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.

 

Ice shelf about to break away from Antarctic coast

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker

Hello Weed

Global Warming is a huge issue, which typically causes discussions to cover several topics. I use the "quote-response" format to try and clarify which part of a post I am responding to.

Typically, especially with my esteemed opponent here, the topic tends to shift from one aspect to another... I think it is akin to the difficulties of hitting a moving target.
Allow me to take this opportunity to clarify my position:

Based on previous first-hand experience with doomsday scenarios perpetrated on the general public in order to bring about political change and individual profits for certain powers, I see the present debate over Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) as another of the same: an issue that should be examined, but that should not be implemented in haste. This becomes especially true when one considers the financial and political consequences of an implementation of the policies presently proposed, as well as the realistic expectations of the impact of those policies on the suspected problem.

That experience began in the late 1970s with the advent of a media clamor over an impending ice age. This was shifted to include the ozone hole at Antarctica, leading to the phase-out and eventual banning of Freon-12, the major refrigerant at the time manufactured and patented by DuPont. Coincidentally, their patent protection ran out about the same time the substance was banned, and DuPont then produced an alternate refrigerant, R-134a, which is still in use today (and still under patent protection by DuPont).

Post-hysteria research into the ozone hole led to a consensus by many scientists that the furor was akin to making a mountain out of a molehill. While CFCs do indeed act as a catalyst to break down ozone into oxygen, the presence of solar radiation itself produces more ozone. This production actually tends to increase as the amount of ozone present decreases, making the process self-regulating to some extent. It was also determined that the ozone hole over the Antarctic is natural, caused by a lack of solar radiation at the extreme polar areas as compared to that received in other areas.

The acid rain issue was the next attempt to influence public policy, I believe for the same reason as AGW (to force developed countries into third-world status and implement a unified worldwide government). Sulfur dioxide is emitted from the burning of certain fossil fuels, since some of these fuels contain sulfur impurities. Coal is principle among the sulfur-rich fuel sources. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a deadly poison, and the primary cause for the odor of rotten eggs. In the atmosphere, SO2 undergoes two different transformations rather quickly since the ingredients needed for these reactions (oxygen, ozone, water vapor, and solar radiation) are abundant in the atmosphere. The end result is sulfuric acid (H2SO4) which is then washed from the air by rainwater.

Catalytic converters were designed to limit the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrates that were emitted from vehicle exhausts. But they have a tendency to accrue sulfur deposits inside themselves and after a short time can begin producing copious amounts of SO2. Stand behind a car with an older catalytic converter sometime and you will smell the sulfur. That means that the acid rain is actually being produced in some amount by catalytic converters, which are now mandated for use on all gasoline vehicles by the Federal government.

The present disagreement Mel and I are having is over whether or not the amount of public media attention has declined due to this fact being brought to light. I distinctly remember the number of public media outlets expressing concern over acid rain decreasing at a phenomenal rate when the problem with catalytic converters was brought out, while Mel remembers watching a kid's TV show, but has figures from the government to say he's right and they are innocent of all charges.

Hope that clears it up for you some. Oh, and quotes are really easy. Just enclose whatever you want to be quoted between two tags: [ quote ] (without the spaces) to start the quote, and [ /quote ] (again, without the spaces) to close the quote box. Click the "quote" link at the upper left hand of any post sometime and you'll see these tags in action in the box that comes up.

TheRedneck


[edit on 4/12/2009 by TheRedneck]




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Typically, especially with my esteemed opponent here, the topic tends to shift from one aspect to another... I think it is akin to the difficulties of hitting a moving target.
Allow me to take this opportunity to clarify my position:


lol, the projection here is fantastic. I am trying to hit a moving target, definitely. But it's not my position that keeps shifting. I'm responding to your shifting, lol. I think you started with the actual topic - melting in antarctica. Since then, you moved to some erroneous claims about new ice ages and CFCs, and acid rain being abandoned due to catalytic converters being the main source, lol.

Now we have a new updated position - we even have CFCs associated with the correct phenomena (Ozone depletion) - yay!. Catalytic converters now only produce 'some amount' of SO2, rather than being the main source - yay! And coal as fuel has been identified as one of the major sources - yay!

