Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I think your contributing to the paranoia. Have you had this melting claim peer reviewed? I can tell you for a fact that the wife and I stopped for an ice cream today and we even sat outside of the shop and ate them and they didn't drip a drop! Irrefutable proof AGW is a scam!!!

Not to be pedantic, but not all Icecreams are alike. Last week at some fancy cultural event I purchased an ice cream with five different fruits in it. Real fruit too, none of that flavour enhancer chemicals. And not a single drop dripped. Though, I ate it pretty quick, which just goes to show 'velocity' does come into doplers.

doh! That was another thread.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That has resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 levels

40%? Really? We'd all be dead!

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is absolutely no evidence that anything other "intelligent" species has occupied this planet.

Again pure arrogance! at 3 BILLION years old the last 3 million years represent what... 1/10th of 1 percent? You expect "evidence" of prior intelligent life to last several million years? Of course we cannot explain the construction of the Pyramids, underwater "highways", Earthen sculptures only visible from the air... and much more... or do you think that was the work of little green men from Mars?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Like the RV bumper stick says "We are spending and our children's inheritance. "

BRILLIANT! Exactly my plan!

I stand by my statement that the Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years; it did it before us, it will do it after we're gone. We haven't, nor can, do anything about it.

Global warming is nothing more than a scam... a scam to enrich some people at the expense of others. As you pointed out, you and I will not be around to see this wonderful, new, socialist one world order, where there are rich and there are poor with few in between. Al Gore et al. pontificate about the evils we commit by driving our gas-guzzlers, while jetting all over the world in their own 727! Do you green folks not see the hypocrisy of that? (That was rhetorical)

Oh well, off to work in my Diesel Dually which I leave idling all day so it's cool in there when I get back in

[sparau]

I'm no climatologist or economist so can someone explain how a tax on a limited supply of something will cause economic collapse as some here expect?

Taking Australia for example, many of the mining companies are overseas owned, wouldn't it just make it slightly less profitable for them to remove our resources? Isn't mining highly dependent on the nature of the mineral and it's state in the soil so a tax just moves the goal posts of profit/viability a little in comparison?

Don't we already have laws to at least try and restore the ravished earth which add to costs? Should we remove them too?

So let's say we redistributed some of the money from non renewable resources to creating renewable safe tech, e.g. graphene super capacitors could possibly be made as biodegradable energy storage (they can be made biodegradable now but not sure how things will go in the search for more energy density).

Once you solve the storage issue the whole base power argument of solar/wind/wave generation disappears.

At some point we need to rethink our approach (dead plants won't last forever) and I vote (literally) for making some inroads before things go south (just energy wise, not even talking about climate).

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by capngeo

Again pure arrogance! at 3 BILLION years old the last 3 million years represent what... 1/10th of 1 percent? You expect "evidence" of prior intelligent life to last several million years? Of course we cannot explain the construction of the Pyramids, underwater "highways", Earthen sculptures only visible from the air... and much more... or do you think that was the work of little green men from Mars?

Well that's pure genius. Who'd a thought that you could take the fact that zero evidence exists as actual proof of prior intelligent life? Perhaps you should start your own religion.

And that business about the pyramids and whatnot, well of course we know how they did it. In a lot of cases -- the Nazca lines, for example -- we don't know why. But that's a very different kind of mystery. And also, none of those things predate modern humans, or even come close.

[Lake-Effect]

One development that will be influenced if/as Antarctic ice cover is shrinking:

China’s fishing plan in Antarctica alarms scientists

(just posting a relevant link. I promised I wouldn't rejoin the discussion, and I won't)

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by capngeo

40%? Really? We'd all be dead!



Again pure arrogance! at 3 BILLION years old the last 3 million years represent what... 1/10th of 1 percent? You expect "evidence" of prior intelligent life to last several million years? Of course we cannot explain the construction of the Pyramids, underwater "highways", Earthen sculptures only visible from the air... and much more... or do you think that was the work of little green men from Mars?


BRILLIANT! Exactly my plan!

I stand by my statement that the Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years; it did it before us, it will do it after we're gone. We haven't, nor can, do anything about it.

