User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:08:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Rodent wrote defunct, as in "no longer existing or functioning"
Quoted:
I usually don't Google things for other people, but here: Defunct glaciers in Glacier National Park: Ahern Glacier - 48°50'32?N 113°47'01?W;[13] 8,169 feet (2,490 m) He copied it from Wikipedia, which as we all know, is renown for its academic integrity. Glacier National Park Wiki |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:11:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rodent wrote defunct, as in "no longer existing or functioning" He copied it from Wikipedia, which as we all know, is renown for its academic integrity. Glacier National Park Wiki Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rodent wrote defunct, as in "no longer existing or functioning" Quoted:
I usually don't Google things for other people, but here: Defunct glaciers in Glacier National Park: Ahern Glacier - 48°50'32?N 113°47'01?W;[13] 8,169 feet (2,490 m) He copied it from Wikipedia, which as we all know, is renown for its academic integrity. Glacier National Park Wiki I smell a rat. I've been flying over southern Greenland and one of my favorite places on earth, Glacier National Park, for three decades. A long time for a human, but nothing geologically. In that time, I've seen the glaciers in Glacier National Park and the ice sheet over southern Greenland disappear. Seeing is believing for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:13:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to that chart, there appears to be a downward trend. Goalposts moved. Now, back to the original eyewitness claims of disappearing glaciers, are they false, or are they not? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so is glacier mass decreasing or not? According to that chart, there appears to be a downward trend. Goalposts moved. Now, back to the original eyewitness claims of disappearing glaciers, are they false, or are they not? OK--so you acknowledge that glaciers are getting less massive, and have been doing so for a long period of time (even before the hydrocarbon revolution in the 19th century). i agree that the previous poster overstated by using the term 'disappear'. properly speaking, a gradual reduction cannot be rightly claimed as a 'disappearance' until the thing actually ceases to exist. but in casual conversation, 'disappearing' is usually a synonym for gradual reduction. thus we have a terminological quibble, rather than a substantive disagreement. so if he were to go back and edit his post to say "glaciers have been gradually losing mass", you two would be in complete agreement on that particular point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:14:39 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Damn! Those fucking Minoans must have been driving the hell out of SUVs. They were bullish, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:15:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were bullish, that's for sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Damn! Those fucking Minoans must have been driving the hell out of SUVs. They were bullish, that's for sure. amazingly so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:18:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
blah, blah, blah, blah so if he were to go back and edit his post to say "glaciers have been gradually losing mass", you two would be in complete agreement on that particular point. There's no fucking way he could see "reducing mass" with his eyes. The photos suggest quite the contrary (the photos being an accurate representation of what his eyes would convey), and also that he has zero ability to collect any data at all with his eyes. The word he used was "disappear", not "disappearing". Thats disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:19:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Science is often the business of getting grants. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Science is not religious dogma. Modifying hypothesis as data is gathered and analyzed is the essence of the scientific method. Science is often the business of getting grants. William Gray said that in 2000. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:35:01 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
amazingly so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damn! Those fucking Minoans must have been driving the hell out of SUVs. They were bullish, that's for sure. amazingly so. More cow jokes!? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:36:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Why is it that no one ever brings up data like this. <a href="http://www.directupload.net" target="_blank">http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150225/svpmlqf4.png</a> Does this not debunk the whole theory? Vostok Ice Core graph FTMFW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:44:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's no fucking way he could see "reducing mass" with his eyes. The photos suggest quite the contrary, and also that he has zero ability to collect any data at all with his eyes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
