An inconvenient Absence
-
here's the facts.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/...iew_OISM150.pdf
notice the direct correlation between air temps and solar activity. Direct. And we know that no one was conspiring behind the scenes to hide data.
I don't understand how anyone can argue with this.
:neutral_face: -
like i said post up the data from an accredited source and than post its reviewed status from something like Nature or any internationally recognized scientific organization instead of spouting some opinion well...... than maybe your on to something.
Like I said the NSA and Nasa must be made up of suckers who are all politically paid for..... that list..... well because of the very nature of science skepticism is in fact healthy..... 31000...... my that is a large number.....
EVERY major university in the WORLD has backed global warming along with EVERY major scientific organization...... CERN (you know the stupid guys who developed the internet) EVERY major industrialized Nation in the world along with most of the 2nd and 3rd world nations...... wow 31000..... in the face of well millions........ hmmmmmm wow
funny how the studies never seem to materialize from the opposition..... just pr and opinion....... weird.....
hmmmmm 31000....... do you know how many people believe that humans walked with dinosaurs?......... far more than 31000.........
-
here's the facts.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/...iew_OISM150.pdf
notice the direct correlation between air temps and solar activity. Direct. And we know that no one was conspiring behind the scenes to hide data.
I don't understand how anyone can argue with this.
here's the facts.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/...iew_OISM150.pdf
notice the direct correlation between air temps and solar activity. Direct. And we know that no one was conspiring behind the scenes to hide data.
I don't understand how anyone can argue with this.
ok than...... well hmmmmm you got me......I love this petition..... cant see how this might be problematic.....
The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:
“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
”
The text of the petition often is misrepresented. For example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever"and the British newspaper Daily Telegraph reported that the petition "denies that man is responsible for global warming." As seen above, the petition uses the terms catastrophic heating and disruption rather than "global warming."
The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences". This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."
The 1997 version of the article states that "over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly" and says that this was based on comparison of satellite data (for 1979-1997) and balloon data from 1979-96. At the time the petition was written, this was unclear. Since then the satellite record has been revised, and shows warming
I love this petition....... it only gets better
because of various criticisms made of the two Leipzig Declarations, the Oregon Petition Project claimed to adopt a number of measures, though none of these claims have been independently verified:
* The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud. Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed. The verification of the scientists was listed at 95%, but the means by which this verification was done was not specified.
* Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree. The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees. As of 2008, the petition's website states that "The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."
* Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. The petition sponsors state the following numbers of individuals from each discipline: 1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,697; 2. Computer and mathematical sciences: 903; 3. Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,691; 4. Chemistry: 4,796; 5. Biology and agriculture: 2,924; 6. Medicine: 3,069; 7. Engineering and general science: 9,992. As of 2007, about 2,400 people in addition to the original 17,100 signatories were "trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition."
* The Petition Project itself avoided any funding or association with the energy industries.
The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories; however, many of the signatories have degrees in engineering or medicine, including veterinary medicine. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".
The Petition Project itself used to state:
“ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist
A number of critics of the petition questioned the scientific credentials and the authenticity of the names of the signatories.
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.
”
In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. ”
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[
-
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a 501
(3) non-profit organization located about seven miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. It has been described as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."The institute is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, who received the Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from the California Institute of Technology. Robinson established OISM in 1980 after a disagreement with his mentor Linus Pauling.[1] Other listed faculty are biochemist Martin D. Kamen (died in 2002), Nobel prize-winning chemist R. Bruce Merrifield (died in 2006), Salk Institute biochemist Dr. Fred Westall, electrical engineer Carl Boehme, physician Dr. Jane Orient, chemist Noah E. Robinson, and veterinarian Dr. Zachary W. Robinson.[2]
The OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a "Scientists' Petition" on global warming, in collaboration with the late Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences. OISM founder Arthur Robinson is a global warming skeptic.
The OISM website states that "several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing."[3]
OISM markets a home-schooling kit for parents who are concerned about how "American schools have degraded severely."[4] Another OISM project is Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. The Institute publishes the book "Nuclear War Survival Skills," by Cresson Kearny, describing how to survive nuclear war.[5] , and also in 1986 published Fighting Chance by Gary North and Arthur Robinson, advocating a revival of the federal government civil defense program.
hmmmm weird cant see why some non profit organization would be criticized........
-
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)
-
The libs always resort to:
"but that isn't a valid source"
"but that scientist isn't from the U.N."
"blah blah right wing conspiracy"
"those climate experts are not accredited by the (insert some vague acronym"
They can't afford to admit their idealogy is not fact, just politically expedient theory,
with more and more EXPERTS speaking out about the nonsense "fact".
