Huge Chunk of Ice Breaks Off of Antarctica

[Dobbs 3K 0]

You know what's worse than when politicians pretend to be scientists? When faceless internet message board posters do the same.

[At Home 0]

Right, let's never discuss anything ever again that isn't related to porn or drinking.

[Firestarter 0]

1) That's not what you said, though.

It is in fact precisely what I said.

 

2) And I don't believe you.

I do not care.

[Firestarter 0]

You know what's worse than when politicians pretend to be scientists? When faceless internet message board posters do the same.

You bore me.

[SuperJerk 0]

And I'm still waiting for your "mass of scientific knowledge and evidence" to explain how CO2 levels can simultaneously predate and cause "global warming."

It was more the predate vs. cause thing. As things that cause change generally come before them.

Indeed. And the temperature increases have been shown to predate increases in carbon levels. So your point would be?

1) That's not what you said, though.

It is in fact precisely what I said.

 

 

[At Home 0]

You are, actually, misunderstanding her point.

 

1 billion years ago, there was one thousand times as much CO2 as there is in the air today. So, by Eric's understanding, that would've made the world one thousand times as hot as it is right now. But, no, that's not the case.

 

The paper I wrote is included in this post.

Climate_Change_Paper.pdf

[SuperJerk 0]

You are, actually, misunderstanding her point.

 

1 billion years ago, there was one thousand times as much CO2 as there is in the air today. So, by Eric's understanding, that would've made the world one thousand times as hot as it is right now. But, no, that's not the case.

 

The paper I wrote is included in this post.

1) The CO2 to temperature ratio isn't 1:1. There are other factors.

2) Can you really tell me what the average temperature on Earth was a billion years ago? Scientists can chart temperatures going quite a ways back using geological samples...but a billion years?

3) According to the best estimates, plants and animals didn't exist yet on Earth a billion years ago. Thus, the ecosystem was completely different and the affects of gases in the atmosphere would've been totally different because the gases weren't being balanced by other things.

4) Marney's point is irrelevant if her argument contradicts itself.

[SamoaRowe 0]

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer

Fri May 2, 4:11 PM ET

 

WASHINGTON - The Arctic will remain on thinning ice, and climate warming is expected to begin affecting the Antarctic also, scientists said Friday.

 

"The long-term prognosis is not very optimistic," atmospheric scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University said at a briefing.

 

Last summer sea ice in the North shrank to a record low, a change many attribute to global warming.

 

But while solar radiation and amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are similar at the poles, to date the regions have responded differently, with little change in the South, explained oceanographer James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

What researchers have concluded was happening, was that in the North, global warming and natural variability of climate were reinforcing one another, sending the Arctic into a new state with much less sea ice than in the past.

 

"And there is very little chance for the climate to return to the conditions of 20 years ago," he added.

 

On the other hand, Overland explained, the ozone hole in the Antarctic masked conditions there, keeping temperatures low in most of the continent other than the peninsula reaching toward South America.

 

"So there is a scientific reason for why we're not seeing large changes in the Antarctic like we're seeing in the Arctic," he said.

 

But, Overland added, as the ozone hole recovers in coming years, global warming will begin to affect the South Pole also.

 

The briefing covered data being reported in a paper scheduled for publication next week in Eos, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

 

Overland said he used to be among those skeptical about the effects of global climate change. The new findings, which he termed "startling," were developed at a recent workshop, he said.

 

There is agreement between weather observations, the output of computer climate models and scientific expectations for what should happen, added Francis.

 

All the evidence points toward human-made changes at both poles, she said, a conclusion that "further depletes the arsenals of those who insist that human-caused climate change is nothing to worry about."

 

Climatologist Gareth Marshall of the British Antarctic Survey said that while the term global warming is widely used, things are more complicated at the regional level.

 

In the Antarctic, he explained, climate change strengthened winds blowing around the continent, helping trap colder air. But that will decrease in the future, allowing warmer conditions to begin, he said.

 

And, Marshall added, all studies now show that human activities are the drivers of climate change in the Antarctic.

 

Asked if this summer will match last year's record low sea ice in the North, Overland that is likely.

 

"The tea leaves point to a minimal amount of sea ice next September, that would be the same as we had last summer, 40 percent loss compared to 20 years ago," he said. Overland added that the winter freeze got a late start last fall.