blah, blah, blah, blah so if he were to go back and edit his post to say "glaciers have been gradually losing mass", you two would be in complete agreement on that particular point. There's no fucking way he could see "reducing mass" with his eyes. The photos suggest quite the contrary, and also that he has zero ability to collect any data at all with his eyes. when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. thank bernoulli. it's not a perfect ability since there are certainly confounding factors (void space), but for liquid/solid water, conservation of volume and conservation of mass are functionally the same thing except at a very fine scale. but regardless--we've settled the substantive issue. whereas you fully agree with him that there is less ice than before, you're making all this noise simply because he used the term 'disappearance' instead of 'reduction'. like i said, it was a clear overstatement on his part, and overstatements on this issue are a serious problem (from both sides of the argument). but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:45:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More cow jokes!? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damn! Those fucking Minoans must have been driving the hell out of SUVs. They were bullish, that's for sure. amazingly so. More cow jokes!? can't. i'm daed tired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:47:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ratios of oxygen isotopes and such. Proxy measures. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How does one ascertain the temperature of Greenland's GISP2 Ice Core 4771 years ago with any modicum of reliability?? Ratios of oxygen isotopes and such. Proxy measures. And SWAG. Lots of SWAG. Tree rings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:50:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. thank bernoulli. it's not a perfect ability since there are certainly confounding factors (void space), but for liquid/solid water, conservation of volume and conservation of mass are functionally the same thing except at a very fine scale. but regardless--we've settled the substantive issue. whereas you fully agree with him that there is less ice than before, you're making all this noise simply because he used the term 'disappearance' instead of 'reduction'. like i said, it was a clear overstatement on his part, and overstatements on this issue are a serious problem (from both sides of the argument). but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
blah, blah, blah, blah so if he were to go back and edit his post to say "glaciers have been gradually losing mass", you two would be in complete agreement on that particular point. There's no fucking way he could see "reducing mass" with his eyes. The photos suggest quite the contrary, and also that he has zero ability to collect any data at all with his eyes. when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. thank bernoulli. it's not a perfect ability since there are certainly confounding factors (void space), but for liquid/solid water, conservation of volume and conservation of mass are functionally the same thing except at a very fine scale. but regardless--we've settled the substantive issue. whereas you fully agree with him that there is less ice than before, you're making all this noise simply because he used the term 'disappearance' instead of 'reduction'. like i said, it was a clear overstatement on his part, and overstatements on this issue are a serious problem (from both sides of the argument). but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Where? The pics tcrpe posted show an increase in ice in some places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 4:51:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Climate Change is not about the weather, it is about control, and who has it. that's why they went after the internet. Too much bad press about the Climate change stuff. It's hard to sell a lie when people are righteously skeptical of the high priests of big government causes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:05:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
finally scared up free PDFs of two of the most important scholarly articles on climate science and AGW. they are not about global warming itself--you are not going to find data about insolation or greenhousing or anything like that. instead, the scafetta article is about the science behind global warming. it is framed around social construction, and how politics influences science. and the sunstein article delves into the precautionary principle, which is the theoretical basis for climate legislation even in the absence of certainty. if you are at all interested in the climate issue, both of these articles are must-reads. disregard politics, set your opinions aside for a moment, and just read what the articles have to say. i suspect that you're going to find a lot of things to like, even if you disagree with their overall conclusions. for those of you who don't read the scholarly literature, i think you're going to be surprised at how circumspect it can be. (demeritt 2001) the construction of global warming and the politics of science (sunstein 2003) beyond the precautionary principle Downloaded for later, but why do I suspect that the take away is going to be along the lines of "people are idiots and politicians are worse." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:09:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where? The pics tcrpe posted show an increase in ice in some places. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Where? The pics tcrpe posted show an increase in ice in some places. that's the point of this whole conversational arc. the pics say one thing. however, the graphs he posted say that ice has been steadily decreasing. and when questioned directly, he acknowledged that there has been a distinct downward trend in the amount of ice over time. so all the noise is just about which word the previous poster used to describe this downward trend. words are important, but they don't alter the physical reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:13:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Downloaded for later, but why do I suspect that the take away is going to be along the lines of "people are idiots and politicians are worse." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