-
The libs always resort to:
"but that isn't a valid source"
"but that scientist isn't from the U.N."
"blah blah right wing conspiracy"
"those climate experts are not accredited by the (insert some vague acronym"
They can't afford to admit their idealogy is not fact, just politically expedient theory,
with more and more EXPERTS speaking out about the nonsense "fact".
The libs always resort to:
"but that isn't a valid source"
"but that scientist isn't from the U.N."
"blah blah right wing conspiracy"
"those climate experts are not accredited by the (insert some vague acronym"
They can't afford to admit their idealogy is not fact, just politically expedient theory,
with more and more EXPERTS speaking out about the nonsense "fact".
Sad but true.
No MMGW proponent can ever explain the why the global temps are falling now. They ignore that they are.
-
kosar that post with those accomplished and intelligent individuals would hold more weight IF they actually published studies verifying their OPINIONS.........
Science by its very nature is TO BE SKEPTICAL.........
geee I hear crickets about that 31000 signatories........ sure a non profit organization that has nothing to do with posting up any sort of data backing up their OPINIONS.......
Its totally ok to be skeptical, but this is not about being skeptical rather using common sense and erroring on the side of caution in how we treat the ONLY we home we have.
Your side has virtually NOTHING...... cooling..... sure just ignore the actual statistics just like that report you obviously did not read that was later shown to be false......... 31000 and cooling.... lol. seriously the earth is still flat...........
-
kosar that post with those accomplished and intelligent individuals would hold more weight IF they actually published studies verifying their OPINIONS.........
Science by its very nature is TO BE SKEPTICAL.........
geee I hear crickets about that 31000 signatories........ sure a non profit organization that has nothing to do with posting up any sort of data backing up their OPINIONS.......
Its totally ok to be skeptical, but this is not about being skeptical rather using common sense and erroring on the side of caution in how we treat the ONLY we home we have.
Your side has virtually NOTHING...... cooling..... sure just ignore the actual statistics just like that report you obviously did not read that was later shown to be false......... 31000 and cooling.... lol. seriously the earth is still flat...........
kosar that post with those accomplished and intelligent individuals would hold more weight IF they actually published studies verifying their OPINIONS.........
Science by its very nature is TO BE SKEPTICAL.........
geee I hear crickets about that 31000 signatories........ sure a non profit organization that has nothing to do with posting up any sort of data backing up their OPINIONS.......
Its totally ok to be skeptical, but this is not about being skeptical rather using common sense and erroring on the side of caution in how we treat the ONLY we home we have.
Your side has virtually NOTHING...... cooling..... sure just ignore the actual statistics just like that report you obviously did not read that was later shown to be false......... 31000 and cooling.... lol. seriously the earth is still flat...........
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
How is that opinion? I think she knows something behind the science. Don't you? Now you'll say she was discredited somehow or come out she was paid off. It's like talking to a politician.
I think that is the huge difference between our arguments, your argument consists of finger pointing, have you noticed that?
Sev list everything you do to help out your only home. Then tell me what you don't do. Be honest, don't be a douche.
-
kosar that post with those accomplished and intelligent individuals would hold more weight IF they actually published studies verifying their OPINIONS.........
Science by its very nature is TO BE SKEPTICAL.........
geee I hear crickets about that 31000 signatories........ sure a non profit organization that has nothing to do with posting up any sort of data backing up their OPINIONS.......
Its totally ok to be skeptical, but this is not about being skeptical rather using common sense and erroring on the side of caution in how we treat the ONLY we home we have.
Your side has virtually NOTHING...... cooling..... sure just ignore the actual statistics just like that report you obviously did not read that was later shown to be false......... 31000 and cooling.... lol. seriously the earth is still flat...........
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
How is that opinion? I think she knows something behind the science. Don't you? Now you'll say she was discredited somehow or come out she was paid off. It's like talking to a politician.
I think that is the huge difference between our arguments, your argument consists of finger pointing, have you noticed that?
Sev list everything you do to help out your only home. Then tell me what you don't do. Be honest, don't be a douche.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
How is that opinion? I think she knows something behind the science. Don't you? Now you'll say she was discredited somehow or come out she was paid off. It's like talking to a politician.
I think that is the huge difference between our arguments, your argument consists of finger pointing, have you noticed that?
Sev list everything you do to help out your only home. Then tell me what you don't do. Be honest, don't be a douche.
here Kosar:
The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system
That is patently NOT true........ Ice cores..... geology....oceanography.... hell satellite imagery of Antartica...... etc etc like I said it is pretty overwhelming on the information pouring in from unaffiliated fields...
As for me you have not been a member when this argument was going on before.
