Another blow to global warming...

out of your element wrote:

so in order for there to be a real, observable trend, the ice would have to hit a new record low every single consecutive year? do you really think any real-world statistics are that nice and neat? also, it's called climate change because "global warming" is an outdated, gross over-simplification of the long term climatic effects of increased greenhouse gas concentration. what weird gratification do you climate-change deniers get out of trying to disprove this phenomenon anyway? i don't get it.

Because some of us think that the earth warms up and the earth cools down, in natural cycles, in all likelyhood related to the source of all energy on earth, the sun. Just like it has for the last billions of years. And to extrapolate that man is causing a catastrophic, irreversible warming trend because we have improved civilization through the use of oil in the last 100-150 years gives some of us reason to question the "science".

And I love your rationalization that the terminology has become "outdated"!

Let us not forget the chicken little story folks.

I agree. I only believe the stuff I hear about global warming that I hear from Limbaugh or Hannity; in other words; I DON\'T BELIEVE IT! It\'s a left wing boon doggle.

Al Gore sabotaged that satellite this morning - it conveniently failed to reach orbit, then plunged into the ocean near Antarctica. The satellite was to have more accurately monitored CO2 levels. Now ~$300 million is sittin' on the bottom of the ocean and some number of people will be unemployed. I had a friend who worked on a different satellite support team - their satellite fell from the sky, no satellite to support, no job.

in my element wrote:

Let us not forget the chicken little story folks.

Ah, yes. The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit. Wikipedia hit the nail on the head.

well, you are clearly not in your element on this one. no one is denying that the earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling. the only people denying anything here are "some of you", who for some reason seem to find it unfathomable that human civilization's recent release of hundreds of billions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases could possibly have any effect on the atmosphere. let's try some more scenarios along your lines of thinking... "just because we have improved civilization over the last 100 years by building more houses and clearing more land for livestock doesn't mean we've caused any serious damage to the rainforest... man hasn't caused any serious damage to rivers and their ecosystems by dumping toxic waste and chemicals into them for decades... just because i dropped that match in some dry brush in california or australia doesn't mean i caused a catastrophic forest fire, it's just part of the natural cycle, right?" it's just soooo incomprehensible that little old man could do anything to the great big earth. do you take this shit personally or something? no one is telling you to sell your car and your house and go live in a lean-to eating fruits and nuts. just take your head out of your ass and acknowledge that just maybe the progress of our civilization has had some side effects and it might be a good idea to look into how we can minimize those side effects.

Wow, I had no idea I said all that! I must be pretty smuckin fart!

Translation: "Look, if I were smart enough to think for myself I would have pulled my head out of my ass a long, long time ago."

in my element wrote:

out of your element wrote:

just take your head out of your ass and acknowledge that just maybe the progress of our civilization has had some side effects and it might be a good idea to look into how we can minimize those side effects.

Wow, I had no idea I said all that! I must be pretty smuckin fart!

You wrote:

"It shows that Earth may not be getting warmer as the alarmist want us to believe"

Sounds like you summarized the article here. If so your way off. If your saying the OP interprets this article as Earth may not be getting warmer, well then so be it. It does not say that.

Climate change is real. And yes, recently (relative) the increase in global temp is due in part to Humans.

PS. Capitalizing words is sometimes used as emphasis.

Thanks for reiterating what I already said. I simply was refuting her acknowledgment that because from 2007 to 2008 the ice melted less that it concluded that there wasn't a trend showing the ice melting more.

Furthermore, you are saying 30 data points isn't enough to tell us whether we are trending downward? Very true, we have no idea the context we are in relative to an absolute min or max, but with the data collected from 30 consecutive years we certainly can know whether we are trending down, up, or just ranging. From the data we could also possibly determine whether we are approaching a relative min or max. All from these miniscule 30 data points.

Like I said, I do not have an opinion whether global warming is real or not. Nor do I feel like we can prove it with 30 years of data. But with 30 data points you can certainly come to conclusions regarding trending.

I realize that you were trying to refute her point and I agree. However, 30 years tells you nothing about cycles that occur over tens of thousands of years (which with sea ice or climate change is the time frame that matters). For all we know sea ice was at a 10,000 year max in 1978. If that's true then we're probably nowhere near a minimum.

