What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
6 Comments
- vikingcoder, on 07/12/2009, -2/+3Thank you for showing your ideological gullibility & prideful ignorance by pointing to this tripe from the "Friends of Science" site.
http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
The FoS organization has received significant funds from the oil industry while claiming no industry support, and the University of Calgary was used as the unwitting mule for those funds. Once the University discovered this through an audit, they returned the unspent funds and formally refused to accept any funds on the organization's behalf again. FoS was also using funds to support election advertising, rather than research or education.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends ... http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/u_calgary_ ...
This does not refute the 10 claims, but it does show FoS's intent to deceive for political gain.
Many of the references are to the skepticalscience.com site, which provides numerous references to primary peer-reviewed journal papers & datasets. Please address the primary sources, rather than the skepticalscience.com site.
1 & 2) The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo ...
Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/08057 ...
Anybody who points to a "70s global cooling scare" cannot discern popular journalism from scientific reporting. Time and Newsweek are not reliable sources of scientific knowledge.
The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
http://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-sai ...
The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
3) Since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has put out 1.2 trillion tons of CO2, half of that since the early 1980s. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased ~40% solely due to our emissions. That increase can be directly linked to humanity through parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. That is because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil - much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html - table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ... http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vo ... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5725/ab ...
The historical climate cycles were initiated by Milankovitch Cycles, ~41,000 year cycles of orbital alignment - i.e. increased solar intensity, that caused the oceans to warm up. The warmer oceans released CO2 into the atmosphere. The increased CO2 increased the heat retention in the atmosphere leading to warmer oceans and more CO2 release.
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.h ...
4) This is a strawman argument. CO2 is the most common active forcing agent. They admit that CO2 is the most common after water vapor. The distinction is that water vapor is a passive forcing agent due to its short atmospheric lifespan that is on the order of 8-9 days. The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of ocean and air temperature that is described by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Any excess water vapor in the atmosphere is precipitated out, e.g. rain, and any lack is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation. There are no such "quick fix" processes for the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynam ...
5) No such assumption is made. The first quantitative scientific research on the heat retention properties of CO2 were carried out in the late 19th century by Svante Arrhenius. This research has been numerously independently repeated & validated. It has been known for over 50 years that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Ar ... http://books.google.com/books?id=07gOAAAAIAAJ& ... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ZhPS...21..893M http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spec ... http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970s when the modern global warming trend began. The sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 3 decades. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect.
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspot ... http://skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-t ...
6) This is nothing more than an unreferenced allegation; i.e. worthless. Its only value is as a denier talking point, rather than an issue of cogent skepticism.
7) Another strawman argument. They admit that Nitrogen could become toxic, i.e. a pollutant, in high enough concentration. CO2 is no different, except it has further effects that just chemical reactivity; specifically, the spectral absorption referenced above. The hilarious part about this talking point is that it was the focus of a TV propaganda ad run by the CEI.
http://cei.org/pages/co2.cfm http://www.wunderground.com/education/cei.asp
An increased CO2 concentration does a relevant chemical reactivity effect though, acidification of the oceans. The oceans are currently net absorbers of CO2 that take in 7 billions tons each year. The absorbed CO2 reacts with the dissolved calcium carbonate reducing the pH of the water. This has a detrimental effect on key marine organisms, such as corals & some plankton.
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.http:/ ... http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081121_ ... http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860.abstract
8) Yet another strawman argument. "Regional variations may occur." Translation - "No changes will occur, except for those that do." Nihilism does not refute the accumulated scientific knowledge.
http://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warm ...
9) While there is a small percentage of growing glaciers, the overwhelming majority are shrinking. And more importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg - 77% in 2002, 94% in 2003). Pointing to the LIA, which ended in the mid-19th century, does not explain the recent increase in glacier melting.
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html http://www.nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html http://skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-gro ...
10) Internal ice thicknesses are increasing as total ice mass is decreasing. This is exactly as expected as increased heat will cause increased evaporation which will result in increased precipitation. i.e. the center gets thicker which the edges melt away.
Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
From February 2003 to January 2008, Greenland lost mass at a rate of 179 Gigatonnes per year. The rate is also increasing over time, suggesting an acceleration of mass loss.
http://skepticalscience.com/Latest-satellite-data- ...
Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarcti ...
A comprehensive study of Antarctica’s ice confirms that the polar cap is shrinking. In 2006 alone, Antarctica lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080113/full/news.2 ...
The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching east Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century".
While East Antarctica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antarctica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. As well as melting, Antarctic glaciers are accelerating further adding to sea level rise.
http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice ... - sphira, on 07/12/2009, -4/+4greenbehindtheears
Talk to the hand. I will not even bother paying any attention to what you have to offer on the subject. Probably any subject.
I have said what I wanted to say. My lack of respect for you speaks for itself. Believe it or not, though, I do wish for a change of your heart for your own sake. - sphira, on 07/12/2009, -4/+4greenbehindtheears
You are a bile-ologist working for an NGO.
I'll bet you are.
Geez, look at your activities: You are a one-issue digger who is absolutely not a well-rounded connoisseur of science by any stretch of the imagination. Further, you neither have the temperament for science nor the patience, certainly not the couth or impartiality. If you are in the employ of an NGO, there is obvious bias by your financial interests. Are you being paid to rant this subject? I bet so.
Throwing your links around, as you always do, does not make untruth; truth - try these links
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=7e23a550 ...
http://www.switched.com/2009/07/02/epa-may-have-su ...
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468
No Scientist would dismiss so viciously, as you do, erudite opinion that differs from your preconceived "delusional" notions on global-warming. That would make you a liar and a shill; pure and simple.
Period; end of story! - greenfyre, on 07/12/2009, -4/+4Good one! well worth the read ... thanks!
- greenfyre, on 07/12/2009, -3/+2Typical Denier
- I looked at your "evidence" and responded appropriately and intelligently
- you block your ears and close your eyes
Grow up - greenfyre, on 07/12/2009, -5/+4RotFL
i) science is about facts, not "opinion"
(see dictionary.com)
ii) seriously? you're joking.
a) Inhofe's frauds? children debunk those in their sleep
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/inhofes- ...
b) Solomon is a lying idiot
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=La ...
and "The Swindle" is such an appalling piece of ***** it took 176 pages to document all of the distortions, errors, and lies in it
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint ...
The Big Swindle Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
The fauxumentary consists of nothing but industry shills or people taken out of context that was immediately torn to shreds by real scientists
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/george-w ...
It's a joke
c) The EPA story is a stupid hoax
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/carlin-l ...
d) The Fools of Science lies have all been exposed as *****
http://www.lastfrost.com/global-warming-myths-debu ...
e) Horner's crap is a bunch of undocumented claims easily exposed as false by anyone who knows how to use a search engine ... you do know about search engines, don't you?
So do yo have anything that isn't a lie or a fraud?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is