Solar panels, hyper insulation, hybrid vehicle, electricity miser system, electric hot water on demand systems, all appliances are rated for efficiency, family vehicle planning to reduce total travel, zero air flights, buying produce from local producers/seasonal foods...eating virtually no read meat (methane)(my daughters idea), I run tons of meetings using citrix's go to meeting instead of driving,
I also recently have a brown water system.
its quite irritating and inconvenient at times..... but its not for me but for my children and future grand children.
Like I said even with the PHD attached to the name most of them just put up opinion, it would have far more weight if they actually put up studies or findings but they dont. That doctor who treated Michael Jackson has a PHD..... his opinions or practices do not discount the rest of the field yet he as an individual does not produce anything of value for his field yet his PHD is just a title its the work that matters. These highly intelligent individuals should be skeptical that is the very beauty of the scientific method but the weight of their skepticism is accounted for by the work they produce to back up their opinions........
-
As for what I dont do.... well the plastics reduction is virtually impossible considering almost everything is wrapped in it...... I still waste a lot of paper even though we recycle, I still have a regular gas vehicle that I do drive..... sooner or later we will have to fly again, ELECTRONICS are a huge problem for me........... the list of things I could and should do better is quite long but you get the gist. My electricity use needs to still decrease or I need to find a better production system........
As for my contribution on helping the earth well that is what my I.T. company is hopefully producing....... we are hoping what we are going to release will in fact cut down LOTS of things and make things a ton more efficient for businesses and people. IF what we produce is viable (it obviously is a Big IF and one I am betting a lot of my personal funds as well as investment money) than my personal contribution will be quite extensive. Like any pie in the sky concept we will see IF it works and also right now I am working thru a IP and patent process for a 100% stable and clean energy system...... of which is quite frankly expensive and does not give me that much confidence even if we go direct to market on its ability to be protected...... I am very interested personally in contributing thru business processes ways in which we all can be much more efficient.
-
Report: "Antarctic ice cap Growing, not shrinking"
Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
Antarctica has 90 percent of the Earth's ice and 80 percent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilization of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Allison said.
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Center shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
-
kosar that post with those accomplished and intelligent individuals would hold more weight IF they actually published studies verifying their OPINIONS.........
Science by its very nature is TO BE SKEPTICAL.........
geee I hear crickets about that 31000 signatories........ sure a non profit organization that has nothing to do with posting up any sort of data backing up their OPINIONS.......
Its totally ok to be skeptical, but this is not about being skeptical rather using common sense and erroring on the side of caution in how we treat the ONLY we home we have.
Your side has virtually NOTHING...... cooling..... sure just ignore the actual statistics just like that report you obviously did not read that was later shown to be false......... 31000 and cooling.... lol. seriously the earth is still flat...........
geee I hear crickets about that 31000 signatories........ sure a non profit organization that has nothing to do with posting up any sort of data backing up their OPINIONS.......
Over 31,000 scientists believe that at a minimum, more research is needed before coming to a conclusion regarding global warming and its causes... and you are seeking to discredit every single one of them? They organization has a list of every single scientist who signed their petition.
seriously, there are scientists on both sides of the issue, but there is only one side that I know of that has been caught with their pants down showing deliberate bias, changing data, hiding data, and manipulating data... and it wasn't the skeptics.
-
The Viking farm under the sand in Greenland
by Terese Brasen
in Greenlandin Greenland
April 23, 2001 – In 1991, two caribou hunters stumbled over a log on a snowy Greenland riverbank, an unusual event because Greenland is above the tree line. Closer investigation uncovered rock-hard sheep droppings. The hunters had stumbled on a 500-year-old Viking farm that lay hidden beneath the sand, gift-wrapped and preserved by nature for future archaeologists.
Gården under Sandet or GUS, Danish for ‘the farm under the sand,’ would become the first major Viking find in Greenland since the 1920s.
“GUS is beautifully preserved because, once it was buried, it was frozen,” explained University of Alberta anthropologist Dr. Charles Schweger. “Things that are perishable and normally disappear are found at GUS.”
A specialist in Arctic paleo-ecology and geo-archeology, Schweger joined the international archaeological team that would spend the next seven years sifting through sand at GUS.
The famous Viking, Eric the Red, probably didn’t know where he was headed when, adrift on the North Atlantic in AD 981, he bumped into the southern coast of Greenland. Eric returned to Iceland three years later and enticed about 500 fellow Vikings to follow him and settle the new country.
“The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established,” said Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.
“The Greenland settlements were the most distant of all European medieval sites in the world,” said Schweger. “Then the Norse disappear, and the question has always been: what happened?”
