MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Russian scientists are evacuating a research station built on an ice floe drifting in the western Arctic Ocean because global warming is melting the ice early, a spokesman said.

The North Pole-35 station, where 21 researchers and two dogs live in huts, will be pulled out this week instead of late August, said Sergei Balyasnikov of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St. Petersburg.

"The evacuation is ahead of schedule because of global warming," Balyasnikov said.

i dont think people are denying that global change is happening but rather that humans are the cause of it. i think it's a natural cycle the earth goes through.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i dont think people are denying that global change
> is happening but rather that humans are the cause
> of it. i think it's a natural cycle the earth
> goes through.


Global Warming is a myth spawned by left wing radical extremists. If anything, we're headed for another ice age. There is lots of evidence. Global warming people think everything is global warming. If your dry cleaning gets mixed up, then they think that is part of Global Warming too.

Richmond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i dont think people are denying that global
> change
> > is happening but rather that humans are the
> cause
> > of it. i think it's a natural cycle the earth
> > goes through.
>
>
> Global Warming is a myth spawned by left wing
> radical extremists. If anything, we're headed for
> another ice age. There is lots of evidence. Global
> warming people think everything is global warming.
> If your dry cleaning gets mixed up, then they
> think that is part of Global Warming too.


Gravis-

Based on Meade's response, I rest my case.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis-
>
> Based on Meade's response, I rest my case.

you havent even made a case to start with.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

There's alot of confusion and uncertainty around the issue...

But, one thing that is known for sure is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and for the past hundred years we have been storing excessive amounts of it in our atmosphere.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gravis-
> >
> > Based on Meade's response, I rest my case.
>
> you havent even made a case to start with.


Global warming is real. Human activity is contributing to it (you can argue by how much). There really is no debate about it.

Global warming and cooling are natural cycles. Not impacted a bit by carbon dioxide. It has been proven. Gore and his cult are fools.

Not a greenhouse effect Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global warming and cooling are natural cycles. Not
> impacted a bit by carbon dioxide. It has been
> proven. Gore and his cult are fools.


Er, it hasn't been proven at all.

For example, most of the "natural cycles" people like to point to are tied to solar activity. However, sun activity has been muted during the period of increased warming. To the contrary, CO2 levels are at the highest level they have been in tens of thousands of years. In fact, they are predicting that the North Pole will have no ice at some point this year....the first time in human history!

The greatest contributor to CO2 levels is human activity. The oil and coal we burn, the forests that are burned in South America and Africa to create farmland, a whole host of human activities contribute to the CO2 levels and warming.

The oil companies have been on a large PR offensive to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of consumers. Unfortunately this "reasonable doubt" may kill us for short term profits.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For example, most of the "natural cycles" people
> like to point to are tied to solar activity.
> However, sun activity has been muted during the
> period of increased warming. To the contrary, CO2
> levels are at the highest level they have been in
> tens of thousands of years.

you mean like the when the polarity of the poles change every 20,000 years?


> In fact, they are
> predicting that the North Pole will have no ice at
> some point this year....the first time in human
> history!

let's be perfectly clear here. human history is a blip on the earth's history. im sure this has happened before and it will happen again. however, if the poles ice completely melts this year, ill send you are fresh 100 dollar bill. would you dare to make a counter bet?


> The greatest contributor to CO2 levels is human
> activity.

wrong.


> Unfortunately this "reasonable
> doubt" may kill us for short term profits.

the human race has it coming.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Not a greenhouse effect Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global warming and cooling are natural cycles. Not
> impacted a bit by carbon dioxide.

You're half right -- there are "natural" global cooling and warming cycles caused by many factors, some known (precession of Earth in its orbit, asteroid impacts, etc), some not so clear. But there is no question that CO2 levels follow temperature trends. For example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg

So does increasing temperature cause CO2 to rise, or is it vice-versa? Well I'll spare you the science but CO2 increasing will increase global temps -- that's based in scientific fact.

