NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'

[86150]

I love it!!!! You people want to see some evidence of the claims I make.
When I post a representative SMALL group of links that support the fact that the whole damn thing is a SHAM, then whatever was posted by me just HAS to be wrong, simply because I disagree with you.

Meteorologists (not simply weathermen on TV but REAL METEOROLOGISTS who actually STUDY the ENVIRONMENT) know their stuff when it comes to the environment. They have actual RECORDS since they have been ABLE to gather ACCURATE data.

So I must have upset your applecart. Sorry bout that.

First off nobody can tell HOW MUCH CO2 was in the atmosphere 65 THOUSAND years ago.
Can ya tell me what they MEASURED THAT WITH back then? Cause I'm betting it wasn't too damn accurate.

These great scientists that claim to do that with the IcePack at the poles have neglected to inform you that this is what led to one of the discoveries of the WW2 airplanes at the North Pole. They took Ice Samples that they claimed were 3-4 HUNDRED years old and about 40-50 feet below that, found a WWII AIRCRAFT!

yeah that is an accurate measurement!

People also fail to realize that the polar ice caps CHANGE with the seasons. And the NOTHERN Ice cap actually had ice over 150 miles FURTHER OUT this year than in years past and actually interfered with GREENLAND'S fishing industry because of the DIFFICULTY in getting through the ICE!

BUT hey NEVER EVER let common sense and FACTS get in the way!!!!

 

[86150]

(Bold added just to highlight a key point)

If anything, the financial incentives are actually now going the other way, to promote innovation of clean technologies. This doesn't mean that scientist are doing this with their own self interests, but as more become more interested, there is more funding to ask more questions and find out more.

The scientific community is by large apolitical no matter what people on this board say, however you do have to consider where the financial funding is coming from (BBSRC v's Shell?). But as scientists, we depend on our reputations more than anything, so are more likely to report findings that self promote without jepordising personal credibility, than to publish a peer review with a funders motivation behind it. Re-calculating the effects, causes and responses to climate change will always continue, as the models on which our predictions are based on will be continually challenged, improved and refined (hence global cooling v's global warming v's climate change)

The economic view of this is the movement of VC money from Silicone Valley into the Biotechnology and renewable energy industries. If you have money to invest, you are far more likely to make a large profit on technologies mitigating climate change technologies (even if you still think it is a hoax) than you would through investment in mineral reserves (oil, coal, gas etc). With national mandates on CO2 emissions, even the big fossil fuel based companies are investing as they know that the pressure of change is inevitable.

YEAH Al Gore makes 200k PER APPEARANCE to "deny" Global Warming.
Why will this guy NOT Debate ANYBODY if his science is so airtight?
Why does his house use such an incredible amount of energy if he is so damn concerned?
Did you know this whole "carbon offset" scam was started by a company that Gore started, chairs and is a part of the board of directors of? YEAH this asshole buys "carbon offsets" from HIMSELF!!!

Keep right on drinking the kool aid, Ever hear of Jim Jones?????

 

[calpoon]

why do I feel a sense of deja vu, like we've all been here before?

Oh well. here it goes again. the fact that scientists thought that we were heading towards global cooling a few decades ago doesn't show that scientists are full of shit, it shows that the pattern of climate change has drastically been altered from it's predictable course, which only further adds to the case of human influenced global warming.

either way, you know it's good that this is scientists final warning- that means we don't have to keep hearing from the right about how it's not happening.

PS. 86150, I may not agree with your position, but I think you nailed Gore dead on.

 

[youwanttoshagme]

I love it!!!! You people want to see some evidence of the claims I make.
When I post a representative SMALL group of links that support the fact that the whole damn thing is a SHAM, then whatever was posted by me just HAS to be wrong, simply because I disagree with you.

Meteorologists (not simply weathermen on TV but REAL METEOROLOGISTS who actually STUDY the ENVIRONMENT) know their stuff when it comes to the environment. They have actual RECORDS since they have been ABLE to gather ACCURATE data.

So I must have upset your applecart. Sorry bout that.

