Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mve0v3thjs1aqjgbls4jgp0o6rppsgvfds@xxxxxxxxxx
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:68c0v3p54ae3gkn8o4f4u17toidc8pa3t3@xxxxxxxxxx
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ck90v3p6np1ttnn0fpb0cjls7vujgl8okb@xxxxxxxxxx
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:X1VHj.52699$yk5.13975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Misc-DB3555.14523630032008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <BjQHj.7975$QW6.5696@trnddc07>,
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Apparently this happened in the 1980s as well. I don't decry
global
warming...just about how much we're truly contributing towards
it.
CigarBaron

Well consider that the ice in question, 250 square miles in area
and
1
mile
thick, is estimated to be more than a million years old and it is
just
now
melting, that says a lot about what has been happening in the last
30
years.

I think the point, actually, is to question just what, exactly, it
says
about what has been happening in the last 30 years!

That would be an unprecedented even. Nowhere in the geologic
history
has
such instability been recorded in as little as 30 years, it
usually
has
been
in the order of tens of thousands of years.

* Geologic history is RIFE with incidents on a far bigger scale in
much
shorter time frames. The Earth is a rather unstable planet.

* 250 cubic miles of ice over 10s of 1000s of years isn't
"instability",
it's just "ice melting."

And it's not even melting (it never gets over 0C) - it's CALVING,
then
it
drifts into warmer waters.

* Try not to get too impressed with big numbers. If the Earth were
the
size of a decent apple (like a big red delicious, let's say), the
amounts by which you're so impressed are smaller than the hole you
would
make with a shirt pin. No, it's not "nothing", but neither has the
apple been peeled...

"The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in
area,
which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic icecover (just
0.003%
of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow
and
ice
covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest
satellite
images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the
broken
pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an
amazing
60%
ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set
a
new
record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second
highest
level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979
and
just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6
months
ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year's
record
[for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the
false
impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear," -
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo

(Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather
Channel,was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services
International
Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological
Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.)


Ya know Tom, you really should start the lecture circuit. Invite all
those
lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. You could do
a
lot
to straighten this whole controversy out. Your talents are just
wasted
with
this crowd.

Paul


You see, Paul, this is where the credibility of the Anthropological
Global Warming people gets called into question. The above are facts
that fly in the face of their preconceived idea.

Then you add in these verified scientific facts:

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Of the remaining 5%, CO2 is 3.6%
Of that 3.6%, man's contribution is only 3.2%, or 0.12% of the total.
Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse
effect.
Additionally, adding CO2 to the air provides rapidly diminishing
returns. While CO2 warming is pronounced at low concentrations, the
higher the concentration gets, the less and less effective CO2 is as a
greenhouse gas. The relationship is non-linear.
Human activity has grown exponentially over the past century, yet the
consensus model of global warming is approximately linear-going
backward as well as forward. This is completely nonsensical.

Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature
has dropped over the last 10 years

Not true at all. It has been rising steadily for more than 30 years.
IN
fact it is .9F higher now than it was 10 years ago. Think about it,
Mickey,
.9F does not sound like a lot but you are talking the entire planet and
you
must think how much energy that requires. Plus atmospheric instability
is
a
rising problem and that is a direct cause of warming. You don;'t need
huge
jumps in temperature for very serious changes in climate to occur.

Yes, true. Cite:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

"This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing
temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983
level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface
temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years
of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as
was previously claimed, but 1934."


You have claimed you believe in GW just it not being man made. And now
you
laim the opposite. If we are cooling you have a lot of explaining to
describe how in such a cool state we are losing million year old ice.


With all of this evidence against them, they refuse to debate the
issue, insisting that we take it as a matter of faith.

The science is out there and available - but since you categorically
reject
it before you even know what or where it is you *assume* they want you
to
just accept it.

You are completely wrong. I am open to new facts. Every new verifiable
fact I see, goes against AGW.


No, every "fact" that is fed to you because you are not qualified to know
fact from fiction. That's a fact. You aren't a scientist and you've
probably never so much as had a science course in college. I as a bio
major
for a couple years and while I am no scientist that little exposure makes
it
very easy for me to see where you get your information from.

Paul, I do not have to have spent time in the conformity factory you
call college to have critical reasoning skills, or the ability to
determine the difference between a fact, an opinion, or
unsubstantiated wish-fulfillment.


Can your extreme bias be any more profound? You come back and talk science
when you know what science is and how it works. And I got news for you, you
ain't going to learn about it where you're looking. You go calling colleges
conformity factories and yet you rile against them when they do not conform
to right wing rhetoric. For such a vile institution you have to admit some
mighty fine things have come from them.

So cram your "appeal to authority", bub.

It's not an appeal to authority. It's a fact. What amazes me is the
intensity and the obstinant insistance that you have it all down, and all
this GW crap is just a load of shit from greedy eggheads.

Tell ya what, you define in your own words climate versus weather. No
Googling. Just do it. Then you tell me how many calories it takes to raise
the temperature of 1 gallon of fresh water from 76F to 86F at sea level.
It's a very simple equation but one very important to climatologic and
meteorologists amongst others. And I learned how to work it in a
"conformity factory." Yes. You show me how you can correlate atmospheric
physics with oceanic chemistry when you can't even read the equations. I've
had 3 semesters of calculus and I can't make heads or tails of that stuff.
I rely on that information being explained to me by people who can, and so
do you. You just choose which information you will accept and your
conclusions are entirely predictable.

But I'd settle for the names of those you hold in such high regard. I am
certain they have very clear and obvious industry connections.

And don't forget that it wasn't until the 70s that the "theory" of plate
tectonics was finally settled. Up until then many people qualified to speak
on the subject utterly rejected it as foolishness and the mutterings of
bozos. Until they couldn't any longer that is.

And if you could *ever* express you opinion on this subject without dragging
Al Gore into it and spewing the same right wing lies and innuedo you'd do a
whole lot to increase your respectability as an unbiased scientific
observer. If I had to choose between appealing to authority and appealing
to a lamebrain straw man which do you think I'd choose?

Paul


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
    ... it's just "ice melting." ... lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. ... Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse ... Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
    ... it's just "ice melting." ... lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. ... Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse ... Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
    ... it's just "ice melting." ... lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. ... Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse ... Plus the recently verified fact that the Earths overall temperature ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
    ... it's just "ice melting." ... lame scientists who are just so worked up over nothing. ... Global Warming people gets called into question. ... Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Smoke one for the Wilkins Ice Shelf
    ... "The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, ... (Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather ... Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 0.12% of the greenhouse ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)