finally scared up free PDFs of two of the most important scholarly articles on climate science and AGW. they are not about global warming itself--you are not going to find data about insolation or greenhousing or anything like that. instead, the scafetta article is about the science behind global warming. it is framed around social construction, and how politics influences science. and the sunstein article delves into the precautionary principle, which is the theoretical basis for climate legislation even in the absence of certainty. if you are at all interested in the climate issue, both of these articles are must-reads. disregard politics, set your opinions aside for a moment, and just read what the articles have to say. i suspect that you're going to find a lot of things to like, even if you disagree with their overall conclusions. for those of you who don't read the scholarly literature, i think you're going to be surprised at how circumspect it can be. (demeritt 2001) the construction of global warming and the politics of science (sunstein 2003) beyond the precautionary principle Downloaded for later, but why do I suspect that the take away is going to be along the lines of "people are idiots and politicians are worse." they're a lot more nuanced than that. both of those guys accept AGW as a true state of affairs, but neither of them pull any punches when it comes to critiquing the practice of climate science/politics--problems with data, modeling, confirmation bias, grant-seeking, and so forth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:22:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. thank bernoulli. it's not a perfect ability since there are certainly confounding factors (void space), but for liquid/solid water, conservation of volume and conservation of mass are functionally the same thing except at a very fine scale. but regardless--we've settled the substantive issue. whereas you fully agree with him that there is less ice than before, you're making all this noise simply because he used the term 'disappearance' instead of 'reduction'. like i said, it was a clear overstatement on his part, and overstatements on this issue are a serious problem (from both sides of the argument). but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
blah, blah, blah, blah so if he were to go back and edit his post to say "glaciers have been gradually losing mass", you two would be in complete agreement on that particular point. There's no fucking way he could see "reducing mass" with his eyes. The photos suggest quite the contrary, and also that he has zero ability to collect any data at all with his eyes. when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. thank bernoulli. it's not a perfect ability since there are certainly confounding factors (void space), but for liquid/solid water, conservation of volume and conservation of mass are functionally the same thing except at a very fine scale. but regardless--we've settled the substantive issue. whereas you fully agree with him that there is less ice than before, you're making all this noise simply because he used the term 'disappearance' instead of 'reduction'. like i said, it was a clear overstatement on his part, and overstatements on this issue are a serious problem (from both sides of the argument). but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Um, he couldn't even see whether the glacier was there or not. That makes even the most basic observations he makes dubious. Give me a break. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:25:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's the point of this whole conversational arc. the pics say one thing. however, the graphs he posted say that ice has been steadily decreasing. and when questioned directly, he acknowledged that there has been a distinct downward trend in the amount of ice over time. so all the noise is just about which word the previous poster used to describe this downward trend. words are important, but they don't alter the physical reality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Where? The pics tcrpe posted show an increase in ice in some places. that's the point of this whole conversational arc. the pics say one thing. however, the graphs he posted say that ice has been steadily decreasing. and when questioned directly, he acknowledged that there has been a distinct downward trend in the amount of ice over time. so all the noise is just about which word the previous poster used to describe this downward trend. words are important, but they don't alter the physical reality. Your language use is sloppy. I conceded that a decrease in ice mass is what the graph indicated. I didn't say whether I agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:29:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Um, he couldn't even see whether the glacier was there or not. That makes even the most basic observations he makes dubious. Give me a break. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Um, he couldn't even see whether the glacier was there or not. That makes even the most basic observations he makes dubious. Give me a break. you can argue about his word choice and observational ability all you like. to me, the only scientifically interesting thing here is dV/dT. seems to me that in a conversation about climate data, the data is the important thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:32:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your language use is sloppy. I conceded that a decrease in ice mass is what the graph indicated. I didn't say whether I agreed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... Your language use is sloppy. I conceded that a decrease in ice mass is what the graph indicated. I didn't say whether I agreed. i went back through the posts, and you're right--your reference to "the record showing..." was WRT the photos, not the graph. so why did you post the graph? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 5:58:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's pick another "disappeared" glacier at random:[/span] 
