Starship Asterisk*

BMAONE23 wrote:Notice how, still in Winter with the sun only just returning to the northern latitudes,
the ice levels are dramatically reduced from what they were last year at the same time

And that's only the surface picture .. how much thinner the ice is has become a huge surprise as well.

Persoanally, as a Canadian who has lived in this frigidly unfortunate nation all my life, I welcome Palm Trees to our environment.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:I have no doubt whatever that the sun is part of the cause ..

D'ya think??

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... agesc.html

I think what aristarchusinexile was trying to say is there is evidence that changes in the Sun are effecting the entire solar system evident in the equivalent receding polar caps on Mars.

I will blame my flue for my totally inadequate use of language in that post .. and I'm not just making excuses, I really do have the flue, believe it or not .. I don't tell fibs often .. sometimes I tell outright lies, but not in this case.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:Notice how, still in Winter with the sun only just returning to the northern latitudes,
the ice levels are dramatically reduced from what they were last year at the same time

And that's only the surface picture .. how much thinner the ice is has become a huge surprise as well.

Persoanally, as a Canadian who has lived in this frigidly unfortunate nation all my life, I welcome Palm Trees to our environment.

Unfortunately, I do not think that Palm Trees would be in your future if current heating trends continue. I think you would be more likely to find your home town covered in a kilometer thick blanket of ice as the world does what it can to both recover from the heating onslaught and eliminate sources of GHG's.

Here is a BIG BIG movie of the dramatic Ice Melt in the Arctic last year, it takes a while to load but it opens in a browser window.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... or.web.mov

That video is really fascinating. I'm interested in the reason why all land appears white? I know Scandinavia is cold but it isn't always snow covered. I guess the sensor can't tell the difference between ice and non-ice covered land?

BMAONE23 wrote: Unfortunately, I do not think that Palm Trees would be in your future if current heating trends continue. I think you would be more likely to find your home town covered in a kilometer thick blanket of ice as the world does what it can to both recover from the heating onslaught and eliminate sources of GHG's.

You're speaking of the further future, BA, I'm speaking of the nigher future. Either way, at past 60 years of age I won't be around for either .. although Palm Trees around Vicoria B.C. could be a possibility before I leave the planet. According to my understanding of prophetic utterances the ice age is not going to happen, the universe undergoing fiery reconstruction before then.

By the way, some brown eyed South American scientists say they have discovered human habitation 200,000 years old near the sea in what I think I remember them saying as Peru. The blue eyed, U.S. scientists are saying "nonsense". We all know how white supremacy works.

geckzilla wrote:That video is really fascinating. I'm interested in the reason why all land appears white? I know Scandinavia is cold but it isn't always snow covered. I guess the sensor can't tell the difference between ice and non-ice covered land?

It looks to me like the image is just presented in blue & white for contarst purposes. It does look though, like most of the northern regions depicted remain snow covered. It is only near the end of the video that the rivers became ice free, but this is the extreme north

aristarchusinexile wrote:By the way, some brown eyed South American scientists say they have discovered human habitation 200,000 years old near the sea in what I think I remember them saying as Peru. The blue eyed, U.S. scientists are saying "nonsense". We all know how white supremacy works.

I think you might be confusing the Calico site in Yermo, California with the Monte Verde site in Chile. Monte Verde is well documented and widely (but not universally; the Clovis team is stubborn) accepted, showing human occupation starting more than 13000 years ago. The Calico site is the one showing supposed 200,000 year old human artifacts, and the consensus there (strong, but also not unanimous) is that they're naturally fragmented rocks.

Qev wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:By the way, some brown eyed South American scientists say they have discovered human habitation 200,000 years old near the sea in what I think I remember them saying as Peru. The blue eyed, U.S. scientists are saying "nonsense". We all know how white supremacy works.

I think you might be confusing the Calico site in Yermo, California with the Monte Verde site in Chile. Monte Verde is well documented and widely (but not universally; the Clovis team is stubborn) accepted, showing human occupation starting more than 13000 years ago. The Calico site is the one showing supposed 200,000 year old human artifacts, and the consensus there (strong, but also not unanimous) is that they're naturally fragmented rocks.

Definitely I remember the 200,000 year old site being in South America .. that the scientists making the discovery were South American and absolutely certain of their find, disputed by the North American consensus hoard.

Global Warming has Stopped

Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."


Just saying...uhh, could you please explain, in detail, what greenhouse gas radiative forcing is?