First off nobody can tell HOW MUCH CO2 was in the atmosphere 65 THOUSAND years ago.
Can ya tell me what they MEASURED THAT WITH back then? Cause I'm betting it wasn't too damn accurate.

These great scientists that claim to do that with the IcePack at the poles have neglected to inform you that this is what led to one of the discoveries of the WW2 airplanes at the North Pole. They took Ice Samples that they claimed were 3-4 HUNDRED years old and about 40-50 feet below that, found a WWII AIRCRAFT!

yeah that is an accurate measurement!

People also fail to realize that the polar ice caps CHANGE with the seasons. And the NOTHERN Ice cap actually had ice over 150 miles FURTHER OUT this year than in years past and actually interfered with GREENLAND'S fishing industry because of the DIFFICULTY in getting through the ICE!

BUT hey NEVER EVER let common sense and FACTS get in the way!!!!

Really? Ice at the poles moves??

North pole =Yes
South pole = Not totally true.

The ice sheet formed on the South pole around 40 million years ago and depending where abouts on the ice sheet the measurements are taken, the age of the ice does vary. However, as there is a solid land mass under the south pole, the friction between the land mass and the ice keeps the ice relatively stable. This is why in a certain section of the ice, they are developing the neutrino detector IceCube and have been conducting the AMANDA experiment there for several years.

As a result of this, the ice core that we can take from these stable areas will contain small residue pockets of air that when thawed are released and measured in a massspec. The results looks for distinguishing historical markers (usually know eruptions, distinction event etc) and the carbon isotope ratios to determine the age. All of which allows us to determine historical CO2 levels.

 

[tubuler]

First off nobody can tell HOW MUCH CO2 was in the atmosphere 65 THOUSAND years ago.
Can ya tell me what they MEASURED THAT WITH back then? Cause I'm betting it wasn't too damn accurate.

Actually, scientists CAN tell how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 65,000 years ago. By analyzing trapped air bubbles (containing snapshots of the atmosphere when the ice was formed). They can count the layers of ice, just like the rings in a tree, to date things. Here's a fairly easy to understand article on the process:

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

So... wrong again 86150. Looks like your making that a habit.

 

[Facial_King]

James Hansen is a whack job propagandist with a special interest and everybody in those circles (ha ha) know it. :thefinger And no, he himself is not the collective embodiment of NASA.

Special Interest . . Special Interest . . Special Interest.

Nothing new under the sun, moon and stars lol !
There's always going to minority percentage of people who appear dogmatic in the belief that global warming actually exists, however, it's the ends that they seek. They're the type who are miserable because there are others more well to do than themselves.

:nanner: Red Diaper Babies :bowdown:
Bring it all down man !
Got an xtra joint ?

I guess it's official, the definition of "special interest" has simply become "anyone with a viewpoint".

Oh god, this thread is depressing...

:bawling:

For those interested in the methods and psychology of the climate change deniers, check out this blog (they've got a great list of links to anti-denialism blogs & sources, too)

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

 

[Member2019]

The "problem" ...

... This past February 28 a camera onboard the NASA satellite Aqua caught a Manhattan-size floating piece of ice shelf in the act of disintegrating ... The breakup is the latest of seven major Antarctic ice-shelf collapses in the past 30 years, after some 400 years of relative stability ...

Okay, here's the problem I have had and continue to have, especially being someone who tracks the 40 year gulf stream cycle.

We didn't have these sensory capabilities 30-40 years ago.
And many people are wholly ignorant of air and water currents.

Just a few years ago we had the "most named storms ever."
But a little history lesson will take you back to the '60s and '20s with almost as much, but we didn't name storms until we actually ran into them.

Our sensory technology capabilities in the last 30 years have allowed us to completely monitor everything.
What used to escape the chance encounter is now always caught.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do believe we are "warming up" and that's not good.

But the "doomsday" stuff is based on the last 30 years or so with sensory technology compared to far reduced (or none at all) prior.
When you look at the last 100 years, remembering that we did produced a lot more than just CO2 in the 30+ years of the 20th century (especially nitrates and sulfides), the trend is far more realistic.

