It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: butcherguy
There may be a person that relies on truth that comes along and says....
"The North Pole will be ice free by now."
Then they will say, "Oh, it isn't?" Al Gore must have been wrong.
To which the AGW proponents will say, "Oh, Al Gore isn't a scientist."
I hope the freaking shelf does collapse.
I hope both Poles are ice free tomorrow.
I hope all the polar bears die of heat prostration.
I hope all the fish in the ocean die.
Then all you people on both side will shut the hell up.
Please forgive me, I am in an extremely bad mood today and have been depressed for a long time.
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
If climate change is false, and we do something about it, saving ourselves isn't necessary, but we STILL create a better world for our children.
So, my question is, why don't we just run on the assumption that it's real, and make changes for the better? A more environmentally friendly world is a win/win, no matter whether climate change is real.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is? Where? All I ever see from the AGW denial camp is just repeating of the same buzzphrases over and over again. Never a scientific study. If you know of some then by all means, post them.
What parts of AGW do you think are truthful? The most I can get out of the denial camp is this, "I believe that climate change is real, I just don't think that man is causing it." That is STILL science denialism, because science has pretty much confirmed that yes, man IS causing it.
originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well...I'll say this...you can find articles that reading causes cancer...and there have been "studies". My point being...data is fun to manipulate by anyone...especially when both sides are paid by someone who wants a result. You can manipulate variables any way you want...especially when there are probably 1000s affecting climate change. I suppose we could both argue that there is evidence then on both sides correct? We both could throw all kinds of evidence back and forth.
So lets ignore all that but listen to people instead. If you interview someone from the midwest, USA they may not have a lot to say about climate change. Some farmers may say this or that...whatever. But if you go to certain coastal areas...in Bangladesh or some Inuits in Alaska...many will tell you amazing stories of what they have observed.
Oh and one more thing...the ice you are talking about is sea ice...not land ice...land ice takes 1000s of years to accumulate where sea ice can change by season....you can have more sea ice for 10 years but if the land ice underneath is reducing then that is a big deal.
originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: SlapMonkey
That same argument is used again and again and again...
We get it. There is natural climate variation but that evidence alone is not strong enough. Consider the fact that there are scientists taking ice cores from both poles, doing field work, correlating evidence...What are the debunkers doing? pulling out the same graph over and over and over.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well...I'll say this...you can find articles that reading causes cancer...and there have been "studies". My point being...data is fun to manipulate by anyone...especially when both sides are paid by someone who wants a result. You can manipulate variables any way you want...especially when there are probably 1000s affecting climate change. I suppose we could both argue that there is evidence then on both sides correct? We both could throw all kinds of evidence back and forth.
So lets ignore all that but listen to people instead. If you interview someone from the midwest, USA they may not have a lot to say about climate change. Some farmers may say this or that...whatever. But if you go to certain coastal areas...in Bangladesh or some Inuits in Alaska...many will tell you amazing stories of what they have observed.
I don't disagree with this at all, and I'll tell you that in my neck of the woods (around Cincinnati), our winters are getting colder and our summers more mild (overall). But this is the point that I just argued to Krazysh0t--I think that climate change is happening, but at the same time, I think if humans are affecting it (possitively or negatively, one can't really say), it's on a more localized scale. I think the naturally occurring changes are the ones that we see happening globally...and even then, it's not truly global.
Oh and one more thing...the ice you are talking about is sea ice...not land ice...land ice takes 1000s of years to accumulate where sea ice can change by season....you can have more sea ice for 10 years but if the land ice underneath is reducing then that is a big deal.
Right (and I noted that in a different posting), but riddle me this--if, say, that Antarctic land ice is 'only' about 10k-15k years old, doesn't this indicate that 15k-20k years ago, that continent was ice-free? That's not an inappropriate deduction to make, assuming the age of the ice is estimated correctly.
This indicates that an ice-free Antarctica is a naturally occurring phenomenon, as is an ice-covered one. It's cyclical--naturally.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: buddah6
NOAA/NASA
originally posted by: Glassbender777
If the Ice Shelf is already floating on the ocean, then there will be No rise in sea level world wide. But if this Ice shelf is on the actual land mass of Antartica then of course we would see a rise in Sea levels. I believe these are all naturally occuring global temp changes, and earth goes through this process over and over Heating and cooling. It would explain why maps exist today from long ago, showing the coastline of antartica before the Ice was even there.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The extent is expanding 2-dimensionally. However 3-dimensionally (volume) is actually decreasing. This is because old ice melts and breaks apart, it floats away, then new ice forms that reconnects it which then melts when it gets warmer out again.
Under-ice volcanoes haven't done the sort of damage to the arctic ices that we are seeing.
For someone talking to me about facts and belief in parts of AGW, you just got done repeating several denialist fallacies.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The argument is used because it's a valid one. What isn't a valid argument is the alarmist-AGW crowd who tries to make those too lazy to research for themselves believe that occurances like an ice-free arctic or antarctice region is a precursor to the demise of the planet, or that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere with destroy earth, or that the farts of cows will make the planet bake us all alive.
You want to talk about ice core samples? I could show you a graph--derived from ice core samples--that shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag about 300-ish years behind temperature fluctuations. But, if I showed that graph, would you just complain I'm showing a tired old graph, even though its derived from the evidence gathered by scientists taking ice core samples?
It's disappointing how you use the term "debunkers" to describe those of us who use scientific data to argue an opposing viewpoint. It really shows a lack of integrity and an abundance of ignorance on your part.
And just for S&G:
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: lostbook
Its an ice shelf, which means its resting on water, therefore displacing all the water it can, whether in the frozen state or a liquid state. It cant contribute to sea level rises . It can only dilute the salt content of the sea water.