 

Francis added: "Over this entire fall, winter and right up 'till today the ice concentration, the amount of ice that's floating around on the Arctic, has been below normal every single day."

 

"All arrows are pointing towards, certainly not a recovery, something like we had last summer and possibly worse," she said.

 

 

[At Home 0]

[EricMM 0]

Images from your photobucket are sooooo reassuring.

 

Oh, my god, I never said it was 1:1.

 

And a billion years ago? Come on!

[At Home 0]

Eric, if you're going to spew out shit and not even pay attention to facts, figures, and actual scientific data, then there is no purpose in you even coming here. Just because whatever I'm saying goes against what you are saying doesn't make it wrong. Glacier lengths move cyclically, anyone with a brain knows that.

 

 

Seriously, the fact that I just hosted a graph from the presentation that I got has nothing to do with its credibility. It's entirely hypocritical how you debate, it's almost like you have no interest in understanding other people's opinions, no matter how well-documented they are.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You need to cite your sources.

 

And according to your first chart, coal wasn't burnt until the 1860s, which is untrue.

[At Home 0]

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You need to cite your sources.

 

And according to your first chart, coal wasn't burnt until the 1860s, which is untrue.

 

My sources are in the paper up there, and here are some other sources.

 

Douglass, Clader, 2002, GeophResLet

Haigh, J. 2007, LivRev

Hoyt, D. Schatten 1993 JourGeoRes

Kuhn, Schusler, 2000, SpaceSciRev

Robinson, Robinson, Soon, 2007, JouAmerPhys

Soon, W, 2005, GeophResLet

 

 

Also, as per the billion years thing, I called up Jeff Kunh again to get a clear answer. This is his response:

 

"If you look at the early stages of our planet, like a billion years ago, before complex life forms existed, we can see high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Same for Venus, which is by our standards are relatively young planet. This is because, we predict, high volcanic activity. We can trace these levels through limestone rock. Now, if the question after that is, 'why did those levels decrease to the levels we see today?' then the reason is because of the development of plants and respiratory systems in plants. A graph from Mauna Kea will track over the last 50 years the amount of CO2 there... it's gone up about 10%. This is probably because of deforestation. The plant and animal life on this planet has had a huge impact on carbon dioxide levels. Much more so than the gas you put in your car."

 

From his lips to your ears.

 

 

For coal levels, that graph measures the amount used in billions of tons. My guess is that coal wasn't being used on that kind of level until 1860.

[SuperJerk 0]

So what were the average temperatures a billion years ago? Higher or lower than they are today?

[At Home 0]

No one knows. Temperature records come from arctic ice samples. When they're drilled, the level of O18/O16 is a good record of the temperature, as there is more O18 in higher temperatures. But those records don't go back 1 billion years, sedentary samples do, but they don't say how hot.

[Guest College Party]

Images from your photobucket are sooooo reassuring.

Nobody puts EricMM in a corner.

[EricMM 0]

Oh, my god.

 

This:

The plant and animal life on this planet has had a huge impact on carbon dioxide levels. Much more so than the gas you put in your car."

Helps your point not at all. Because the gas you put in your car is made from the fucking remains of plant and animal life from this planet. The ENTIRE problem with the global warming / CO2 "thing" is that the carbon being dumped from fossil fuels is basically OUTSIDE of the carbon cycle. There is no place for it to go.

 

And, as an aside, please forgive me if that one scientist you know doesn't convince me that Global Warming is somehow false. The sheer ratio...

[At Home 0]

Oh, my god.

 

This:

The plant and animal life on this planet has had a huge impact on carbon dioxide levels. Much more so than the gas you put in your car."

Helps your point not at all. Because the gas you put in your car is made from the fucking remains of plant and animal life from this planet. The ENTIRE problem with the global warming / CO2 "thing" is that the carbon being dumped from fossil fuels is basically OUTSIDE of the carbon cycle. There is no place for it to go.

 

And, as an aside, please forgive me if that one scientist you know doesn't convince me that Global Warming is somehow false. The sheer ratio...

 

It's because of the respiratory systems. You know, breathing. Not just in the remains of prehistoric animals several hundred feet under the ground compressed into crude oil. It's not correct to say that CO2 from exhaust just hangs around in the air. If it's CO2, it can be processed.

[EricMM 0]

Yes. Absolutely.

 

It's called the carbon cycle.

