hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 15, 2012 14:58:11 GMT -5
Well, OK. Fair enough. If they are both odd to you, then yes, they are similar in that way. It kinda' sorta' seemed like you were drawing a little more equivalence than that, though. Just my hunch. And they both attempt to deny science.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 15, 2012 15:36:54 GMT -5
Actually, those are not at all similar. In virtually any way. You mean, other than the fact that they are both odd to me? Box, clearly you're just not enlightened enough to see how they're related. BTW, kc, is Box related to Boz, a frequent poster to this and other HoyaTalk forums? That's what happens when you're typing on your iPhone as the car is moving. ;D
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 15, 2012 15:55:56 GMT -5
And they both attempt to deny science. Aaaaaannnnd there it is. In case you've been sleeping, there's actually quite a bit of research and data that questions a LOT of the models and predictions that have become de rigeur for the AGW proponents. So my question is: why are YOU a science denier?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 15, 2012 16:21:16 GMT -5
You mean, other than the fact that they are both odd to me? BTW, kc, is Box related to Boz, a frequent poster to this and other HoyaTalk forums? That's what happens when you're typing on your iPhone as the car is moving. ;D You best not have been driving! All I know is I was about to make a joke about global warming and it being 71 degrees in October here in NY and it dropped 10 degrees and started pouring in the last ten minutes. I'm abandoning this thread.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 15, 2012 18:36:03 GMT -5
Well, OK. Fair enough. If they are both odd to you, then yes, they are similar in that way. It kinda' sorta' seemed like you were drawing a little more equivalence than that, though. Just my hunch. And they both attempt to deny science. Like the science of conception?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 1, 2012 8:57:20 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 1, 2012 11:19:27 GMT -5
Not to worry. Henry Waxman wants to have hearings on it.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 2, 2012 16:27:59 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Nov 2, 2012 16:32:43 GMT -5
From The Scientist Magazine (by Kevin Trenberth):
In many ways, Sandy resulted from the chance alignment of several factors associated with the weather. A human influence was also present, however. Storms typically reach out and grab available moisture from a region 3 to 5 times the rainfall radius of the storm itself, allowing it to make such prodigious amounts of rain. The sea surface temperatures just before the storm were some 5°F above the 30-year average, or “normal,” for this time of year over a 500 mile swath off the coastline from the Carolinas to Canada, and 1°F of this is very likely a direct result of global warming. With every degree F rise in temperatures, the atmosphere can hold 4 percent more moisture. Thus, Sandy was able to pull in more moisture, fueling a stronger storm and magnifying the amount of rainfall by as much as 5 to 10 percent compared with conditions more than 40 years ago. Heavy rainfall and widespread flooding are a consequence. Climate change has also led to the continual rise in sea levels—currently at a rate of just over a foot per century—as a result of melting land ice (especially glaciers and Greenland) and the expanding warming ocean, providing a higher base level from which the storm surge operates.
From New Zealand, Kevin Trenberth is a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He has been heavily engaged in the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), where he currently chairs the Global Energy and Water Exchanges (GEWEX) program, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for which he shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Nov 23, 2012 18:23:19 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 24, 2012 20:30:47 GMT -5
What does this have to do with global warming?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 12, 2012 17:45:38 GMT -5
Video of massive iceberg calving event:
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 12, 2012 19:00:41 GMT -5
Video of massive iceberg calving event: Cool.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 12, 2012 19:27:24 GMT -5
Why don't you man-made global warming/climate change people ever show data showing the growth of the ice in the Antarctica?
|
|
derhoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 584
|
Post by derhoya on Dec 12, 2012 21:40:27 GMT -5
www.inquisitr.com/361308/antarctic-ice-expanding-from-global-warming-scientists-say/"NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati, an expert on ice, agrees, but says: 'Scientifically the change is nowhere near as substantial as what we see in the Arctic. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be paying attention to it and shouldn’t be talking about it.'” www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/nov/HQ_12-409_Ice_Sheet_Sea_level.html"In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica. " Ed - maybe look a little deeper? Whatever you wanna call it, melting/more C02 in atmosphere = bad. If there is more melting than freezing cumulatively (freezing in South < melting in north) then increasing sea levels will only be worse. Also, the temperature of the sea is slowly increasing because it's absorbing more CO2 that's floating around in the atmosphere (you tell me how that got there). This absorption results in the reduced density of water molecules and mean even more sea level increase.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 13, 2012 11:46:17 GMT -5
Maybe the increase in CO2 is because there are more people on the earth exhaling it. Solution? Plant more trees. Of course this would not pay the salaries of those committed to the current warming theories. Or maybe the slight warming (which mostly has disappeared over the last decade) is due solely to the activity of the sun. like previous periods of warming.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 13, 2012 13:08:59 GMT -5
I don't understand the global warming debate.
The majority of the scientific community finds it to be a reality. Scientists who reject it are very often tied to fossil fuel industry interest groups. The idea that the science is questionable on one side because scientists needs a self-sustaining justification to fill their research coffers just doesn't carry the same weight as people who are literally paid to 'find' problems with the theory.
Why do conservatives have an issue with global warming? How does that mesh with the general conservative ideology? It seems to mesh only because the large business interests that are a part of the conservative movement have succeeded in making it part of conservatism. Ignore the fact that this is purely a financial interest with them, it just HAPPENS to match up with what is right and wrong.
How on earth did this become a 'value' in discussion? It's science. By its definition it will always be imperfect and incomplete, that is how science works. Constantly adjust and refine to get as close to the truth as possible. As the scientific community has done that, it finds that man-made global warming is a generally accepted scientific theory. Not liking that is not the same as refuting it.
'Maybe it's this...' is fine but don't act like that's a scientific response. Maybe this or that can be done to anything outside of a purely controlled environment.
|
|
derhoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 584
|
Post by derhoya on Dec 13, 2012 15:17:55 GMT -5
Maybe the increase in CO2 is because there are more people on the earth exhaling it. Solution? Plant more trees. Of course this would not pay the salaries of those committed to the current warming theories. Or maybe the slight warming (which mostly has disappeared over the last decade) is due solely to the activity of the sun. like previous periods of warming. Ed, you're joking right? When you exhale, it's only like ~5% CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing). The warming trend may have plateaued a bit from 2001-2011, but that plateau occurred even while record temperatures were reached resulting in the highest average temperature for a decade ever recorded (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9708144/Doha-Global-warming-is-slowing-down-says-Met-Office.html)
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 2, 2013 9:03:02 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 2, 2013 9:32:24 GMT -5
First of all, you linked to a 404.
Second of all, do you seriously think that Alaska isn't experiencing warming, or are you just throwing s against the wall because you saw this on Drudge or a gun board or something? I mean that's literally one of the dumbest claims made in this forum.
I want to bring my kids there in the next 10 years so they can catch the Exit Glacier before it disappears.
|
|