 

[86150]

Actually, scientists CAN tell how much CO2 was in the atmosphere 65,000 years ago. By analyzing trapped air bubbles (containing snapshots of the atmosphere when the ice was formed). They can count the layers of ice, just like the rings in a tree, to date things. Here's a fairly easy to understand article on the process:

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

So... wrong again 86150. Looks like your making that a habit.

YEah and that is WHAT THEY WERE DOING when they found those planes from the early 40s in that "Hundreds of years old" ice!!!

I give up! Alll you people are right ... THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LET'S ALL PANIC!!!!!!!!

 

[calpoon]

Ok, to those that don't think global warming is real or severe, fair enough. We've heard a lot from the GW camp about what we should do, so what do you think we should be doing?

So it's not the end of the world, but you can't deny that pollution is bad. so what should we do? should we just do nothing? If it's not a problem now, do you think that it will never be one?

also to those that talk about increasing domestic energy resources (generally in reference to nuclear and fossil fuels) and how this is being limited, you act like we are not doing that now and that we haven't done it at all in the last 30 years. That is not the case, they have always been increasing, there's never been a time when we've stopped developing these things, we just aren't doing so as much as some people call for, and THAT is the reason why I think that they are ineffective. Like I said we have these things in increasing, and they have never done anything to stop an increase in price or energy problems. To keep doing what doesn't work and offer the assurance that it will if we just stick to it, that doesn't sound like my idea of practical.

 

[titsrock]

Meteorologists (not simply weathermen on TV but REAL METEOROLOGISTS who actually STUDY the ENVIRONMENT) know their stuff when it comes to the environment. They have actual RECORDS since they have been ABLE to gather ACCURATE data.

So I must have upset your applecart. Sorry bout that.

86150, there are great "weathermen" and than there's John Coleman. This guy is a goofball. I used to live in San Diego. Don't take my word for it, go to San Diego and quiz citizens and ask them what they think of him. THey all will say "He's funny but 'So-and-so on Channel X' is much better"...

Do you have a statistic which shows where the majority of meteorologists reside on the global warming debate? My guess is 80% believe it is a true phenomena and we must address it.

Why should Al Gore debate someone on Global warming? He's not running for office. Al Gore's an excellent debater, of course, and he'd clown John Coleman. Do you really want to see a goofball weatherguy walk off the tv set in tears?

Who is a more "learned" critic of global warming?

 

[bombardier52]

86150, there are great "weathermen" and than there's John Coleman. This guy is a goofball. I used to live in San Diego. Don't take my word for it, go to San Diego and quiz citizens and ask them what they think of him. THey all will say "He's funny but 'So-and-so on Channel X' is much better"...

Do you have a statistic which shows where the majority of meteorologists reside on the global warming debate? My guess is 80% believe it is a true phenomena and we must address it.

Why should Al Gore debate someone on Global warming? He's not running for office. Al Gore's an excellent debater, of course, and he'd clown John Coleman. Do you really want to see a goofball weatherguy walk off the tv set in tears?

Who is a more "learned" critic of global warming?

I spent a good amount of time seeing if I could come up with a statistic on how many meteorologists believe in man made global warming. I could not find a real break down. I did find plenty of articles and stories online that went both ways. For sure the numbers are skewed towards believing that man is causing warming. But there are plenty of those that believe that it is not. The point, I think, is that it is not "settled science." There are smart people out there on both sides of the argument.

I tend to believe that events like the medieval warming period and the Roman Climate Optimum which had much higher temperatures than today, and the little ice age which had the coldest temperatures since the last ice age are natural occuring events. IMO that wacky sun thing has more of an effect on our climate than anything man has done.

 

[FlyingWallaby]

Does he mean like a REAL last Chance, or like a Saddam Hussein/Yassir Arafat last Chance?

 

[Violator79]

I believe what George Carlin said: the Earth has been here for billions of years. Humans have been here what...a couple hundred thousand? What does the Earth do when it gets pissed at us? Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, etc. The Earth heals itself and gets rid of pests, which is what humans are. And if I'm not mistaking, doesn't the Bible say that the Earth will be destroyed by FIRE, after the MILLENIUM that occurs after Christ returns(if you believe that)?