Referring back to the linked plot again, look at the arrow on the right showing current CO2 levels -- far greater than in the past 650,000 yrs. This plot: http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/co2_temp.jpg zooms in on the last 1000yrs. The trend is clear. So why is CO2 increasing dramatically since ~1885? Industrialization and man's unprecedented use of fossil fuels? Or perhaps it's just a bizarre atmospheric composition change for which there's no apparent cause, the likes of which has not been seen in climate records dating back millions of years?

So while there may be some underlying "natural" cycle that's enhancing global climate change -- that's quite possible -- there's absolutely no question that man has increased CO2, which in turn significantly increases global temperatures. This honestly isn't part of some crazy liberal agenda. It's just scientific fact and if you don't trust science then you should probably stop watching TV, using your car, visiting the doctor, taking medication, using electricity, cell phones and GPS, and get off the internet because it all shares a common foundation.

Scientist Wrote:
>> This honestly isn't part of some crazy liberal agenda.


Exactly.

John McCain himself authored legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions, and touts a plan to combat global warming. Paleo-conservative Pat Robertson has even spoken out about the need to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This is no longer a "liberal" agenda.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For example, most of the "natural cycles"
> people
> > like to point to are tied to solar activity.
> > However, sun activity has been muted during the
> > period of increased warming. To the contrary,
> CO2
> > levels are at the highest level they have been
> in
> > tens of thousands of years.
>
> you mean like the when the polarity of the poles
> change every 20,000 years?
>
>
> > In fact, they are
> > predicting that the North Pole will have no ice
> at
> > some point this year....the first time in human
> > history!
>
> let's be perfectly clear here. human history is a
> blip on the earth's history. im sure this has
> happened before and it will happen again.
> however, if the poles ice completely melts this
> year, ill send you are fresh 100 dollar bill.
> would you dare to make a counter bet?
>
>
> > The greatest contributor to CO2 levels is human
> > activity.
>
> wrong.
>
>
> > Unfortunately this "reasonable
> > doubt" may kill us for short term profits.
>
> the human race has it coming.


Gravis and his little world of deny...deny...deny! A perfect little republikan...and a psycopathic one to boot. Imagine being judge and jury on the entire human race. Gravis...you are the only one that "has it coming".

Scientist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Referring back to the linked plot again, look at
> the arrow on the right showing current CO2 levels
> -- far greater than in the past 650,000 yrs.


im interested in learning how they are obtaining this information. btw, wikipedia and science have little to do with each other so please dont reference it for "facts".


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
> im interested in learning how they are obtaining
> this information. btw, wikipedia and science have
> little to do with each other so please dont
> reference it for "facts".

It's mostly ice core data that gives the best climatological records but they can get good stuff from rocks, preserved trees, ancient sediment beds, etc. Of course, the error bars are much larger on data that's prior to "manual" recording, but it's still of good enough quality that the conclusions drawn are basically correct.

I used wikipedia purely out of convenience for that plot. I've seen that data several times and on this occasion wikipedia has it right. There's nothing wrong in pointing to "facts" on a web page if you know them to be correct but I'd certainly never use wikipedia for a subject I'm shaky on.

Scientist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's mostly ice core data that gives the best
> climatological records but they can get good stuff
> from rocks, preserved trees, ancient sediment
> beds, etc. Of course, the error bars are much
> larger on data that's prior to "manual" recording,
> but it's still of good enough quality that the
> conclusions drawn are basically correct.
>
> I used wikipedia purely out of convenience for
> that plot. I've seen that data several times and
> on this occasion wikipedia has it right. There's
> nothing wrong in pointing to "facts" on a web page
> if you know them to be correct but I'd certainly
> never use wikipedia for a subject I'm shaky on.


i cant say im convinced but do find it refreshing that someone actually points to some data. it's not the end of the world though, even if it does mean the annihilation of 99.9999% of the world's population. perhaps the world could use a fresh start. :)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

2:40 for the good stuff

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> i cant say im convinced but do find it refreshing
> that someone actually points to some data.