And as for you remembering things, appears that your memory keeps shifting along with your position, lol.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin

Oh, OK. If you're shifting goalposts, fine.

Nah, same goalpost. It just looks that way because you keep trying to shift sides of the field.


Yes, acid rain is not as big an issue as it once was in the developed world. Predominately because most of the developed world have introduced legislation to ameliorate the impact of the associated emissions - and the legislation has been pretty successful (less than half SO2 2007 cf. 1970)


The acid rain problem is far from over:

May 28, 2008

Eight out of every 10 rainfalls in Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong province, last year was classified as acid rain.

The city suffered from the worst acid rain of any in the province, the Guangdong provincial environmental protection bureau said. Altogether, two-thirds of Guangdong's 21 cities were affected.
Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn...


December 21, 2007

Human-generated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is slowly acidifying the ocean, threatening a catastrophic impact on marine life. And just as scientists are starting to grasp the magnitude of the problem, researchers have delivered more bad news: Acid rain is making things worse.
Source: discovermagazine.com...


May 30, 2008

Acid rain may seem, like, so 1980s, but the problem has not gone away.

Researchers reported this week that soils throughout the Northeast are continuing to acidify, despite a 50 percent decrease in acid rain since the peak in 1973.
Source: dsc.discovery.com...

For more reading, try a quick Google search.

It would appear that acid rain is still taking a major toll.


That's a different question from being abandoned as a result of catalytic converters.

Perhaps 'abandoned' was a bit of a stretch, but 'severely curtailed' would be just as damning to those who control the media and more accurate. The point is not that nary a word was ever uttered in the 21st century concerning the topic, but that the media circus was curtailed to the point that many younger people today are not even aware of acid rain, as compared to the old days when it was impossible to not hear of it... just like Global Warming today.

I must admit, you are very good at focusing on a tree when I start to describe a forest.


However, I agree that acid rain is not discussed as much as it once was, that's mainly because controls have been introduced and they are gradually reducing emissions of the relevant compounds. But the problem has never been abandoned.

That was all I have been saying, Mel. You can keep trying to fish some argument out of semantics all you want, but as Weed aptly pointed out, it is nothing more than obfuscation of the actual issue.

With an agreement that acid rain issues have declined considerably from the public media, and with the evidence submitted above that acid rain is still a climactic problem, the obvious question is: Why? I have already given my answer. You have refuted thsat answer. I now await your reasoning on this simple question of "Why?"

Whoops, time to go to church and learn how to be intolerant and ignorant... that is a very pretty graph you found, and I'll tackle it when I get back.

TheRedneck


[edit on 4/12/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Lance was talking about some form of 'shunning' of the term 'global warming'.


uh oh watch the news and verify for yourself which term is currently dominating and how relative use changes with concurrent weather patterns.




Shades of the IPCC! It's contagious!


That comment would futher verify your anti-science syndrome.


the IPCC is first and foremost a political organisation, even if it was primarily scientific (like a university should be, for example) critizising it wouldn't make me an opponent of science just that particular organisation. one might even oppose one more theories and remain open to science as a concept.

a link might clarify things... www.abovetopsecret.com...

==============================================


Originally posted by TheRedneck

What I stated was that the acid rain issue was minimalized in the public media, due to (or at least coincidentally at the same time as) the realization and exposure that catalytic converters (due to their SO2 output....


SO2? are you sure you it wasn't NO2 or NOx? just asking because the fuel's sulphur content is the only source of S02 i can think of whereas nitrogen is readily available in air.


strictly OT: if your eally wanted to get dirty about the CFC issue (which i believe is valid because it doesn't decompose within a reasonable timeframe) you'd have to take the following little factoid into account, which would, among other things explain why the Northern hemisphere was always in much better shape, ozone-wise.

www.accesstoenergy.com...