 

And if there was no limitation on some form of plant that could absorb all the extra CO2, which is NOT PART OF THE CARBON CYCLE SINCE IT'S UNDER GROUND, then we would have no problem. But the problem is, plants need more than just CO2 to grow. They need space, water, and nutrients. Ergo, you cannot say that "plants will just absorb the excess CO2" because there are not enough plants in the world. Or else our atmosphere wouldn't be increasing in the amount of CO2 it contains, and our seas becoming more acidic for the same reason.

[At Home 0]

Right, that's why I said that higher hydrocarbon use and deforestation, etc, are changing the emissivity variable artificially and are legitimately part of the climate change picture, just not 100% of it.

[EricMM 0]

No one ever said that they were 100% of it. But whatever the percentage they are of it is enough to change the climate of the Earth and cause Global Warming.

[At Home 0]

It's enough to do some harm, but not as much harm as the Milankovitch cycles or the luminosity changes in the sun. It's just part of the equation.

 

And most people I know would say it's 100% of the reason.

[EricMM 0]

Well then you, AND the people you know, are incorrect.

[At Home 0]

Well then you, AND the people you know, are incorrect.

 

So why am I wrong? I haven't heard one real legitimate argument to prove me wrong from you, Eric. Those people are wrong, obviously, but so far everything you said has been "COME ON" or something along the lines of that. The "outside of the carbon cycle" argument is bad wording, what it should say is "there isn't enough plant life to balance the levels of CO2 emissions." The natural CO2 levels were and are products of the three other variables that I posted, and the graphs prove that, but we're putting more into the atmosphere than can be recycled through plant respiratory systems. Is that causing temperature change? Yes. Is it more than changes in the luminosity or albedo variables or the status of the Milankovich cycles? No.

[SuperJerk 0]

No one knows.

Then maybe you shouldn't try to use temperatures a billion years ago as proof.

[EricMM 0]

I haven't heard one real legitimate argument to prove me wrong from you, Eric.

Yes you have.

 

But you don't think they're legit. If you want to look at my arguments on this go back over the years here, they're here. I'm just sick of arguing with people who will pull denier talking points out of their ass (solar fluctuations!?) and pretend like they're got equal scientific consensus on their side just because they can quote scientists on their side. It just isn't so.

[At Home 0]

I haven't heard one real legitimate argument to prove me wrong from you, Eric.

Yes you have.

 

But you don't think they're legit. If you want to look at my arguments on this go back over the years here, they're here. I'm just sick of arguing with people who will pull denier talking points out of their ass (solar fluctuations!?) and pretend like they're got equal scientific consensus on their side just because they can quote scientists on their side. It just isn't so.

 

I'm just sick of arguing with fucking pseudo-intellectualites who puts up being open minded as a goddamned facade when you can't hear out anyone else's opinions above the roar of his own self-worth. Despite using and naming several sources to back up my argument, you belittle my completely legitimate opinions because they don't fit in with your plane of thinking and/or you've never heard of them before. If you think that the sun and the amount of heat it radiates is constant, then I just cannot progress further because of your clear lack of understanding and willingness to participate in a legitimate debate. I'm not saying I have scientific consensus, I'm saying that alternative explanations exist. What I'm bringing up is a controversial subject because it's (obviously) not politically correct to go against the grain of what the peanut gallery thinks now. Despite me agreeing with you that carbon dioxide levels are a factor in climate change, I'm apparently just wrong on all accounts.

 

Ergo, you cannot say that "plants will just absorb the excess CO2" because there are not enough plants in the world. Or else our atmosphere wouldn't be increasing in the amount of CO2 it contains, and our seas becoming more acidic for the same reason.

 

See: everything I've said on deforestation so far.

 

Superjerk, all I said was that CO2 levels were 1000x higher than they were today. I wasn't using temperatures to back up any of my points.

[EricMM 0]

How could you disagree with me when you agree with my pretense?

 

If you conceed that carbon dioxide accumlation in our atmosphere leads to an increased global temperature, what in the world are you bitching about??

 

Superjerk, all I said was that CO2 levels were 1000x higher than they were today. I wasn't using temperatures to back up any of my points.

You said that there must have been temperature 1000x times higher in the past...

[fk teale 0]

How could you disagree with me when you agree with my pretense?

Eric, you are to English what Escher was to geometry.

[Guest College Party]

TEALE SIGHTING