The contribution of a given non-CO2 greenhouse gas to radiative forcing depends on its ability to absorb infrared radiation emitted by Earth's surface and atmosphere. This ability is determined by fundamental spectroscopic properties of the molecule; to be really effective, the molecule must absorb at wavelengths where the atmosphere is not already strongly absorbing. The contribution also depends on the change in the atmospheric concentration of the gas; this change is determined by the size of its emissions and by its atmospheric lifetime. The lifetimes of non-CO2 greenhouse gases vary from less than a year to thousands of years.
On a per-molecule basis, many non-CO2 greenhouse gases are far more effective than CO2 at contributing to radiative forcing. For example, the absorption strength of heavily fluorinated molecules can be 10,000 times that of CO2. CO2 has a dominant radiative forcing only because the increase in its atmospheric concentration has been so large--around 100 parts per million (ppm) since preindustrial times. Methane, by contrast, has increased by only 1 ppm; other important non-CO2 greenhouse gases have increased by parts per billion or even parts per trillion (ppt), yet still contribute appreciably to radiative forcing (3, 8-10).

Source(must be a member)


How to detect a scientific hoax:

1) There is no detailed explanation or theory of how the device works. CHECK
2) There is no currently working model or prototype. Often there are excuses such as, it just doesn't seem to be working today, maybe it's the sunspots? CHECK
3) There is a conspiracy involved. CHECK

Man Made Global Warming is a classic scientific hoax designed to generate money and power.

Redbone wrote:Just saying...uhh, could you please explain, in detail, what greenhouse gas radiative forcing is?

radiactive forcing: A variation in the balance of energy (radiation) absorbed by Earth and that emitted by it. This can be due to natural causes, such as variation in the solar output, or by anthropogenic causes, such as the enhanced greenhouse effect. Positive radiative forcing (greenhouse gasses) has the effect of warming the surface of the Earth, while negative forcing (ice albedo) has a cooling effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Redbone wrote:Man Made Global Warming is a classic scientific hoax designed to generate money and power.

Redbone .. if you have a black asphalt driveway just stand on it about 2 p.m. on a nice, hot, sunny day .. and when you sink through the asphalt because it's melted under your feet repeat your words, "Man Made Global Warming is a classic scientific hoax..."

... all those whales and dolphins beaching themselves on Tasmania .. three times in a few months .. sharks and other large fish dying of starvation because of the dearth of small fishes. We're over our heads in ashphalt already.

Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

geckzilla wrote:Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

There is strong evidence that many extinctions are associated with past climate changes, so I don't think you'll find many who think this isn't one cause of extinctions. But nearly all extinctions in the last few hundred years have been caused by man made habitat changes, not climate change. Have you seen something that suggests otherwise? That said, there is no doubt that many species are currently endangered because of climate change, and if the climate trends continue, we will see extinctions. Of course, an extinction can be caused by more than one thing. A species that wasn't already stressed by habitat loss might survive a climate shift, for example.

geckzilla wrote:Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

Human consumption and agriculture has caused countless animals, birds & fish to go extinct. Perhaps that's what happened to the Neanderthals .. eaten by the 'modern' human. But what has that to do with climate change?

Global warming is a fact - it's cause is the debate.

How to detect a scientific hoax:

1) There is no detailed explanation or theory of how the device works. CHECK
2) There is no currently working model or prototype. Often there are excuses such as, it just doesn't seem to be working today, maybe it's the sunspots? CHECK
3) There is a conspiracy involved. CHECK

Man Made Global Warming is a classic scientific hoax designed to generate money and power.

Now let's change the narration:

Natural Global Warming is a classic scientific hoax designed to generate money and power for wealthy oil companies.

I don't understand why one would use "Lack of Evidence" as a trump card for "Proof" in a debate???????

Chris and aristar:
Chris, you're right, past climate changes could have caused extinctions, especially cataclysmic climate changes from large volcanoes or an impact. I was thinking of a lot of the doomsday news articles I can't get away from (though simply not reading the news has crossed my mind) which seem to attribute any and all animal and plant life loss to climate change. I just think it's absurd that only now, after the cause can be placed on climate change rather than humanity's vast population, that they're trying to stop animals from becoming extinct. I mean, I know there's always been a lot of people trying to save whichever species but to say global warming is to blame for it all is an outright lie. It strikes me as profoundly greedy and self-serving that only now is anyone thinking of lifting a finger about it since their own livelihood is finally at stake.