But all of this is unsurprising politics. One of the several points that I did not know about and that truly shocked me was the case of Mt. Erebus on Ross Island in the Ross Sea in Antarctica. It is an active volcano that has three stunning properties:

Unlike ordinary volcanoes, which erupt from time to time, this one is active in a continuous eruption all the time;

it spews out more than 1,000 tonnes of chlorine per day¾ that's right, not per year (which would be about 370,000 tonnes), but per day, whence the antarctic jet stream carries it into the stratosphere;

it is located 15 km upwind from the observation station in the McMurdo Sound, where scientists measure the chlorine concen-tration of the antarctic atmosphere, the very chlorine that, the ozone flacks claim, provides the "link" to CFCs and the ozone hole.

Your first reaction to all this is probably the same as mine:

"I don't believe it." But the authors give good references...


A stable or downward trend in UV-B radiation reaching the earth is observed for all eight measuring stations.

It was shut down in 1985-6
, that's what. Too expensive, went the official explanation by the government that is spending $7.5 billion on the Supercollider. More likely, the data brought in by the pro-gram were too embarrassing. Although the Greens rarely pay attention to facts, these data did disturb them, and they attributed the decrease to pollution in the cities, where the data were taken (Bis-marck N.D., Tallahassee, Fla., and Albuquerque, N.M. polluted?) J. Scotto, a widely respected researcher at the National Cancer In-stitute, refuted this in Science of 11/25/89, pointing to the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii which is hardly in a polluted area, yet registered no increase in UV-B from 1974 to 1985.



[edit on 2009.4.12 by Long Lance]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The acid rain problem is far from over:


lol, it's like an delayed echo.


Perhaps 'abandoned' was a bit of a stretch, but 'severely curtailed' would be just as damning to those who control the media and more accurate. The point is not that nary a word was ever uttered in the 21st century concerning the topic, but that the media circus was curtailed to the point that many younger people today are not even aware of acid rain, as compared to the old days when it was impossible to not hear of it... just like Global Warming today.

I must admit, you are very good at focusing on a tree when I start to describe a forest.


Not really. I just take your words and work with them. That's all I have. You provide no real evidence for me to verify or clarify your claims, just your words.


That was all I have been saying, Mel. You can keep trying to fish some argument out of semantics all you want, but as Weed aptly pointed out, it is nothing more than obfuscation of the actual issue.


lol. Well why didn't you just say that to start with? I never challenged when you said it had become a less obvious issue in the media, just that it was 'abandoned' or any abandonment was a consequence of catalytic converters supposedly being the main source.

At no point have you even bothered to provide evidence, just a reliance on your memory - the same memory that conflated global cooling and CFCs, lol.

So the new claim is that media attention waned due to knowledge of catalytic converters and their small but significant contribution to the problem? I guess you have backtracked on the main source claim as well, or was that also me being unable to read your woody mind past the treeish words you post?


the concern then moves to acid rain. News stories and 'documentaries' are published on a regular basis showcasing how terrible the destruction of the forests via sulfuric acid in rainwater is, and warning of a day when standing in a rain shower could be deadly to human life. This was abandoned shortly after some chemists stood up and announced that the largest contributor to acid rain was the use of the catalytic converter, mandated by government.



I now await your reasoning on this simple question of "Why?"


In 1990s major legislation was introduced to ameliorate its effects - cap and trade, lol. I've stated it a few times now. It's the same reason we hear less about ozone depletion. Action has been taken so attention moves elsewhere. But in both cases, the issue is still real.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
uh oh watch the news and verify for yourself which term is currently dominating and how relative use changes with concurrent weather patterns.


Evidence?

I presented some that the word 'global warming' is not being shunned, as you suggested.


the IPCC is first and foremost a political organisation, even if it was primarily scientific (like a university should be, for example) critizising it wouldn't make me an opponent of science just that particular organisation. one might even oppose one more theories and remain open to science as a concept.


Nope, the claim that data was being falsified was sufficient. It's a strong claim that shows ideology speaking. Making errors and falsifying data are different things. And I'm sure as evidence you'll present people making errors.

Errors happen. But to extend that to intentional falsification just shows your motivation rather than anything about Hansen, GISS, or the IPCC.



SO2? are you sure you it wasn't NO2 or NOx? just asking because the fuel's sulphur content is the only source of S02 i can think of whereas nitrogen is readily available in air.


SO2 from cars is an issue. However, one of the emissions from cars is NOx. Which catalytic converters reduce.


