Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[tufsu1]

On another thread, River made a comment that Obama's governing could lead to the destruction of one of our cities...I pointed out that not doing anything about global warming could do that too.

So, I ask you all to think about these two issues...and how they are very similar....

For example, we collect intelligence (and sometimes use our military) as a way to possibly prevent an attack that may or may not happen....

So, maybe we could continually study and develop policies that would prepare us to combat the effects of global warming, if they were to occur.

[tufsu1]

River...you pointed out the 1998 outlier on the graph and used it to justify your statement that temps have been cooling over the past 10 years...but if you look from 1999 - 2007, that is not the case...

so let me explain how one makes projections and forecasts...

You look at a past data points and then calculate the trend line covering those data points....and the more data points you have, the more reliable the trend line is (since it minimizes the effects of outliers)....then you extend that trend line into the future.

For example, traffic counts go up and down every year...and sometimes you see a decline for several years in a row (like 2007, 2008, and probabaly 2009) but over the course of the last 50 years, the trend line went up...so we would forecast/project traffic in the future to increase.....kind of like what you say about the stock market.

So, please do that with the graph and let us know what it shows!

[jandar]

The climate always changes.

When I can find reports from the majority of scientists & meteorologists (that are not paid by grants from any government or entity) that claim global warming is happening and is man made then I will start thinking it may be so.

Many of the scientists that people tout as having proof of global warming are granted by governments to research global warming. No AGW, no research grant.

Why is it that the majority of meteorologists still claim no man made global warming?
All we hear about is when a scientist comes out and says no AGW, people quickly delve into his finances to see who is funding him. It goes both ways people.

Just like the PhD on the weather channel who wanted all METS stripped of their AMS seals for daring to think that AGW was not real.

I thought science was coming up with a theory and trying to disprove it. Not changing data and rules to make your theory work.

[jandar]

Wilkins ice shelf breakup caused by undersea volcano?
How dare the media not tell us the full story.




And since we love the use of NASA satellites for temps and ice thickness:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=09&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1951&year2=2004&base1=1951&base2=2006&radius=1200&pol=pol

Notice the heat around the area of the Wilkins Ice Sheet:



Tell me how a warm pocket of water is only around that area and not the rest of Antarctica? It ain't from SUV driving penguins. Notice how the vast majority of Antarctica is actually getting colder every year?

BTW, the Wilkins Ice Sheet (not the entire Antarctica Ice Sheet) is but a mere 0.39% of the ENTIRE ANTARCTICA ICE SHEET.

Thats like a sinkhole happening in Keystone Heights.

[tufsu1]

and the scientists that deny it often have their research funded by oil comapnies and other industries....do you trust them?

[jandar]

and the scientists that deny it often have their research funded by oil comapnies and other industries....do you trust them?

To quote myself:

All we hear about is when a scientist comes out and says no AGW, people quickly delve into his finances to see who is funding him.

[tufsu1]

any increase in global temps will also only be by a small %....maybe a degree or two....but that doesn't mean there aren't significant impacts.

[tufsu1]

I am saying that trend analysis is the most widely accepted method for projection/forecasting....no matter what the issue is!

oh...and well I'm at it, let me take a page from your book....instead of coming back with a smart #*ss comment, how about you do the math and provide the answer!

[downtownparks]

While I dont agree with Gatorbacks conclusions, I agree that I think we will know a whole hell of a lot more by the end of the year. If the sun continues is unusual quiet spell, we may indeed be in a cooling cycle. If so, thats actually really bad for human kind.

[Charleston native]

Precisely, DTP. However, not only would it be bad for human kind, it would be bad for the global warming alarmists. It would further disprove their theory that man is behind the changes in the planet's climate and would showcase them as propagandists.

[tufsu1]

I think that most climatologists and weather folks would concur that trend analysis is an appropriate forecasting tool.

I will agree that we have very little data as compared to the overall life span of the planet....but you have used that data to support your position that the planet is cooling, so why isn't it applicable for the opposite theory?

[NotNow]

Isn't the key here to find and embrace the truth?  If the GW crowd is indeed miscalling the weather pattern, the facts will bear that out and reasonable people will hopefully agree.  If the pattern follows along the GW call over time then once again, why are we arguing?  While I am against the Kyoto type of regulation, I think most of us want to be as ecologically clean as possible.  I would love to see solar cars everywhere but that is not possible yet.  We can use the power of government and economics to encourage the use of solar panels on private homes and businesses and other "clean" energy projects.  Nuclear power is clean and available right now, lets make building nuclear plants economically viable for private interests.  Lets do what we can now, GW or not, and put some resources into HONEST climate research.

[NotNow]

I disagree with the politics of the Kyoto treaty.  To essentially tax the economys of Western Europe and the United States on the THEORY (and it has never been anything other than a theory, no matter who agrees on it) of man made global warming and leave other massive polluters off is wrong, unfair, and unsustainable.  It falls into a redistribution of wealth category as does much of what the UN dribbles out anymore.  As to the research, I have found many of the arguments that GW in a natual phenomenon to have merit.  I am not expert enough to question the work of climatologist, but I have seen many qualified dissenting opinions.  Now, as more accurate and widespread sensors come online, I support continued research.  By dishonest I mean political or self serving.  It would seem that some have turned GW into a business in itself.  The entrance of Al Gore into the argument has encouraged the usual Lib v. Con crap to break out.  My humble non-expert opinion is that more research is needed.  While I would do what I stated in my post, wait for more accurate instruments and time to help the scientific community either support or not support the theory.  Here in America, we have used the power of government to encourage many behaviours that were considered positive, such as home ownership.  Rather than fining or taxing existing industry, we should encourage the use of alternatives that work right now at both slowing the exhaust of what those on your side call "greenhouse gases" and also support the national interests by lowering our dependence on oil.

[Charleston native]

Deep in the Underground Lair of Snarky McNutburger...

LOL. Stephen, you do have a gift for creative writing. Seriously, thanks for writing that. I laugh and smile every time I read it.

[NotNow]

A cute little game Stephen, but I am afraid that you are missing the point of my posts.  While we all want to preserve and enjoy our planet, the UN and Kyoto are not the answer but government encouraged plans could accomplish a lot of our ecological goals and help with our imported oil problem.  Spare me the interrogation.  Spare me your psuedo-intellectual internet education.  Spare me the holier than thou attitude.