Jesus! This was all covered in "An Inconvenient Truth." Yes, Al Gore has a tendency to use hyperbole and piss people off. But the basic data he is referring to is essentially correct.

it's
> not the end of the world though, even if it does
> mean the annihilation of 99.9999% of the world's
> population.

I figured Gravis would appreciate this version...or not.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> For example, most of the "natural cycles" people
> like to point to are tied to solar activity.
> However, sun activity has been muted during the
> period of increased warming.

Sun activity has been muted? Even the most alarmists of climatologists have pointed out that sun activity has played a large part in warming trends. Both CO2 and the sun feed off of one another. Greater solar activity heats greenhouse gases more intensely. If solar activity were at a low point in the cycle, the temperature rise would be negligible. This isn't an argument that greenhoues gases are innocent, but we should keep in mind what a greenhouse is and how/why it works. Periods of lesser solar activity will not heat greenhouse gases as quickly - that is the scientific fact. Is CO2 a problem? Absolutely. It is a problem because you don't want it there when the sun is at its hottest. But, when the sun is less active, it is less of a problem.

Not a sceptic, but a realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Sun activity has been muted?

Yes. We have been in a decade-long "Solar Minimum," with decreased solar flare activity...

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1474917/is_something_wrong_with_our_sun/

Even the most
> alarmists of climatologists have pointed out that
> sun activity has played a large part in warming
> trends. Both CO2 and the sun feed off of one
> another. Greater solar activity heats greenhouse
> gases more intensely.

Yes. And solar activity has been at a low-point for a decade. There is absolutely nothing in the current solar cycle the corresponds with increased warming.

If solar activity were at a
> low point in the cycle, the temperature rise would
> be negligible.

It is at a low point. How do you reconcile this??? There is no debate about it.

This isn't an argument that
> greenhoues gases are innocent, but we should keep
> in mind what a greenhouse is and how/why it works.
> Periods of lesser solar activity will not heat
> greenhouse gases as quickly - that is the
> scientific fact. Is CO2 a problem? Absolutely.
> It is a problem because you don't want it there
> when the sun is at its hottest. But, when the sun
> is less active, it is less of a problem.

Then explain why the Earth is warming as quickly as it is if solar activity is at a low?

The right-wing whack-jobs should have read up on current solar activity before buying into this bogus theory. I have a theory called Intelligent Design I want to sell you.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:04PM by Alias.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Then explain why the Earth is warming as quickly
> as it is if solar activity is at a low?

That would require me taking your theory and accepting it as fact. The fact is that you have one group saying it is at a low and just as many saying we are coming off of a high. Even NASA says we hit a high in '01 (well within your decade of Solar Minimum) Firther, what is the hottest year on record? 1998. Right during the last cycle. Finally, how come Mars and other planets/monns are warming? You probably know this to be true, but choose to ignore it. Look, Greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are problems and should be reduced. However, the rate of reduction, which can be responsible and can be measured so that jobs aren't lost and our economy doesn't tank or it can be alarmist to the point of tanking economies. Your choice. Go responsible and measured or go alarmist and have record unemployment and civil strife.

*sigh* There's a jumble of statements now being thrown around, about 75% of which are true, but most of which are being used well out of context. (Unfortunately much of the blame for the confusion lies at the feet of us science folks, who tend to throw poorly written stuff into the media and then wonder why people don't get it)

OK, so donning my lecturing hat once more... The sun has an ~11yr cycle of "activity" and right now we happen to be at the very minimum of one of the current cycle (the last maximum being in 2001/2002). This page -- http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/ -- illustrates this quite well. The "active" sun is full of bright regions, magnetic loops, etc, and constantly throws up huge ejections of material. BUT... and this is crucial... the sun's 11yr cycle appears to have negligible affects on Earth's climate. The radiative output of the sun (the energy it sends to Earth) only increases very marginally at solar maximum -- not enough to influence global climate in any significant way.

But... the sun might also have much longer timescale cycles -- ones that aren't yet fully reflected in our data sets (you need to actually look at the sun and count sunspots to reliably determine solar activity, so we only have records back to the ~1600s for this). There's certainly indirect evidence for a long-term decrease in solar activity in the 1400~1700s corresponding to globally cooler temperatures (the so-called "little ice age"). We haven't been taking the appropriate data of the sun for long enough to determine what's going on there, and so you will see/hear very mixed reports from scientists about this.