[span style='font-weight: bold;']Here's the same "disappeared" glacier 25 years ago:[/span] 
[span style='font-weight: bold;']It doesn't look much different. When exactly did it "disappear"?[/span] Oh, Wikipedia, bless your heart. Ok, I think this is Rainbow Glacier, which happens to [still] be one of the largest glaciers in the park, and ironically enough, one of the least receding glaciers. Why is it on the list of defunct glaciers? Because Wikipedia. Furthermore, the latest sat photo was taken in July of 2014, and the B&W photo is from September of 1990 - so using sat photos from random months isn't the best measure because they can be biased by seasonal snowfall. At a minimum, we would need to be comparing two September photos. It's probably more accurate to go by this list of current active glaciers and permanent snowfields: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/USGS_GlacRetreat_2013.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:18:43 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where? The pics tcrpe posted show an increase in ice in some places. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
blah, blah, blah, blah so if he were to go back and edit his post to say "glaciers have been gradually losing mass", you two would be in complete agreement on that particular point. There's no fucking way he could see "reducing mass" with his eyes. The photos suggest quite the contrary, and also that he has zero ability to collect any data at all with his eyes. when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. thank bernoulli. it's not a perfect ability since there are certainly confounding factors (void space), but for liquid/solid water, conservation of volume and conservation of mass are functionally the same thing except at a very fine scale. but regardless--we've settled the substantive issue. whereas you fully agree with him that there is less ice than before, you're making all this noise simply because he used the term 'disappearance' instead of 'reduction'. like i said, it was a clear overstatement on his part, and overstatements on this issue are a serious problem (from both sides of the argument). but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. Where? The pics tcrpe posted show an increase in ice in some places. They show snow. GNP has a lot of it at certain times. There is a big difference between snow cover and glaciers, even if they both look white on Google Earth. From the USGS: "In Glacier National Park (GNP), MT some effects of global climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:37:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. This guy couldn't even tell whether the glacier was actually there or not. 
So, yea, he could determine the various ice thicknesses, densities and extents and then mentally integrate them for a volume, and then a mass, from 39,000 feet at Mach 0.90.
Right.
If you believe that, then allow me tell you all about AGW.
The mental calisthenics and contortions must make your head hurt. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 6:57:37 PM EDT
[#25]
The demonstrated lack of reading skills in this thread is depressing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:05:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This guy couldn't even tell whether the glacier was actually there or not.
So, yea, he could determine the various ice thicknesses, densities and extents and then mentally integrate them for a volume, and then a mass, from 39,000 feet at Mach 0.90.
Right.
If you believe that, then allow me tell you all about AGW.
The mental calisthenics and contortions must make you head hurt.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. This guy couldn't even tell whether the glacier was actually there or not.
So, yea, he could determine the various ice thicknesses, densities and extents and then mentally integrate them for a volume, and then a mass, from 39,000 feet at Mach 0.90.
Right.
If you believe that, then allow me tell you all about AGW.
The mental calisthenics and contortions must make you head hurt.
anything to keep from addressing the downward trend in the data you posted, right? look man--you're just busted here. you posted data showing a reduction in ice over time, which is exactly what rodent was saying. and as L_JE pointed out, you posted comparison pics from different months, which is an atrocious breach of remote sensing method for ice cover. now you're doing a bunch of hand-waving and noisemaking to try to distract from that, and come up with some way that he was wrong and you were right. you made a mistake--it's not the end of the world. other arguments you have may be right, but this one is not. just own it and drive on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:17:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
anything to keep from addressing the downward trend in the data you posted, right? look man--you're just busted here. you posted data showing a reduction in ice over time, which is exactly what rodent was saying. and as L_JE pointed out, you posted comparison pics from different months, which is an atrocious breach of remote sensing method for ice cover. now you're doing a bunch of hand-waving and noisemaking to try to distract from that, and come up with some way that he was wrong and you were right. you made a mistake--it's not the end of the world. other arguments you have may be right, but this one is not. just own it and drive on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
when it comes to ice at environmental temperatures, anyone is capable of seeing macro-level changes in ice mass with their eyes. This guy couldn't even tell whether the glacier was actually there or not.
So, yea, he could determine the various ice thicknesses, densities and extents and then mentally integrate them for a volume, and then a mass, from 39,000 feet at Mach 0.90.
Right.
If you believe that, then allow me tell you all about AGW.
