calling for more nuclear power plants to be constructed in the US? I mean, let's get serious, right? Let's reduce our carbon output.
People, and human nature, will not change over this. We still want what we want and won't really give up too much for some iffy outcome.
So, if this is really ruining the earth, enjoy your time here while it lasts. Maybe things will turn around in 250,000 years. Humans are just a blip on the geologic time chart anyway. We're nothing special when it comes to this planet.
The difference MOP, is that my quotes support an interpretation that the author would agree with. You, on the other hand are cherry-picking from the statement to make an interpretation that the author would disagree with.
You're a creationist MOP, you know all about quote-mining.
You're a creationist MOP, you know all about quote-mining.
GT...you are busted and you know it. you cant even be consistent. i pulled quotes out of the statement to show how balanced it is (AFTER you pulled your quote which suggested it wasn't balanced). i am fine with your quote and balanced it with other quotes from the same document. why does this bother you so much?
and it depends on what you mean by "creationist"...if you mean i believe God created the universe...then by all means i am most certainly a creationist. but if you mean that i believe God created the world 6,000 years ago in 6 24 hour periods...then no, i am not a creationist. i believe that the earth is roughly 3 to 4 billion years old and that the universe is roughly 13 to 14 billion years old. i believe that the creation involved billions of years. but you already know that because we have been through this many times. what you are really trying to do is disqualify my opinions by putting me in the same camp as those who believe in a young earth creation. your method is transparent and ridiculous. you should grow up and stick to the topic instead of trying your favorite logical fallacies over and over ad nauseum.
and it depends on what you mean by "creationist"...if you mean i believe God created the universe...then by all means i am most certainly a creationist. but if you mean that i believe God created the world 6,000 years ago in 6 24 hour periods...then no, i am not a creationist. i believe that the earth is roughly 3 to 4 billion years old and that the universe is roughly 13 to 14 billion years old. i believe that the creation involved billions of years. but you already know that because we have been through this many times. what you are really trying to do is disqualify my opinions by putting me in the same camp as those who believe in a young earth creation. your method is transparent and ridiculous. you should grow up and stick to the topic instead of trying your favorite logical fallacies over and over ad nauseum.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 2
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