The bottom line still remains: man has dramatically increased global CO2 levels, and increased CO2 leads to a warmer atmosphere. There may be other stuff going on that's out of our control, but CO2 levels aren't. While being something of a troll, "Not a sceptic" makes a fair point: "Go responsible and measured or..have record unemployment and civil strife." To stop our current CO2 output, we'd have to do something really dramatic -- economy-changing dramatic, globally and at home. Short-term it would be very ugly. But we've pushed ourselves into a corner because if we don't do something dramatic now, we're really, seriously fucked (that's a scientific term) in 100yrs, and our current woes will seem like nothing.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian wrote:
>
> "The greatest contributor to CO2 levels is human
> activity."
> __________________________________
>
> That is a lie.
>
> Humans are responsible for less than 5% of the CO2
> levels.
>
> Why do liberals lie?

Where do you get that from? Where is your citation?

Look at it this way. We get our energy by burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are composed of organic matter going back hundreds of millions of years. In the span of about 100 years, we have burned and put into the atmosphere more than half of all organic matter that ever existed in the history of the Earth. How the hell can that NOT have an impact on the atmosphere???

Alias also believes that democrats are in a conspiracy with Islamic jihadists and that some Renessaince fair wacko is a leading expert on the health care industry. His input on any issue is bound to be rife with crazed, unexplainable stupidity. He's like an FU version of Charles Manson.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias also believes that democrats are in a
> conspiracy with Islamic jihadists and that some
> Renessaince fair wacko is a leading expert on the
> health care industry.

LOL!!! that's the best post all week!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

=



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:04PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....believes this ‘medieval fair wacko’ is the
> leading expert on health care.
>
>
>
> Meeper, the lying pervert, lies once again. I
> never said she was the leading expert on health
> care. Just how stupid are you?
>
> This ‘medieval fair wacko’, earned a Ph.D. from
> Columbia University in English and Comparative
> Literature and founded the Institute for Medieval
> and Renaissance Studies at the City College of
> New York.

No medical degree? Check.

She was also a frequent lecturer at the
> Metropolitan Museum of Art, speaking about life
> in the Middle Ages.
>

No medical experience? Check.

> A libertarian, she was interested in politics and
> policy, earned her law degree in her late 50’s,
> and began a second career as a health-care policy
> analyst.

With no medical background.

>
> Meeper, you have to be one of the biggest asses I
> have ever had the misfortune to come across. Your
> jealousy and hatred of the upper classes oozes
> from every pore in your body.

Once again my name gets omitted. I'm starting to feel like Homer Simpson to the FFU's Monty Burns.

LOL, I can't believe he really wants to get back into this....

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL, I can't believe he really wants to get back
> into this....




Alias

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:53PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
>>and in this case, a Jew.
> You are a bigot. This isn't the first time you
> have shown your disdain for Jews.


Man you are one crazy motherfucker!

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are a bigot. This isn't the first time you
> have shown your disdain for Jews.
>
>

Wow. I mean WOW!

I guess that means I have disdain for my Jewish relatives.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This ‘medieval fair wacko’, earned a Ph.D. from
> Columbia University in English and Comparative
> Literature and founded the Institute for Medieval
> and Renaissance Studies at the City College of
> New York.

City College of NY. The same place that slimeball Rangel is trying to start a Masters program with his name on it?

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:52PM by Alias.

\]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:51PM by Alias.

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:48PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. I mean WOW!
>
> I guess that means I have disdain for my Jewish
> relatives.
> __________________________
>
> Yes. You'd sell out your mother for your cause.
> You hate Jews.

Please point to any post I have made on this site where I have disparaged the Jews. You can't because I haven't done it.

Please point to any point I have made on this site at any point. You can't, because I haven't done it.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please point to any point I have made on this site
> at any point. You can't, because I haven't done
> it.


What's your point?