If climate change folks want to be taken more seriously, stop making stupid #$@ articles like this.

[Guy Threepwood]

What I find most effective in countering the argument that GW isn't happening is pointing to real climate
change seen by people who are so affected by it, particularly ancient arctic environment types, eg, Inuit.
(We used to call them "eskimo". I don't know why, but now we don't.)
Their experiences are more persuasive than all the scientific data because they're independent of political agendas.
I find it really changes some minds....they actually agree that it's occurring.
Then the only controversy is about the effects, what to do & how quickly.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/584
Living With Climate Change In The Arctic


Several Nunavut residents offer insights into what can be done. Atagutak Ipeelee notes that bigger boats would better navigate the strong winds and improve the safety of hunters during the late-spring narwhal hunt. In Igloolik, Abraham Ulayuruluk would like to see subsidies that would allow hunters to buy the extra gas, food, tents, and other supplies they need in the face of changing conditions. This includes funding for more safety equipment, including satellite phones and GPS units, as well as affordable insurance to cover equipment lost or damaged in climate-related hunting accidents. !!

Ironically by far the biggest threat to polar bears- is natives practicing their ancient tradition of going out blind drunk on snow machines and picking them off with long range rifles, If you buy this c**p, you cut Atagutak a check for his hunting trips!

I'm on the side of the wildlife here!

 

[Revoltingest]

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/584
Living With Climate Change In The Arctic


Several Nunavut residents offer insights into what can be done. Atagutak Ipeelee notes that bigger boats would better navigate the strong winds and improve the safety of hunters during the late-spring narwhal hunt. In Igloolik, Abraham Ulayuruluk would like to see subsidies that would allow hunters to buy the extra gas, food, tents, and other supplies they need in the face of changing conditions. This includes funding for more safety equipment, including satellite phones and GPS units, as well as affordable insurance to cover equipment lost or damaged in climate-related hunting accidents. !!

Ironically by far the biggest threat to polar bears- is natives practicing their ancient tradition of going out blind drunk on snow machines and picking them off with long range rifles, If you buy this c**p, you cut Atagutak a check for his hunting trips!

I'm on the side of the polar bears here!

Polar bears rule!
I dislike the idea that wildlife will become less interesting as our population expands ever more over the planet, displacing interesting environs & critters.
As for subsidizing arctic dwellers.....get a job, ya entitled (albeit unlucky) muktuk munchers!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Polar bears rule!
I dislike the idea that wildlife will become less interesting as our population expands ever more over the planet, displacing interesting environs & critters.
As for subsidizing arctic dwellers.....get a job, ya entitled (albeit unlucky) muktuk munchers!

yes I don't envy them, I have had a few climate related accidents myself!

but I don't expect Atagutak to pay to put AC in my house because he contributed to global warming- way too many people stand to receive prize money from this theory

I agree- the biggest single multiplier of any environmental concern is population growth right? & by far the best way to slow pop growth is encouraging growth of wealth- and hence smaller families with it. Rather than the invariably draconian alternatives.

i.e. as nature lovers , shouldn't our #1 concern be for a thriving economy?

 

[Revoltingest]

yes I don't envy them, I have had a few climate related accidents myself!

but I don't expect Atagutak to pay to put AC in my house because he contributed to global warming- way too many people stand to receive prize money from this theory

I agree- the biggest single multiplier of any environmental concern is population growth right? & by far the best way to slow pop growth is encouraging growth of wealth- and hence smaller families with it. Rather than the invariably draconian alternatives.

i.e. as nature lovers , shouldn't our #1 concern be for a thriving economy?

I'm not so confident that a worldwide booming economy will curb pop growth.
I expect that it'll eventually be addressed by other & more discomforting means.

 

[illykitty]

I'm just going to leave this here...

 

[metis]

(We used to call them "eskimo". I don't know why, but now we don't.)

Because it was a name given to them by some of the Amerindian tribes adjacent to them that thought they were weird for "eating raw meat", which is what the word "eskimo" means.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That ice is way less than 3 ft thick- unless that man is 20ft tall!?