Seriously, i wish there was global warming. I live in Baltimore, and the last few weeks I've been freezing my ass off. Al Gore, when will your prophecies come true. I'm waiting patiently with my summer wardrobe, but it's tooooooo coooollllddddd outsiiiiide!!!!

let me help you with this - an intact skeleton of a mammoth near l.a. was just dug up and at one time south dakota was buried under a sheet of ice 1 mile thick.

Global warming is a scam and so is running on any other surface with the exception of concrete.

monkey lovin wrote:

let me help you with this - an intact skeleton of a mammoth near l.a. was just dug up and at one time south dakota was buried under a sheet of ice 1 mile thick.

Yes and 1000 years ago the Vikings had viable farming in Greenland and called Newfoundland Vinland because of all the wild grapes growing there.

let us agree on this.... wrote:

Let's forget about that and agree on this: people from both parties want a cleaner, safer environment right?

That's one point I absolutely would disagree with you on. Most Republicans could not not care less about the environment. Under Bush, the EPA was an absolute joke: they buried data that showed pollution getting worse and warming trends of the planet, fought for every law that the business community wanted and the people who cared about the environment did not, stifled CA and other states that wanted to raise gas mileage standards for vehicles sold in their state, made exceptions in their laws for SUV's to be treated as trucks as far as minimum mileage standards, and only pretended that they cared about the environment. It was disgusting, but yet republicans cheered all along the way.

Republicans mock any and all attempts to protect nature. I think they consider nature the enemy, and any businessman a god who can do no wrong and would never do harm to the environment on purpose (BUT.....if he does somehow pollute the world, oh well, what is good for business is good for all).

It's absurd. Green technologies are clearly going to be needed going into the future , global warming or not. Why ? Because air pollution already kills 1000's and 1000's around the globe and is only getting worse, oil is a finite resource, and many oil-controlling nations are NOT our friends and we are enriching their totalitarian states with our business. So why wouldn't the US want to be a leader in a technology that will be needed, will clean up the planet, stop global warming (and you can say "if it exists" if it really makes you feel better), and stop enriching our enemies?? There is no good reason why not except that there will be some initial costs to developing the technologies.

Yet Republicans mock these ideas as pansy liberal BS, and the evil design of the devil himself, Al Gore. What is wrong with republican dimwits?? THEY are the alarmists, saying that if we move to towards curbing pollution and green-house gases the economies of the world will be destroyed and we will all be living in caves because of it. THAT is alarmist and total BS. Creating technologies in the US to clean up our planet can only benefit our finances, our citizens' health, and improve us morally, because we will know we did the right thing.

But go ahead, mock it all, you happy idiots. Because if ignorance is bliss, 'til folly to be wise.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Most Republicans could not not care less about the environment.

back off typo police, that was an accidental double negative in there, so I am not saying that Republicans could indeed actually care less about the environment than they already do.

(but just as posters on this thread decided to throw out all global warming evidence because of one mistake by one group, then these same posters can dismiss my entire post because of that typo. See, that was easy!)

THEY are the alarmists, saying that if we move to towards curbing pollution and green-house gases the economies of the world will be destroyed and we will all be living in caves because of it.

I think it has more to do with personal liberties and limiting our freedom than economics. I will never drive a tin can in the name of the environment. I will never vote for someone who wants to force me to, either.

Same goes for wind power. Never gonna' do it. Why? Because it is unreliable, expensive, requires tons of maintenance, and they are ugly. What right do politicians and environmentalist tell me how to live?

!@#$% wrote:

PS - Global temps ARE increasing.

Global temps are rising in the winter, and dropping in the summer.

Either way, global temps are still much cooler than they were in the Dark Ages. If we have anything to worry about, it's pretty far off.

I'd say that denying climate change is right up there with believing the Earth is flat...

The evidence for SIGNIFICANTLY outweighs the evidence against. If you profess to use any measure of logic, you simply cannot choose to believe or disbelieve anything based on your own personal preference and/or insecurities; you have to go with the evidence. Although it bears keeping in mind that evidence is dynamic.

...but seriously, do you really think that 99% of the academic community is WRONG on this issue, and that, somehow, you are smarter than all of the high-level scientists that dedicate their lives to the objective pursuit of scientific truth regarding the natural world?

...I'd say that the chances of that are pretty low... just "betting the field" here, you know....