[edit on 12-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Long Lance
uh oh watch the news and verify for yourself which term is currently dominating and how relative use changes with concurrent weather patterns.


Evidence?




watch the news, that's all i can say, i severely doubt they have a statistic on words they use more or less. again i am not talking about scientific papers, i'm talking the media.

does the reader need to be told what he saw and heard during the last decade?



Nope, the claim that data was being falsified was sufficient. It's a strong claim that shows ideology speaking. Making errors and falsifying data are different things. And I'm sure as evidence you'll present people making errors.

Errors happen. But to extend that to intentional falsification just shows your motivation rather than anything about Hansen, GISS, or the IPCC.



no, the claim may be right or it may be wrong, you don't know why someone would believe that and i for one find it hard to believe that someone would somehow overlook discontinuities in a temperature curve.

that's as basic as it gets and it should be tested for automatically.

www.dailytech.com...

if that can 'slip through' then i have to wonder what can't


SO2? are you sure you it wasn't NO2 or NOx? just asking because

SO2 from cars is an issue. However, one of the emissions from cars is NOx. Which catalytic converters reduce.



yes, NOx can be reduced, while SO2 would have to be broken down and the sulphur stored, f-ex. as calcium sulphate, which means ordinary catalysers can't do squat about SO2, which is why i asked if he really meant SO2.

[edit on 2009.4.12 by Long Lance]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
Continued now that I am back:


Now, on the second claim, that is also wrong. The largest contributor to acid rain is not catalytic converters - it is a significant source. There's a difference between pulling assertions from your colon and presenting supporting evidence, and that's at least one positive for electricuniverse, at least he tried to present something that he thought supported his assertions (of course, they didn't, but a deserved cookie for trying).

As I said before, that is a very pretty graph. Where did you find it? It's not included in the link you gave.

That aside, the link to the EPA did give me some data on their estimates for various sources of pollutants. As I leafed through the different pages, I noticed that automobiles were the major culprit named in almost every area, CO, NOx, NH3, etc.) as I would have expected, until I came to the page on SO2 emissions.

According to this data, you are correct that SO2 emissions from highway vehicles are a minor contributor to the sulfuric acid content of acidified rainwater. I am not yet ready, however, to accept this information as factual. My knowledge of sulfur in its variable forms leads me to suspect that this data may not be accurate. I will not make that statement until I am able to find corroborating evidence to that effect, but I will do some research on this when I have time.

I plan on responding to an apt observation from Lance below concerning nitrates; you may be interested in reading it.


The IPCC produce no data. You're just trying to vilify a bogeyman. The IPCC use data from elsewhere to produce a summary of the scientific position.

The IPCC is a scientific (*cough* *cough*) collection agency for data from different countries, as well as a political entity that recommends policy changes based on that data. Therefore it is inherently their responsibility to ensure that data received is accurate.


Cool. Lucky that people ignored the whines from right-wing think tanks and industry then.

Yes, very lucky. If they had not ignored these think-tanks you so despise, DuPont would have made billions of dollars less by now.

Oh, you mean lucky for the average person? I'm sorry...


Nah, you'd be best described as a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. It's pretty obvious.

I guess it depends on which side of the argument you happen to be on. Start a thread suggesting we allow unchecked use of actual pollutants (something other than CO2, which is not present in measurable quantities outside of industrial areas) and watch how fast I turn into an ecologist.


Not really. I just take your words and work with them. That's all I have. You provide no real evidence for me to verify or clarify your claims, just your words.

Yes, you do. You take my words and try to twist them into saying something I did not intend to say. But that's OK; I have come to expect such from you. It is a tactic you appear to have mastered; my congratulations.


At no point have you even bothered to provide evidence, just a reliance on your memory - the same memory that conflated global cooling and CFCs, lol.

You know, I have the same problem when I design a circuit board. I tend to just start designing without researching how a transformer works or what Ohm's Law is, or how digital logic operates. I guess you could say I'm so arrogant as to think that something I already know hasn't changed since the laws of physics were put into effect.

Strangely, so far, transformers still work just like they always did, and Ohm's Law is still valid. Who'd 'a' thunk it?

