What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

not at all
the questions were specific to why deniers believe what they do
what data they might base those beliefs on and if they can provide it from sources other than the oil and gas industry spin campaign

so far the answer is obvious, you have made a few wild claims but not provided a shred of actual data to back it up

does anyone deny that mans activities are altering the atmospheric chemistry

does anyone deny that temps have been rising over the last 60 to 100 years

does anyone deny that the average ice extent/mass/glassiers is shrinking

I read your answers but you provide no actual data to back up the claims

the point is that if you wish to believe something simply because you prefer it to be true thats fine but in a scientific analysis one must rely on data to establish what the correct position is

cheers
B

[dskira]

Very soon we will not need them anymore

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by dskira

Very soon we will not need them anymore

In a way you are right, because the ice will be so thick in the waters they now travel in that they would not be able to break through anyway. They may be still useful further south.

[Boston]

Problem Hoyt is that you have no data to back up your beliefs

check previous posts but I have recently presented conclusive data directly contradicting your views concerning any recent increase in ice in the northern passage

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Boston

not at all
the questions were specific to why deniers believe what they do
what data they might base those beliefs on and if they can provide it from sources other than the oil and gas industry spin campaign

so far the answer is obvious, you have made a few wild claims but not provided a shred of actual data to back it up



I read your answers but you provide no actual data to back up the claims

the point is that if you wish to believe something simply because you prefer it to be true thats fine but in a scientific analysis one must rely on data to establish what the correct position is

cheers
B

Boston, are you pretending or do you rely don't see the difference?
"Who denies that man's activity alter the atmospheric chemistry" is a question that can only be answered by yes, or rather no I don't deny it, regardless of whatever any scientist in any camp may say. Unless you quantify your term "altering the chemistry" the very presence of life changes the air all the time.

The ONLY interest here is to evaluate if such changes produced by man/animal and plants, have any measurable and permanent effect that is DETRIMENTAL to our future.

And that is the only thing that merits debate, therefore your questions are loaded and any answer to them is meaningless

I pose another question.
"Who believes that an increase of the average temperature by 2 degrees C will have a catastrophic result and will wipe out humanity?"

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by noodle

As has been suggested, the sun wakes up = warmer, the sun goes to sleep = cooler. Climate change? I'm still waiting for an accurate 2 day weather forecast.
State control (USSR) used to be the 'enemy', now it X 10 (global socialism) is the solution?
The only intelligent people involved with the GW/CC scam are those profiting from it, the rest will be gored.

Remember penny Wong puffing in parliament "You will get an ETS whether you like it or not!!!" Now she is sweeping after Peter Garrets failures. Labor and their US counterpart Liberals are the personification of incompetence. England under Brown Labour will reach one trillion of borrowed money very soon.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Boston, are you pretending or do you rely don't see the difference?
"Who denies that man's activity alter the atmospheric chemistry" is a question that can only be answered by yes, or rather no I don't deny it, regardless of whatever any scientist in any camp may say. Unless you quantify your term "altering the chemistry" the very presence of life changes the air all the time.

The ONLY interest here is to evaluate if such changes produced by man/animal and plants, have any measurable and permanent effect that is DETRIMENTAL to our future.

And that is the only thing that merits debate, therefore your questions are loaded and any answer to them is meaningless

I pose another question.
"Who believes that an increase of the average temperature by 2 degrees C will have a catastrophic result and will wipe out humanity?"

Marco, Boston sees the difference, but can't admit it, to do so would be open the discussion to reason and logic instead of dogma. Just like he can't admit that the ice coverage is increasing again. If one goes to Cryosphere and simply looks at the data, you can clearly see that the summer ice cap is back to the same level as 2005 and is adding significant numbers of square miles each sucessive year. To do so the winter ice must be getting thicker and its extent greater. The data he refers to is questionable as they were not measuring the ice cap 50 years ago. The most accurate data is from satelite imaging that started in 1979. That data is available to all to inspect. He doesn't break out the difference between glacial evaporation and melting sea ice either. The glaciers are retreating, but so what. They have advanced and retreated forever, it has nothing to do with C02. The ice cover on Greenland is larger today than it was during the Viking settlement spanning several centuries when cattle grazed there. The Vikings had to abandon Greenland because it got too cold.