It's about two feet thick. And it's very possible they knew where to surface at.

That's what these climastrologers were looking for!

Getting stuck in ice is a challenge that sailors have faced since the Arctic and frozen Northern seas have been sailed. Should it stop happening it may be way to late to save our selves.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But climatologists almost nearly unanimously agree that our carbon emissions, industrial and living habits, and our practice of burning fossil fuels are indeed causing the Earth to warm up. So am I supposed to believe that all of these people are not sane, or believe that they probably know what they are talking about because they study the subject, they are well schooled in the subject, and have access to information and data that those outside of their field do not?

I don't think anyone is really disputing credentialing here. Bear in mind there are others with the same level of expertise and qualifications that harbor alternative assessments over climate change suggesting It's more a natural based than it is a manmade based issue.

It's the lack of pertinent measurable data made available that seems to be a real sticking point.

Like asking and answering what is the present concentration of greenhouse gases as it stands now? Are there areas where higher concentrations are detected? It it enough to affect the atmosphere in the way it's purported to be? If so, how much is too much and what is the threshold?

All that's presented so far that I can see is theoretical modeling and meteorological data.

If there is any reluctance to release any actual real world figures like present atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas coupled with estimates of what humans are actually producing, it sends a message that the nuances over our climate perhaps is something more political than direct matter of fact science.



It would be really nice to see some realtime data on what humankind is cumulatively putting out compared to what is actually required to initiate global warming and where we stand as to the primary causes, seeking out well defined solutions if there are any, to bring things back in balence if possible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm just going to leave this here...

Don't disagree in principle, but what's the out of pocket expenses and how much are people making off of environmental profiteering?

Just a thought. ;0)

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it was a name given to them by some of the Amerindian tribes adjacent to them that thought they were weird for "eating raw meat", which is what the word "eskimo" means.

I thought it meant a frozen ice cream treat?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All that's presented so far that I can see is theoretical modeling and meteorological data.

the theory of evolution is essentially a theoretical model based on speculation, theoretical models, and biological data.

Like asking and answering what is the present concentration of greenhouse gases as it stands now?

Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration1 Recent tropospheric concentration2 GWP3(100-yr time horizon) Atmospheric lifetime4(years) Increased radiative forcing 5 (W/m2)

Concentrations in parts per million (ppm)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 2806 395.47 1 ~ 100-3004 1.88

Concentrations in parts per billion (ppb)
Methane (CH4) 7228 18939/17629 28 124 0.49

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 27010 3269/3249 265 1214 0.17

Tropospheric ozone (O3) 2371 3372 n.a.3 hours-days 0.40

Are there areas where higher concentrations are detected?

It it enough to affect the atmosphere in the way it's purported to be? If so, how much is too much and what is the threshold?

Yes, it's ongoing. As I said earlier there is no "x carbons = y temperature increase," but with the data we do have, with the things we are seeing, we have the evidence to establish that the Earth is warming up, and based on what we know about how our weather functions, one thing is going to lead to another that is going to lead to another. It's kinda like chemistry, really.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

the theory of evolution is essentially a theoretical model based on speculation, theoretical models, and biological data.

exactly, we agree on something here!

such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact as Mark Twain said

this is a picture of smog... often confused with CO2, this is particulate pollution, entirely different, it contributes to cooling, not warming

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm just going to leave this here...

And there you have it, people don't question the 'problem' if they think the solutions are good ideas anyway,

the problem can be cooling, warming, changing, whatever happens to be going on, it doesn't matter, the 'solutions' are the only thing that stays the same

 

[dust1n]

Become too laughable to take seriously.

By the way, do you ever plan on addressing any my posts or responses at all? Or do you just explicitly ignore all things contrary to your preformed opinions bolstered with cherry picked references and use of no empirical evidence ever?

You're not only not right, you are not even wrong, as they say...