The mental calisthenics and contortions must make you head hurt.
anything to keep from addressing the downward trend in the data you posted, right? look man--you're just busted here. you posted data showing a reduction in ice over time, which is exactly what rodent was saying. and as L_JE pointed out, you posted comparison pics from different months, which is an atrocious breach of remote sensing method for ice cover. now you're doing a bunch of hand-waving and noisemaking to try to distract from that, and come up with some way that he was wrong and you were right. you made a mistake--it's not the end of the world. other arguments you have may be right, but this one is not. just own it and drive on. Jesus, see my comment on reading comprehension. I won't even attempt to answer this unintelligent bile. You disappoint me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:33:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They show snow. GNP has a lot of it at certain times. There is a big difference between snow cover and glaciers, even if they both look white on Google Earth. From the USGS: "In Glacier National Park (GNP), MT some effects of global climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP."  I know exactly how you got that quote.
You went to the Wikipedia article for Glaciers and then clicked on the footnote for 1. That took you to the website to the USGS and from their you clicked Glacier Retreat. and copied and pasted part of the intro paragraph. You've tried to come across as some super brain and you're still using Wikipedia to do your research. What happened to NASA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 7:48:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Here is all the info anybody needs:
1.It's fake 2.It's a lie 3.It's a money making scam 4.It's a natural phenomenon called "the weather" and there is nothing we can do to change it, good or bad! 5.It's a money making scam 6.It's a money making scam 7.It's a money making scam 8.It's a money making scam 9.It's a money making scam 10.Are you seeing the pattern yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:12:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They show snow. GNP has a lot of it at certain times. There is a big difference between snow cover and glaciers, even if they both look white on Google Earth. From the USGS: "In Glacier National Park (GNP), MT some effects of global climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP." I know exactly how you got that quote.
You went to the Wikipedia article for Glaciers and then clicked on the footnote for 1. That took you to the website to the USGS and from their you clicked Glacier Retreat. and copied and pasted part of the intro paragraph. You've tried to come across as some super brain and you're still using Wikipedia to do your research. What happened to NASA? Yes, I got the names of the glaciers rom Wikipedia. Did you think I had them memorized? And the quote that I attributed to the USGS came from the USGS website. How is that somehow shocking or sinister, or whatever it is you're trying to imply? And of course NASA hasn't gone anywhere. If you cared to look, you could undoubtedly find similar info on their dedicated climate site. For what it's worth, as I've already stated, GNP is my favorite national park, and one of my favorite places on earth. I have flown over it hundreds, probably thousands, of times as an airline pilot. I've flown the valleys and railroad tracks at minimum altitude as a bush pilot. I've visited it on the ground several times. Greenland I have only seen from an airliner, but I've seen it hundreds of times over the course of three decades. For some reason it's dreadfully important to tcrp to make light of this, and it seems to be his special project to convince people that the glaciers are growing instead of vanishing. I doubt that he's ever actually seen either place, or been much interested in them until tonight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:53:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I got the names of the glaciers rom Wikipedia. Did you think I had them memorized? And the quote that I attributed to the USGS came from the USGS website. How is that somehow shocking or sinister, or whatever it is you're trying to imply? And of course NASA hasn't gone anywhere. If you cared to look, you could undoubtedly find similar info on their dedicated climate site. For what it's worth, as I've already stated, GNP is my favorite national park, and one of my favorite places on earth. I have flown over it hundreds, probably thousands, of times as an airline pilot. I've flown the valleys and railroad tracks at minimum altitude as a bush pilot. I've visited it on the ground several times. Greenland I have only seen from an airliner, but I've seen it hundreds of times over the course of three decades. For some reason it's dreadfully important to tcrp to make light of this, and it seems to be his special project to convince people that the glaciers are growing instead of vanishing. I doubt that he's ever actually seen either place, or been much interested in them until tonight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They show snow. GNP has a lot of it at certain times. There is a big difference between snow cover and glaciers, even if they both look white on Google Earth. From the USGS: "In Glacier National Park (GNP), MT some effects of global climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP." I know exactly how you got that quote.