Boston can't admit that happened either. Instead he posts data that is the equivilent to a child answering yes he did his homework if you asked him if he brushed his teeth. For those who don't carefully inspect his data and answers it appears he is rebutting, but in reality he is only playing a shell game using graphs and data to answer questions that are not even from the same area.

[fasteddy106]

If you look at images on Cryosphere you will see that there is no alarming difference in the ice cap between 1/2/79 and 1/2/2010. In fact the concentration is greater in 2010 than it was in 1979. That would be a 30 year spread, enough to satisfy a trend groupie. The image was too large for me to post here. Go to

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=02&sy=2010

Click on compare daily sea ice and enter the dates 1/2/79 in the left panel and 1/2/2010 in the right panel. You can see the for yourself that Boston is shivering in denial on this one. If you are more clever than I post the image so even the lazy can look at the truth.

An even more stunning image can be viewed by entering 5/7/79 on left and 5/10/2010 on the right, the retreat is not there at all, the ice cap coverage is virtually the same as it was in 1979. Once again, no cause for alarm, and of course, Boston is wrong again.

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

... Go to

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=02&sy=2010

Click on compare daily sea ice and enter the dates 1/2/79 in the left panel and 1/2/2010 in the right panel.....

So I did what you said, and there was a lot more sea ice in the 1/2/1979 image than 1/2/2010 image.

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

So I did what you said, and there was a lot more sea ice in the 1/2/1979 image than 1/2/2010 image.

Here are three links for you to look at.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=02&sy=2010
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ent.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...aly.arctic.png

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

...An even more stunning image can be viewed by entering 5/7/79 on left and 5/10/2010 on the right, the retreat is not there at all, the ice cap coverage is virtually the same as it was in 1979...

I did that too, but there was no available for 5/10/2010. (Guess why.)

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

So I did what you said, and there was a lot more sea ice in the 1/2/1979 image than 1/2/2010 image.

Ditto. It was so obvious I decided I better wait for someone else to comment, in case I was somehow misunderstanding what I saw....

I earlier made the comment that "until demonstrated otherwise, the oil rig explosion was an act of jihad terrorism". This incident was apparently not by those people. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100508/D9FIH0G00.html

Funny thing you climatologists may appreciate - used to bait polar bears into the bucket of a 966, keep 'em bouncing so they couldn't climb out, thus shuttle them away from camp. They'll usually stay away for an entire day this way!



I can't believe you people are still going at this. Insert how you know I would feel once in awhile...and you can carry on without me!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mark775

I earlier made the comment that "until demonstrated otherwise, the oil rig explosion was an act of jihad terrorism". This incident was apparently not by those people. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100508/D9FIH0G00.html

Funny thing you climatologists may appreciate - used to bait polar bears into the bucket of a 966, keep 'em bouncing so they couldn't climb out, thus shuttle them away from camp. They'll usually stay away for an entire day this way!

Attachment 42969

I can't believe you people are still going at this. Insert how you know I would feel once in awhile...and you can carry on without me!

I roughnecked on oil rigs for a while in Oklahoma (actually we were going for natural gas, not oil, but we were considered oilies anyway), and I can tell you this: there are long lists of ways to die on a rig, either singly or in groups. And that's just on land.

Go to this site, and you'll find a list of eleven offshore incidents that claimed a total of 726 lives:

http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/i-fatal.htm

Given the record (zero platforms destroyed by Islamic terrorists), I would never assume the destruction of a drilling platform 'was an act of jihad terrorism until proven otherwise.' It's an exceedingly improbable and almost completely unwarranted assumption.

By the way, I enjoyed the description of your polar bear removal technique.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I roughnecked on oil rigs for a while in Oklahoma (actually we were going for natural gas, not oil, but we were considered oilies anyway), and I can tell you this: there are long lists of ways to die on a rig, either singly or in groups. And that's just on land.

Go to this site, and you'll find a list of eleven offshore incidents that claimed a total of 726 lives:

http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/i-fatal.htm

Given the record (zero platforms destroyed by Islamic terrorists), I would never assume the destruction of a drilling platform 'was an act of jihad terrorism until proven otherwise.' It's an exceedingly improbable and almost completely unwarranted assumption.

By the way, I enjoyed the description of your polar bear removal technique.

My grandfather got his leg ripped off on an oil rig when he was about 19 years old in around 1908-1910. They are very easy to die on.