ted.com — Photographer James Balog shares new image sequences from the Extreme Ice Survey, a network of time-lapse cameras recording glaciers receding at an alarming rate, some of the most vivid evidence yet of climate change.
Sep 9, 2009 View in Crawl 4
swickenSep 9, 2009
If you asked a scientist if there is gravity, he/she would say 'yes there is gravity'If you asked a scientist if the earth rotates around the sun, he/she would say yes it does.If you ask a scientist if the sun will rise tomorrow, they may say most likely, or probably, because there is always a chance, however miniscule, that it won't.While the chance that we are not impacting climate change is small it's still a possibility. All I said is that people should stop acting as if they have the answer when they can't know for sure. You can't say somethings a scientific fact when it's not a scientific fact.
simpleidSep 10, 2009
Humans pollute far more than CO2, and what I'm suggesting is that the CO2 in itself may not be the reason for the effects we see. What if the CO2 is the CONSEQUENCE and not the CATALYST, in that scenario the current data could still exist. While it is true that CO2 is a green house gas, it sure as hell is not the ONLY one, and it sure as hell in itself is not the only factor in the reason for any level of temperature on our planet.What about ozone? What about the weakening magnetic field which ALSO has been accellerating? You don't think this would allow solar storms and other high energy particles in space to interact CLOSER to our planet? What are the effects of that?I might only be able to think of a handful of things not being well educated well in chemistry, but I know for a fact that there has to be MORE to it and it doesn't seem like that MORE has been given ANY attention or analysis. The fact that you focus SOULY on CO2 tells me in itself that there's something wrong in what you're saying.I'm looking through your references and I'm not seeing compelling evidence that suggests truly thorough research has occurred. I want to see better then that, from more reliable sources - not some journalists articles.I tell you what, I will go do some real research and learn everything I need to understand the material I'll go through, and then I'll decide for myself what the most substantial statements can be made which are objectively true or even just valid to make. I feel most people just extrapolate their assumptions in to utter insanity.
swickenSep 10, 2009
"The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove something, not the people trying to disprove it."I should add I meant in the case where something isn't proven yet. If it's already science fact then disproving it requires proof. Otherwise the burden is on the people trying to prove it.Which is this case right here :)
mwilhelmSep 10, 2009
Of course it's natural. Our bodies are composed of the same chemical compounds as our physical environment.Regardless. The debate we should be having is - what is the responsible thing to do with our waste products. Not whether or not we "caused" global warming. It is irrelevant and at the end of the day will solve nothing.We need to look forward... not backward.This means auto and factory exhaust, chemical processing byproducts, dumping in rivers, sewage waste, kinetic energy waste, everything needs to be examined and we need to develop a market for recycling technologies and become prudent stewards of our environment - or invest in space tech so we can go f**k up another planet, cause global warming or not - based on current trends - this one has about had it
mwilhelmSep 10, 2009
YES. Absolve yourself of all personal responsibility by turning to religion... "God did it and there's nothing I can do about it". So helpless, so naive.That's what I love about so-called "conservatives" all about personal responsibility until it's YOUR turn in line.What a contradiction. If you're sick of hearing about global warming, do something about it. I'm sick of hearing your convenient religious excuses, so I did something about it. I stopped going to church.
vikingcoderSep 10, 2009
> We're not even arguing the same thing.That is correct.> It's still called the THEORY of evolution, not the fact.This is exactly what I'm talking about.> in the case where something isn't proven yetNo scientific theory is *ever* proven, by definition.
axiom0Sep 10, 2009
melting ice woohoo. Keep trying to "save the earth" green movement idiots, it's not gonna happen. And I'm gonna laugh. So is this guy and that guy.
benoldaysSep 10, 2009
"as i have done in the past "------------------------------------------------on 03/26/2009Summery of Greenfyres linksLink 1 - The Climate Models Have it Rightfor a start this link defers the argument to yet another link, then proceeds to discus surface temperatures not modelling. the link that should have been posted is this one:<a class="user" href="http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_0" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_0</a> ...which is just a rebuttal to this study:<a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316</a> ...read them both and decide for yourself, despite greenfyres need to call the authors of the study industry shrills.Link 2 - Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Modelsthis link is irrelevant it offers no evidence for its title and is blatantly misleading.Link 3 - Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitationsthis is a good link to a good study investigating what it says.while is shows how far models have come it also shows how far they have to go.there are still many things missing or represented in a assumed or over simplified waycorrelation with past data doesn't guarantee future "projected scenarios" which is made clear at the start of the last chapter.Link 4 - unreliability of climate models?this is a short blog regarding the findings in this study here:<a class="user" href="http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850/" rel="nofollow">http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850/</a>which the author tries to refute with this study here:<a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316</a> ...personally i find that the first study has more scientific merit. but read both and decide.Link 5 - The 16 Climate ModelsI am puzzled why you would post this link. it discusses theoretical types of climate models, not actual ones.Link 6 - Misleading argument 5: ’Global warming computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable’FTA "It is important to note that computer models cannot exactly predict the future, since there are so many unknowns concerning what might happen."yet they are running ahead with massive taxes which will increase energy and food costs, resulting in the possible deaths of poorer people world over due to starvation and the elements.i find this exceedingly illogical. whos misleading who?Link 7 - Myth: "Climate models don't work. They don't even 'predict' the past."looks into james hansens climate model projections from 1988.we already know that being able to model past events does not guarantee future predictions. the limits of the model to predict more then a few years into the future are clearly evident in the graph. add another 100 years onto the model at the current trends of the scenarios and the divergence would be astronomical. how can policy be implemented on such uncertain grounds.Link 8 - Myth: The scientific models aren't very good at projecting the futurethis made me laugh as it shows a graph of observed temperatures vs modelled temperatures, only it starts in 1850 and ends in the year 2000. i wasnt aware we had climate models 159 years ago.as others have said before me, tweaking a model to fit past trends does not guarantee its future predictions.--------------------------------------------------a few points:a) As i said in the last post i dont have the will or desire to argue your link spam, but the above is from a time when i did.b) There is no straw man fallacy in my argument, im not attacking your position for personal reasons.c) your attempts at insults are still endlessly amusing. You expect adults to make mature intelligent decisions but you seemingly cannot accept these decisions if they are contrary to your view and resort to name calling and insults constantly? Who is being childish here?d) when did i present my opinion as truth? i said the views of this IPCC modeler "supports" my opinion. and further supports the next point.e) from your link "157 of the 619 have signed one of the four 'activist' statements I've identified;" Are we not told that 99% of scientists support global warming theory? settled science? It does not seem that way to me and besides, since when has scientific fact been decided by vote?
bananapatataSep 11, 2009
It would look even more remarkable in HD.(that's a request)
teaboy1Sep 14, 2009
Axiom you are an idiot. It is so convenient for you to proclaim that the scientists are all wrong and everything is going to be fine isn't it? Me? Well if there is just one iota of a chance that all the predictions are correct, (which is looking more and more likely), then I, like all of us, should take this very seriously and make at least some effort to make a difference. It is common sense.
axiom0Oct 15, 2009
No, actually I'm claiming nothing is going to be fine, no matter what.