You went to the Wikipedia article for Glaciers and then clicked on the footnote for 1. That took you to the website to the USGS and from their you clicked Glacier Retreat. and copied and pasted part of the intro paragraph. You've tried to come across as some super brain and you're still using Wikipedia to do your research. What happened to NASA? Yes, I got the names of the glaciers rom Wikipedia. Did you think I had them memorized? And the quote that I attributed to the USGS came from the USGS website. How is that somehow shocking or sinister, or whatever it is you're trying to imply? And of course NASA hasn't gone anywhere. If you cared to look, you could undoubtedly find similar info on their dedicated climate site. For what it's worth, as I've already stated, GNP is my favorite national park, and one of my favorite places on earth. I have flown over it hundreds, probably thousands, of times as an airline pilot. I've flown the valleys and railroad tracks at minimum altitude as a bush pilot. I've visited it on the ground several times. Greenland I have only seen from an airliner, but I've seen it hundreds of times over the course of three decades. For some reason it's dreadfully important to tcrp to make light of this, and it seems to be his special project to convince people that the glaciers are growing instead of vanishing. I doubt that he's ever actually seen either place, or been much interested in them until tonight. I just think its hilarious that you spent a couple pages ridiculing others about using legitimate sources and then the two times you bring up sources on this page you quote Wikipedia in one (incorrectly) and then use a source directly from that same Wiki article you previously quoted. Overall, it demonstrates an immense level of academic laziness. From someone as self-righteous as you, its the cherry on top of the sundae. Arguments among global warming aside, I just thought this was funny. Do carry on, please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 8:59:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable at least by a True Scottsman!!!!!. Not that that stops Arfcom. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:00:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable. Not that that stops Arfcom. My life is complete. Might as well log out and go shovel the snow in the record cold temperature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:02:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before the "You get more radiation from eating a banana" folks http://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/427597/427597,1300386844,9/stock-photo-fukushima-road-sign-73360438.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable. Not that that stops Arfcom. A simple touchstone to determine the actual worth of what Rodent has to say about climate change ... find out how he feels about nuclear power. 
?? How I "feel" about nuclear power is irrelevant. How I "feel" about climate change is irrelevant. The "worth" of what I have to say about either is exactly what you're paying for it. Don't listen to me, listen to people who are smart enough to study glaciation from outer space. But since you asked, it's obvious that nuclear power will have to be a part of any realistic effort to reduce CO2 emissions. Is that what you're looking for? In before the "You get more radiation from eating a banana" folks http://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/427597/427597,1300386844,9/stock-photo-fukushima-road-sign-73360438.jpg Can't have any of those pesky facts can we? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:08:14 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable at least by a True Scottsman!!!!!. Not that that stops Arfcom. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png I did a little digging trying to find the source of that graph: "This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:16:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did a little digging trying to find the source of that graph: "This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable at least by a True Scottsman!!!!!. Not that that stops Arfcom. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png I did a little digging trying to find the source of that graph: "This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends." Does nothing to refute that graph. That graph is composed of two satellite tropospheric datasets. Datasets that manage to totally avoid the Urban Heat Island effect I might add. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:18:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did a little digging trying to find the source of that graph: "This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable at least by a True Scottsman!!!!!. Not that that stops Arfcom. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png I did a little digging trying to find the source of that graph: "This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends." And what is the source for that quote? Oh, here it is. Its Moyer & Co., a liberal media website, and the article is just a hit piece with liberal talking points about global warming. Just so the audience is aware, this is Bill Moyer. A big time progressive hack. Rodent, put down the keyboard and step away from the internet, cause now you've lost whatever credibility you had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:19:38 PM EDT
[#38]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/
Key facts about global temperature
Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 217 months from September 1996 to September 2014. That is more than half the 429-month satellite record. Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us. Ø The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century. Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century. Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century. Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century. Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted. Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100. Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950. Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950. Ø From August 2001 to August 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 1 month. Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:25:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does nothing to refute that graph. That graph is composed of two satellite tropospheric datasets. Datasets that manage to totally avoid the Urban Heat Island effect I might add. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable at least by a True Scottsman!!!!!. Not that that stops Arfcom. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png I did a little digging trying to find the source of that graph: "This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends." Does nothing to refute that graph. That graph is composed of two satellite tropospheric datasets. Datasets that manage to totally avoid the Urban Heat Island effect I might add. ?? The graph comes directly from the fraud's website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:35:29 PM EDT
[#40]
So, you say he is a fraud because the fraud Bill Moyers, who defended 'Fake but Accurate' Dan Rather calls him a fraud? By the properties of Math and the cancellation of two negatives, that would offer Mathematical Proof that Mocton is indeed genuine.