I'm having a very hard time trying to make my point here. If I think of a more eloquent way of wording it then I will re-post. I am basically trying to say we are not addressing the problem at its foundation.

geckzilla wrote:Chris, you're right, past climate changes could have caused extinctions, especially cataclysmic climate changes from large volcanoes or an impact. I was thinking of a lot of the doomsday news articles I can't get away from (though simply not reading the news has crossed my mind) which seem to attribute any and all animal and plant life loss to climate change. I just think it's absurd that only now, after the cause can be placed on climate change rather than humanity's vast population, that they're trying to stop animals from becoming extinct. I mean, I know there's always been a lot of people trying to save whichever species but to say global warming is to blame for it all is an outright lie. It strikes me as profoundly greedy and self-serving that only now is anyone thinking of lifting a finger about it since their own livelihood is finally at stake.

I think I understand what you're getting at, although I don't really agree that most extinction threats are being blamed on climate change. Certainly there are a few very prominent cases that are climate related: polar bears, corals, pikas and other animals living near mountain tops. And of course, these get a lot of publicity because of the current concern about global warming. But I still think that the primary threat to wildlife is blamed- correctly- on habitat loss.

geckzilla wrote:Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

A couple of animals that have gone extinct either directly or indirectly due to climate warming (climate change)
Wooly Mammoth (existed during a cold environment and couldn't adapt to the warmer environs or altered vegitation.
Wooly Rhino (similar to Mammoth)
As a matter of fact, Many Ice Age fauna could not survive the changes brought about by the warmer climate.
Further, many animals today wouldn't be able to survive in the colder environment of an Ice Age with the decreased growing period and increased competition for less resources.

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Chris, you're right, past climate changes could have caused extinctions, especially cataclysmic climate changes from large volcanoes or an impact. I was thinking of a lot of the doomsday news articles I can't get away from (though simply not reading the news has crossed my mind) which seem to attribute any and all animal and plant life loss to climate change. I just think it's absurd that only now, after the cause can be placed on climate change rather than humanity's vast population, that they're trying to stop animals from becoming extinct. I mean, I know there's always been a lot of people trying to save whichever species but to say global warming is to blame for it all is an outright lie. It strikes me as profoundly greedy and self-serving that only now is anyone thinking of lifting a finger about it since their own livelihood is finally at stake.

I think I understand what you're getting at, although I don't really agree that most extinction threats are being blamed on climate change. Certainly there are a few very prominent cases that are climate related: polar bears, corals, pikas and other animals living near mountain tops. And of course, these get a lot of publicity because of the current concern about global warming. But I still think that the primary threat to wildlife is blamed- correctly- on habitat loss.

A few other potential are Arctic Seals that depend on the ice for refuge from ocean going predators and Antarctic penguins that maintain their rookeries on the ice shelves. An early meltdown would decimate an entire generation. and possibly force them over the brink. The Antarctic summer ice level is decreasing faster every year. Then, there is the predators that depend on these food sources to survive.

geckzilla wrote:Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

I think there have been some amphibian extinctions due to climate change or ozone depletion.

bystander wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

I think there have been some amphibian extinctions due to climate change or ozone depletion.

There is an amphibian extinction going on today, and the cause is a fungus, not "Global Warming".

Deadly fungus threatens mass extinction of frogs

Make all payments, government grants and bailouts payable to:

Al Gores Traveling Salvation Show
UB2 Gullible
Graceland, TN 1D10T

P.S. Please do not send or throw us your underwear, we already have a lifetime supply from the press. We do, however, accept gasoline, that BS One is quite a hog. Your mindless cooperation is greatly appreciated.

StACase wrote:There is an amphibian extinction going on today, and the cause is a fungus, not "Global Warming".

Your link contains a very important observation, however:

Faced with the advance of the deadly disease, combined with the effects of habitat loss, global warming and pollution, frogs and other amphibians are in serious decline.

The point being, extinctions happen when species are stressed, and it can be very difficult to point to any one stress and call that the "cause". Certainly this fungus seems to be the most important threat to many amphibian species, but that doesn't mean other man made problems aren't also contributing.

The fact is, many species are at risk today- we appear to be undergoing a mass extinction process on a scale as large as ever seen, and this extinction is almost certainly caused by humans. So far, climate change has not been the primary stress, but if current trends continue, it is bound to become a bigger part of the problem.

StACase wrote:

bystander wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

I think there have been some amphibian extinctions due to climate change or ozone depletion.

There is an amphibian extinction going on today, and the cause is a fungus, not "Global Warming".

Deadly fungus threatens mass extinction of frogs

But since some fungi thrive in warm moist environs, couldn't current warming trends have provided the environment for this particular fungus to thrive long enough to attack the amphibian in question?