Global warming is nothing more than a scam... a scam to enrich some people at the expense of others. As you pointed out, you and I will not be around to see this wonderful, new, socialist one world order, where there are rich and there are poor with few in between. Al Gore et al. pontificate about the evils we commit by driving our gas-guzzlers, while jetting all over the world in their own 727! Do you green folks not see the hypocrisy of that? (That was rhetorical)

Oh well, off to work in my Diesel Dually which I leave idling all day so it's cool in there when I get back in

Since jackdale didn't specify from when there was a 40 percent increase, let's assume that he meant from the 'start' of the industrial revolution, say 1800. Well then according to the Australia Institute of Energy,

Properties Air

from the Law Dome ice cores, the co2 level in 1800 was about 280 ppm. 40 percent of 280 is 112. 112 + 280 = 392. According to Scripps Oceanographic Institute,

CO2 Now | Current CO2

the co2 level as of February is 400.26 ppm, so jackdale was a little low on his percentage. Last time I checked I wasn't dead.


Nothing arrogant about requiring evidence for claims. It's called skepticism.

This is evidence of life 400 million years ago. There is nothing to indicate that it could build pyramids, visible from air sculptures or underwater highways, but nonetheless, it still left evidence for its' existence.



Please show us some evidence for these 3 million year old intelligences (but don't include pyramids, ground sculptures or underwater highways, these have all been explained or debunked for years.


How clever to stand by a statement that every one agrees on... Too bad you have to add the little tid-bit (We haven't, nor can, do anything about it) that all the science, and just a little look around, says isn't true.

As far as global warming being a scam to enrich a few at the expense of others, the same thing can be said of the fossil fuel industry. Of course that the highest profit making companies always seem to be fossil fuel companies (and now banks), and not the global warming scamming companies (who or whatever they might be) seems to indicate that your fear of a new world order is a little late. It is here now (well, as much as it can be, it's a complicated world out there...) and goes by the name corporate capitalism and globalization, Do you conspiracy theorists not see the reasons for the shrinking middle class (at least in first world countries)?

I suppose the diesel dually quip is meant to antagonize, because a true conservative (an assumption, I know) surely wouldn't waste money...

[LakeSuperior]

More on the cold fusion. Below are a couple excerpts from a John Cramer article written 6 weeks after the Pons and Fleischmann (P&F) announcement (again my bold.)

"What might be called the "P&F Credibility Coefficient" has gone through wild swings recently. In the past week it (and the stock market) moved in the downward direction. It reached soaring heights of enthusiasm when European laboratories (Hungary, Moscow, Frascati) reported confirmations and other U.S. laboratories (Brigham Young, Brookhaven, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and Stanford) made announcements including some staged press conference spectaculars to announce preliminary evidence in support of the effect. There have been plummets into the depths of depression as some of these confirming results were discretely retracted (by Brookhaven, Georgia Tech, and Texas A&M) and as a growing number of other laboratories revealed their inability to confirm the Utah results. "

Further on in the article.

"Curiously, the F&P controversy has also revealed some fundamental differences in attitude between the community of chemists and of physicists. Physicists, finding the production of fusion energy without radiation too hard to swallow, demanded more information and tended to blame the excess energy on bad measurements and chemical effects (like catalysis of evolved deuterium). Chemists, perhaps placing more trust in the reputations of F&P, tended to scold the physicists for not taking chemical results seriously and revelled in the vision of a tabletop experiment done in a dishpan by two obscure electrochemists that achieved what billions of dollars and decades of research by an army of physicists working on magnetic confinement fusion and plasma physics had not."

Alternate View Column AV-36



In summary, the cold fusion mess was more defined and easier to sort out. The AGW debate not so much. I believe it will take more years than my lifetime to acquire the data and understanding to put the debate to bed.

As we stand now many non-scientists along with a camp of scientists have turned AGW into religion. In fact, the above insight into the cold fusion debacle shortly after the P&F announcement show many of the same features as the AGW science.

The priority for these large laboratories is funding. Without the funding they don't exist and there is no more science for them. The funding pressure is massive.