The graph is correct, is simply a plot of the RSS Satellite data set. That is what we call Science and you are what we call 'denying' it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:38:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Not Mocton:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:39:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
?? The graph comes directly from the fraud's website. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced. Non of the above is intelligently disputable at least by a True Scottsman!!!!!. Not that that stops Arfcom. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/clip_image002.png I did a little digging trying to find the source of that graph: "This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends." Does nothing to refute that graph. That graph is composed of two satellite tropospheric datasets. Datasets that manage to totally avoid the Urban Heat Island effect I might add. ?? The graph comes directly from the fraud's website. Fraud? Like the source for the info you quoted? Yes, Mr. Holland seems very unbiased.
BTW, the graph came from the Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., according to this Forbes article. When you right click an image and "Search Google for this Image" the first image that pops up will always not be the original source. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:40:53 PM EDT
[#43]
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/roy-spencer-satellite-v-surface-temperature-measurements/
Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record
October 21st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Much is being made of the “global” surface thermometer data, which three-quarters the way through 2014 is now suggesting the global average this year will be the warmest in the modern instrumental record. I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record. ..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby. (And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern…more about that later). The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998: |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:44:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. The U.N. agency on climate change used surveys from mountain climbers to claim as fact that glaciers were receding. But then that "scientific method" to promote world wide restrictions to redistribute wealth was proven to be false manipulated data and the U.N. had to backtrack on claims. If glacial ice is receding in certain areas, isn't it also expanding in other areas? Pretty sure I have read it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:48:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... ?? The graph comes directly from the fraud's website. sorry man, but you're not going to be able to get around that one--even phil jones acknowledged that there has been an 17 year "pause" in the instrumental warming trend--no statistically significant warming since '97. this has been attributable to "weather not climate", but the climate frame is generally accepted as 20 years. so in a couple of years, this becomes a major data point that is really damaging to model-based projections. and i have to say that your ad hominemingering here WRT monckton. it doesn't matter whether or not he's a fraud--what matters are the data and metadata. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:58:20 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If glacial ice is receding in certain areas, isn't it also expanding in other areas? Pretty sure I have read it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but it doesn't change the physical reality that there is less ice. If glacial ice is receding in certain areas, isn't it also expanding in other areas? Pretty sure I have read it is. the above is specifically in relation to glacier park. you're right that there have been some gains in the cryosphere. IIRC, most of these are in antarctica, as far as you can get from the vast majority of GHG emissions. given atmospheric circulation patterns, AGW theory calls for impacts in the northern hemisphere first. understand, i'm not saying that AGW is happening--i'm still unconvinced that it is more than a minor phenomenon--merely that it can't be dismissed out of hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 9:58:35 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
sorry man, but you're not going to be able to get around that one--even phil jones acknowledged that there has been an 17 year "pause" in the instrumental warming trend--no statistically significant warming since '97. this has been attributable to "weather not climate", but the climate frame is generally accepted as 20 years. so in a couple of years, this becomes a major data point that is really damaging to model-based projections. and i have to say that your ad hominemingering here WRT monckton. it doesn't matter whether or not he's a fraud--what matters are the data and metadata. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... ?? The graph comes directly from the fraud's website. sorry man, but you're not going to be able to get around that one--even phil jones acknowledged that there has been an 17 year "pause" in the instrumental warming trend--no statistically significant warming since '97. this has been attributable to "weather not climate", but the climate frame is generally accepted as 20 years. so in a couple of years, this becomes a major data point that is really damaging to model-based projections. and i have to say that your ad hominemingering here WRT monckton. it doesn't matter whether or not he's a fraud--what matters are the data and metadata. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 10:00:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right now we are more than 3 degrees F over the 1901–2000 average. Doesn't seem like much, but do you feel better when your temperature is 98.6, or 102? The earth has warmed and cooled many times. What's different about this time is the rate of change and the level of CO2. If you want the actual science in layman's terms, NASA has a great website: http://climate.nasa.gov If you're really, really into it, our National Academy of Sciences has published a paper on it. So have the National Academies of every nation that has one. Global warming is, along with evolution and genetically modifed foods, a subject where popular opinion and the scientific consensus differ dramatically. I have no "proof" that either side is right or wrong, but I will say that if I had a brain tumor I would consult neurosurgeons rather than the internet. if I wanted to send a space probe to Saturn, I would consult NASA rather than Arfcom. In the end, it doesn't matter if you "believe" in climate change. It will be what it will be. Besides, you and I probably won't live long enough to have to deal with the population displacements and competition for resources that will result from it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My point is that the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for thousands of years in vast temperature swings but the left is panicking over a change of .6 of a degree over the last 100 years. Right now we are more than 3 degrees F over the 1901–2000 average. Doesn't seem like much, but do you feel better when your temperature is 98.6, or 102? The earth has warmed and cooled many times. What's different about this time is the rate of change and the level of CO2. If you want the actual science in layman's terms, NASA has a great website: http://climate.nasa.gov If you're really, really into it, our National Academy of Sciences has published a paper on it. So have the National Academies of every nation that has one. Global warming is, along with evolution and genetically modifed foods, a subject where popular opinion and the scientific consensus differ dramatically. I have no "proof" that either side is right or wrong, but I will say that if I had a brain tumor I would consult neurosurgeons rather than the internet. if I wanted to send a space probe to Saturn, I would consult NASA rather than Arfcom. In the end, it doesn't matter if you "believe" in climate change. It will be what it will be. Besides, you and I probably won't live long enough to have to deal with the population displacements and competition for resources that will result from it. Your 3 degrees is complete bullshit! And there are going to be wars over "resources" no matter what we do. Modern civilization is completely dependent on oil, and when it starts running low, there will be war. Even if humans were causing climate change (they are not), the problem will correct itself when WW3 happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 10:06:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... ?? The graph comes directly from the fraud's website. sorry man, but you're not going to be able to get around that one--even phil jones acknowledged that there has been an 17 year "pause" in the instrumental warming trend--no statistically significant warming since '97. this has been attributable to "weather not climate", but the climate frame is generally accepted as 20 years. so in a couple of years, this becomes a major data point that is really damaging to model-based projections. and i have to say that your ad hominemingering here WRT monckton. it doesn't matter whether or not he's a fraud--what matters are the data and metadata. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Again: ..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby. Land vs sat data. Cooked vs uncooked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 10:13:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... ?? The graph comes directly from the fraud's website. sorry man, but you're not going to be able to get around that one--even phil jones acknowledged that there has been an 17 year "pause" in the instrumental warming trend--no statistically significant warming since '97. this has been attributable to "weather not climate", but the climate frame is generally accepted as 20 years. so in a couple of years, this becomes a major data point that is really damaging to model-based projections. and i have to say that your ad hominemingering here WRT monckton. it doesn't matter whether or not he's a fraud--what matters are the data and metadata. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. the pause is well-established in the literature: scholarly papers--many free PDFs so at the very least, this is a problematic question. jones ran one of the 4 global temp databases, and for him to acknowledge the pause was a watershed event. it would be like C everett koop saying that abstinence is only partially effective at preventing pregnancy. the worst denial trope is "those data must be lies because so-and-so is a liberal marxist treehugger who wants us all to worship goats and redistribute wampum". that's the wrong way to go about things, and merely substituting monckton for mann doesn't make it good method. the only way to figure out what is actually going on is for everyone to insist on good method. so don't be one of the guys who uses bad method. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