Time was not on the archaeological team’s side. Earlier digs had explored the southern tip of Greenland, the most settled area of the country where Eric the Red first landed. These early digs merely scratched the surface because the archaeologists were interested in the buildings and architecture, not what lay beneath. The GUS site was up the West Coast, deep inside a fjord. The river was advancing, swallowing the site, so it was important to act quickly.
The University of Alberta, Greenland and the Danish government combined resources and pushed ahead on the first Greenland excavation since the 1930s. The team would excavate the complete site, looking at the entire history and development of the farm, not just the surface buildings.
Schweger recalls vividly the day the team uncovered GUS. Smells frozen in permafrost for 500 years exploded into the air. “It stunk to high heavens,” said Schweger. “There was no question about this being a farm.”
The Viking ships that had brought Icelandic adventurers to Greenland may have been mini versions of Noah’s Ark with sheep, goats, horses and Vikings sharing the crowded space. The Greenland Vikings raised sheep and fabricated woollen garments. The centre of the farm was a typical Viking longhouse, the communal building where Vikings gathered around the fire. The settlement flourished. In the North Atlantic, walrus, seal and whale were abundant and the Greenlanders made rope from walrus hide and controlled the European walrus tusk market.
Every summer, the team raced against the river. In 1998, when researchers finally abandoned GUS to the river, 90 per cent of the site had been excavated. Artifacts packaged and taken to the lab include pieces of cloth and sheep combs used to remove wool without shearing the animal. The site gave up metal hinges, locks, keys and wooden barrels. The Vikings appear to have traded their northern wares for metal and wooden products unavailable in Greenland. For them, a trip to Iceland or Norway was like a shopping spree at Home Hardware.
We know about Eric the Red and the Greenland settlement because years after the Vikings had given up their pagan ways, Snorri Sturluson collected Viking stories and penned the Icelandic sagas. “The Icelanders wrote everything down,” said Schweger, puzzled that the literature says nothing about what happened to the Norse in Greenland.
What did happen? Theories abound. In his 1963 book, Early Voyages and Northern Approaches, Tryggvi Oleson proposed a theory that still has some credibility. He believed the Vikings and northern aboriginal people intermarried to produce the unique Thule people, ancestors of the modern Eskimo.
One reigning expert on Norse extinction in Greenland is Dr. Thomas McGovern from City University of New York. McGovern is also chair of the North Atlantic Biocultural Organization, an international research association interested in the relationship between changing climate and people in the North Atlantic. He believes the Norse did not adapt completely to Greenland because they never adopted Inuit ring-seal hunting techniques. The Inuit used buoys or floats and hunted ring seal from kayaks or through the ice. These techniques do not appear in Norse culture. McGovern and other paleo-ecologists also believe the Norse were poor farmers.
But Schweger says the evidence comes from the southern or eastern settlement where the excavations only looked at the surface. “There is a lot of sediment thrown around, and it suggests to these researchers that the Norse were poor farmers. The theory is poor agricultural practices caused the sod to break up, and the winds eroded this and blew sand all over the landscape.”
While Danish and Greenland researchers look at GUS buildings and artifacts, the U of A’s role is to study organic material. Cross-sections of the GUS soil contain evidence that challenge McGovern’s theories and offer brand-new understanding of the Vikings in Greenland.
“The ring seal is only one species of seal. The Norse hunted everything else–walrus, whales, harbour seals,” Schweger said, moving quickly to part two of his McGovern challenge. The argument that the Vikings were poor farmers doesn’t make sense upon close examination of the GUS organic material. “There is no evidence that they were destroying their fields. Quite the opposite. They were improving upon them.”
It is not surprising that the Greenland Vikings chose to farm at the mouth of a fjord. The Vikings who settled Iceland and later moved to Greenland were originally from Norway, where farming technology grew up around fjords. The centre of a fjord farm is a meadow where animals graze during winter months.
Cross-sections of the GUS soil show the Vikings began their settlement by burning off birch brush to form a meadow. Over the next 300 to 400 years, the meadow soil steadily improved its nutritional qualities, showing that the Greenland Vikings weren’t poor farmers, as McGovern and others have suggested. “At GUS, the amount of organic matter and the quality of soil increased and sustained farming for 400 years,” said Schweger. “If they were poor farmers, then virtually all the farming in North America is poor farming.”
Schweger believes the sand that packaged and preserved GUS also ruined the site, polluting the river the Vikings relied on for fresh water. The soil was healthy and nutritious. Then, suddenly, farming stopped and the soil was encapsulated in sand.