 

[General Warcock]

I agree with Carlin's assessment of the situation. It is illogical to me for people to even want to deny the evidence of global warming, man made or otherwise, because the outcome of the theory would be, or would hopefully be, to steer civilization in a better direction. The more I think about it though what are the chances that a bunch of dirty monkeys are going to be able to decide on anything besides who should have the most bananas?

I should add that the right wing in the U.S. has developed some rather clever rhetoric in the past century. They either straight out lie or blame the left for something to avoid the issue at hand. It's incredibly effective mainly because of how bafflingly stupid it is.

 

[DreamSparrow]

Furthermore - Why should we worry about this issue when we know that the world government {illuminoti :eek:} is effectively working on a clandestine plan to rid 2 / 3 of human life on earth.

Are you for real... ? I hope this is supposed to be sarcastic. The conspiracy theories and outlandish ideas on Freeones just keep on coming, don't they?

So, do you also believe George Bush is really a reptilian humanoid from outer space who's simply inhabiting a human body? I've heard that many purveyors of the Illuminati conspiracy theory also believe this... (and no, I'm not kidding.)

 

[Member2019]

I should add that the right wing in the U.S. has developed some rather clever rhetoric in the past century. They either straight out lie or blame the left for something to avoid the issue at hand. It's incredibly effective mainly because of how bafflingly stupid it is.

And the left doesn't do the same?

In reality, both are fucking up the planet as fast as they can while nothing changes. Popular environmentalism is as dangerous as status quo, both change the environment for the worst.

Nuclear fission has always been the way forward for a century. Unfortunately the only country that realized this was the French. How ironic.

 

[General Warcock]

And the left doesn't do the same?

Not from what I've seen.

 

[l.t.21378]

Has anyone figured out yet that Global warming is a myth?

 

[Facial_King]

I spent a good amount of time seeing if I could come up with a statistic on how many meteorologists believe in man made global warming. I could not find a real break down. I did find plenty of articles and stories online that went both ways. For sure the numbers are skewed towards believing that man is causing warming. But there are plenty of those that believe that it is not. The point, I think, is that it is not "settled science." There are smart people out there on both sides of the argument.

I tend to believe that events like the medieval warming period and the Roman Climate Optimum which had much higher temperatures than today, and the little ice age which had the coldest temperatures since the last ice age are natural occuring events. IMO that wacky sun thing has more of an effect on our climate than anything man has done.

Here are some good links that deal with the scientific consensus on the issue:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

Which is part of this excellent warehouse of information that addresses just about every denialist objection that I've ever come across:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Wiki also has a good section on scientific opinion on climate change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

With this choice tidbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." - which is footnoted and sourced.

as well as this, regarding the Holocene Optimum:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/215043/37

and this, which addresses the Little Ice Age and the like:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/23557/437

and this, which addresses "that wacky sun thing":
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666

Finally, if one wants to know what (American) meterologists think (at least most of them), a good thing to check is this statement by the American Meterological Society, the group that gives those seals of approval to well-qualified TV weathermen/women, and said weather forecasters are usually all-too-happy to note it before or after their forecast every day...:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

Just a highlight:
"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."

Seems reasonable to me.

:glugglug:

The argument that scientists going with the consensus are just following the money trail is ludicrous. Frankly, the biggest money to be made these days is by being part of the denialism industry and its corporate sponsors. The denialists get a really disproportionate amount of attention compared to their actual numbers among those in the relevant scientific fields who agree (wholly or for the most part) with the consensus view. Here's a great field guide to recognizing corporate lackeys (who generally have little to no science background) trying to highlight the "doubt" disproportionately, and the actual scientists who are simply trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158798&cid=13301230

:2 cents:

 

[youwanttoshagme]

Hmmmm,.

Just skimmed quiet a few of the last few posts. Very quickly, I can discount a lot of the citations straight away. If it ends in a .com or .org, I have my suspicions, although I will look at the origin first. If it ends in a .tv, I ignore it straight away. If it ends in a .edu, and to a lesser extent, .gov, then I'll pay attention. And Wiki is notorious for wrong information, and is a flat fail in nearly every respected journal.

Moral of the story; Only cite reliable references and web links.