[jamestholtzinge]

Originally Posted by savoir

Now that's playing with words. I have no idea what academy these guys belong to but there are rather a lot of them disputing IPCC.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

When a government or a person wants something really, really, bad it makes them do things they shouldn't. Similar to Obamacare, "you have to pass it to see what's in it". Don't most Lawyers tell you to read it first? One of the designers of Obamacare came out and said if they told the truth they couldn't get it passed. This climate change is true it is always changing. The cause is the questions. Our Government wants man made Global warming because it fits their narrative for programs they are financing. Our Government won't wait they want it now. So we get Gore's book with falsified data to fit their scenario so it would work. If there is no global warming it all falls apart. They can't tax carbon using Cap and Trade their electric cars they have been pushing aren't necessary, their solar panels and wind generators or renewable energy does not have the urgency it once did. If history serves me right the hair spray can was originally used as a reason for the Ozone layer to be disappearing, or thinning. Then the smog in California was caused by all of the cars which is probably true. Never let a Crisis go to waste, wal la we have the EPA in to fix the Ozone Layer and Global Warming. If your willing to do any thing to get your way in the US Government can you make an overwhelming plea for Global warming. The Canadian Keystone pipeline can be vetoed, all permits for drilling go through the EPA can be denied on Fed. land, all grants for scientific projects go through the Gov. Do the Scientist know how their research is to come out? The US Government says this man made global warming is the number one threat we face in the US today. RED FLAGS, RED FLAGS, AND MORE RED FLAGS. It looks like our US Government has made up it's mind on the debate and will do any thing to swing the circumstances in their favor. Can they overwhelmingly swing the scientist to their view? I think they are trying and will do any thing to win.

[FlightPlan]

[QUOTE=RED FLAGS, RED FLAGS, AND MORE RED FLAGS. It looks like our US Government has made up it's mind on the debate and will do any thing to swing the circumstances in their favor. Can they overwhelmingly swing the scientist to their view? I think they are trying and will do any thing to win.[/QUOTE]

Including cutting off your grant. It's all about the money. And the money buys the votes. Beware of dealing with the government when they hold the pocket book over your head.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by FlightPlan

Including cutting off your grant. It's all about the money. And the money buys the votes. Beware of dealing with the government when they hold the pocket book over your head.

There's untold wealth and fame for anyone who can come up with solid science showing co2 doesn't absorb certain infrared frequencies. Unlikely though, you'd need to throw out most of the last century of science at the same time.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by conachair

There's untold wealth and fame for anyone who can come up with solid science showing co2 doesn't absorb certain infrared frequencies. Unlikely though, you'd need to throw out most of the last century of science at the same time.

But of course there's no need to deny what is obviously true about CO2 because it still requires more than just a bit of a leap of faith to then necessarily assume that a one-hundredth of one percent change in the makeup of our atmosphere causes the energy in our climate to increase up to unacceptable levels.
There's also untold wealth and fame for anyone who can actually prove AGW and the mechanism by which it occurs, and Al Gore is living proof that there's even untold wealth and fame for some people who just make a movie and talk a lot about it without proving anything!

[senormechanico]

More CO2 equals more FOOD for plants to generate O2.
Perfect negative feedback loop.
Where's the problem? There isn't any.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But of course there's no need to deny what is obviously true about CO2 because it still requires more than just a bit of a leap of faith to then necessarily assume that a one-hundredth of one percent change in the makeup of our atmosphere causes the energy in our climate to increase ....................

The basic feedback mechanisms are well understood. Modeling a chaotic system short term and planetary sensitivity to increases in co2 is where the discussions are happening within science.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...er08_FINAL.pdf

If you disagree there are 10 pages of references of peer reviewed work, which papers are wrong?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by capngeo

Exactly my point.. we CAN'T do anything about it because WE didn't create it!

You misrepresent. Laughlin didn't say it wasn't man-made. He said he didn't think we could do anything about it. Again, not the same thing.

You seem to enjoy ham-fisted comparisons ... not exactly what I'd expect from a climate expert such as yourself.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Ham-fisted...Ham Sandwich or Ham Radio.

It's really all the same.