A massive ice sheet covers about 85 per cent of Greenland, about 2,600,000 cubic kilometres of ice–enough to raise sea levels by 6.4 metres if it were to melt. Sheets of ice sliding down the mountain toward GUS may have pushed sand over the eastern coast of Greenland, burying the Viking settlements. The sand slide was probably a major catastrophic event, comparable to an earthquake.
The Danish Antiquity Society will publish the GUS findings once the international lab results have been tabulated and debated. The team that sifted through sand summer after summer may tell the world new stories about the Vikings who farmed and traded in the North Atlantic then suddenly, and inexplicably, disappeared.
Birch no longer grows in Greenland. Farm smells captured in Permafrost (what is now frozen permanently was once farmed). The Ice that is receding in Greenland is revealing Birch Logs all over the place. Greenland was once a much warmer place... during the MWP.
-
OH, and there Sev goes again. Resorting to mocking.
There wasn't any 31,000 signatories. Because they belonged
to the org, they were thrust into support of mmgw by higher ups.
We've posted a lot about this in the past.
Now Sev is saying that it doesn't matter if the PHD disagrees with him,
because it's only the PHD's opinion.
Right.
But, if the PHD agrees with Sev and the rest? Well, THEN we are supposed to
consider it fact. If you don't, then they will deride you as being against advanced education.
Really. It wasn't Sev who pulled that one, but it was Shleply, MrBeetlejuice, or Heck.
I honestly respect Sev's staying here and talking about it though.
The next thing that used to happen in previous discussions on this issue, is
the libs resorted to the last barricade to being over-run by the REAL common-sense side of
not buying into mmgw:
"but, bluster, whine, don't you believe in keeping our planet clean from pollution? (snivel)"
Sev is too cool to go there.
-
WHEN they publish their data on ice development on the otherside of antartica we will see..... until it actually gets published to be reviewed it is just a story.
As for the PHD, regardless of what "side" you are on the issue my position was the weight should not be given to the PHD but to the WORK they produce that supports their position.
I dont have a problem with listening to either side and looking at their supporting information, the problem is like that PR piece with the "signatories" they dont use any supporting studies etc just PR.
One side has not produced anything except for skepticism which I think is healthy and is a good check against BS but you have to produce something sooner or later to back up your position not just your PHD.
I do DEFINATELY think there is political/Money influencing both positively and negatively BOTH sides of the issue. However once again like the days of the Tobacco/cancer/nicotine science debate this on the surface is basically the exact same.
I truly do believe we are having an affect..... personally I dont think either side has enough information to know what that is exactly. The trends and information SEEM to point toward us but this is a very complicated issue with tons of unknown variables we dont understand.
Like I said I would rather error on the side of caution and seek balance than to ignore a potential disaster.... Yes I do enjoy criticizing PR bs pieces when it comes to science because they are basically the antithesis of what science is. Skepticism as a motivation to seek understanding is one of the pillars of scientific advancement.......when it leads to actual WORK but skepticism based on just opinion without work is worthless.
-
The objective accumulation of work IS work.
All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.
Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't
like it.
However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Now, your side has resorted to,
"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".
Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter
how hard it is to accomplish.
-
The objective accumulation of work IS work.
All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.
Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't
like it.
However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Now, your side has resorted to,
"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".
Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter
how hard it is to accomplish.
The objective accumulation of work IS work.
All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.
Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't
like it. However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.
Now, your side has resorted to,
"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".
Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter
how hard it is to accomplish.
Um cal that is EXACTLY what your side does NOT have..... all they have been putting out is opinions...
Articles spouting opinions are NOT studies that are reviewed and replicated which is again why your side has problems in the first place....
the "blind" part is following opinion........ we are not following opinions but studies and data from every field in science that is pointing to trends...... your side is following nothing but PR and opinions.... that is essentially the problem.
funny really.
-
Even with "The hypothesis" of "human-caused global warming" and a silly petition.
How do these same scientists, explain the fact the 1 degree that suppposdly by aka "Algorian's mad science project" says that humans raised the earth's temp. -----> And that Now it has cooled itself back off? Why?
hmm. My take is their aint shit we can do about it. unless you feel like giving Billions of dollars away for no reason.
Well AlGorian needs money for his "LockBox".
Not to offend any "Captain Planet Wannabees" I wish you guys well in saving the planet. Now get started first by picking up the litter.
-
Obviously the earth was once a much warmer place, at least long enough for the Vikings to settle Greenland, burn Birch trees off of what is now permafrost and supports no plant life, and successfully farm on what is now Permafrost, with barnyard smells being trapped in the permanently frozen ground.
But wait.. the MWP didn't exist, at least that's what MMGW propontents wanted you to believe when they tried to hide the Medieval warm period.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login