 

[Thief]

What I find most effective in countering the argument that GW isn't happening is pointing to real climate
change seen by people who are so affected by it, particularly ancient arctic environment types, eg, Inuit.
(We used to call them "eskimo". I don't know why, but now we don't.)
Their experiences are more persuasive than all the scientific data because they're independent of political agendas.
I find it really changes some minds....they actually agree that it's occurring.
Then the only controversy is about the effects, what to do & how quickly.

and they should know....they can spot 57 different kinds of snow.

too bad we can't ask polar bears.
(where's Wee Wee when you need him?)

 

[Thief]

That's what these climastrologers were looking for!

that's a laugh.....good one!

a couple of years ago a large 'shelf' broke loose from the Antarctic (it had a name)
the ice bergs floated out into shipping lanes and warnings were dealt.
(it was a large event)

did the shelf reform?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not so confident that a worldwide booming economy will curb pop growth.
I expect that it'll eventually be addressed by other & more discomforting means.

well you maybe right, I hope not- there are many who seek a communist style limit on familes,

that's a laugh.....good one!

a couple of years ago a large 'shelf' broke loose from the Antarctic (it had a name)
the ice bergs floated out into shipping lanes and warnings were dealt.
(it was a large event)

did the shelf reform?

the more the southern ice cap cools and grows, the more ice reaches further north- it's interesting because Antarctica is the polar opposite- (in more ways than one! ) than the arctic-

Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by ocean-
And the arctic is an ocean surrounded by land masses

So the two often have opposite reactions to various natural climactic cycles- The net result from a shrinking arctic sea ice and growing Antarctic sea ice- is zero acceleration in a sea level rise (as IPCC concedes) that has been occurring long before human technology. a slight deceleration if anything.

Worth remembering also- that between the two- the southern pole represents a VASTLY greater percentage: 90% of ALL Earth's ice.

And in the north, the vast majority of what ice is there- is on Greenland, over a MILE thick in places, NOT the tiny amount of sea ice which is only couple of feet thick


i.e. arctic sea ice, represents an utterly miniscule and insignificant volume of ice- and of course has zero effect on sea levels since it is floating anyway

the familiar old pop science trick here, is to use visually impressive arctic sea ice melting - to suggest that a significant proportion of Earth ice caps are threatened! and hence accelerating sea level rise, Nothing could be further from the truth scientifically.

 

[Thief]

so the two hour display of ....An Inconvenient Truth......is all a lie?

 

[metis]

well you maybe right, I hope not- there are many who seek a communist style limit on familes,

the more the southern ice cap cools and grows, the more ice reaches further north- it's interesting because Antarctica is the polar opposite- (in more ways than one! ) than the arctic-

Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by ocean-
And the arctic is an ocean surrounded by land masses

So the two often have opposite reactions to various natural climactic cycles- The net result from a shrinking arctic sea ice and growing Antarctic sea ice- is zero acceleration in a sea level rise (as IPCC concedes) that has been occurring long before human technology. a slight deceleration if anything.

Worth remembering also- that between the two- the southern pole represents a VASTLY greater percentage: 90% of ALL Earth's ice.

And in the north, the vast majority of what ice is there- is on Greenland, over a MILE thick in places, NOT the tiny amount of sea ice which is only couple of feet thick


i.e. arctic sea ice, represents an utterly miniscule and insignificant volume of ice- and of course has zero effect on sea levels since it is floating anyway

the familiar old pop science trick here, is to use visually impressive arctic sea ice melting - to suggest that a significant proportion of Earth ice caps are threatened! and hence accelerating sea level rise, Nothing could be further from the truth scientifically.

This is from NASA:

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said. -- https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum [underlining is mine]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

communist style limit on familes,

A model of a communist family is one where division of labor is equal rather than gender-based, husbands do not get the majority power by default (nor do wives), and, obviously, China's one-kid policy has nothing to do with communism but the fact that they have a very large population. If Western families experience a reverse in trends, and the number of kids per family increases, such measures may become necessary here if the population gets too large.

the more the southern ice cap cools and grows, the more ice reaches further north- it's interesting because Antarctica is the polar opposite- (in more ways than one! ) than the arctic-

That doesn't disprove global warming because the median Earth temperature is still increasing, and global warming does not predict that everywhere will warm, but rather that some will warm, some will cool, but the overall median for the whole planet will be going up, and it has been.