And in a general response to your assertion that I continually change the subject, this is exactly why. You open the doors, I simply walk through. The fact that physics does not change with time and there are individuals who have direct knowledge without the need for outside verification is irrelevant to the original issue; yet you challenge me in such a way as to make me defend that stance as well. No doubt you are excellent in your field, which I presume to be psychology-related.

(Just so you don't try to make this out as something it isn't, what I am stating is that my 'unsupported' statements are things I have known and worked with for years, and thus I see no need to continually verify with outside sources something that has shown itself to be a fact over time.)


In 1990s major legislation was introduced to ameliorate its effects - cap and trade, lol. I've stated it a few times now. It's the same reason we hear less about ozone depletion. Action has been taken so attention moves elsewhere. But in both cases, the issue is still real.

Action has indeed been taken, and it has not resolved the issue, as my sources revealed.

Symbolism over substance, anyone? (If I may be forgiven for quoting an arrogant windbag in one of the few times he was actually correct.)

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance

SO2? are you sure you it wasn't NO2 or NOx? just asking because the fuel's sulphur content is the only source of S02 i can think of whereas nitrogen is readily available in air.


Actually, Lance, it is both. I focus on SO2 usually, because it tends to form a longer-lasting, more powerful acid than nitrates. But you are correct that there is a limited amount of sulfur and a practically unlimited amount of nitrogen available.

Nitrates are also tied to catalytic converters, due to the extreme temperatures experienced by the gases inside. Nitrogen is fairly stable in the atmosphere.unless extreme temperatures are present. But there is a redeeming characteristic of nitrogen over sulfur: it tends to break down much easier into molecular nitrogen again, and it is also absorbed and used by plant life. Sulfuric acid lasts a looooong time.

Hydrochloric acid certainly can be a byproduct of chlorine-spewing volcanic activity, although I will admit I was not aware the volcano you mentioned was exhausting chlorine in such quantities.

Of the three acids covered, sulfuric, nitric/nitrous, and hydrochloric, the one that I have heard concerns about most is the sulfuric.

So, yeah, nitric/nitrous acid is also a problem, but since Mel is already crying about the subject changing, I didn't want to get too thorough.


Now I have to get back to work, so you guys have fun arguing amongst yourselves for a little bit.


TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
watch the news, that's all i can say, i severely doubt they have a statistic on words they use more or less. again i am not talking about scientific papers, i'm talking the media.


And so was I. I presented info from a number of sources, popular media and popular science. Global warming is a common enough term.


no, the claim may be right or it may be wrong, you don't know why someone would believe that and i for one find it hard to believe that someone would somehow overlook discontinuities in a temperature curve.


Again, reverting to intentional dishonesty with no evidence just shows their own ideological biases.


if that can 'slip through' then i have to wonder what can't


And then an attempt to cast doubt on the wider science due to minor errors, lol. Yet we have to take your word for some form of shunning of a term that is still in common use.

You see, the anti-science pseudoscepticism is in the method.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
As I said before, that is a very pretty graph. Where did you find it? It's not included in the link you gave.


Yeah, my bad, should have posted it. I can't be bothered finding the site again, but it's based on the EPA figures anyway. Just ignore it and use the more detailed numbers with the linky.


According to this data, you are correct that SO2 emissions from highway vehicles are a minor contributor to the sulfuric acid content of acidified rainwater. I am not yet ready, however, to accept this information as factual.


Okie doke. Pity.


The IPCC is a scientific (*cough* *cough*) collection agency for data from different countries, as well as a political entity that recommends policy changes based on that data. Therefore it is inherently their responsibility to ensure that data received is accurate.


Not really, it is the responsibility of the authors and the journal editors/peer-reviewers.


Yes, you do. You take my words and try to twist them into saying something I did not intend to say. But that's OK; I have come to expect such from you. It is a tactic you appear to have mastered; my congratulations.


lol, I keep posting your words. They're there for everyone to see.


And in a general response to your assertion that I continually change the subject, this is exactly why.


I don't mind that so much, it's the goalpost shifting that is more lolworthy. What you did earlier was great, you clearly said you probably mistated/overstated, and that's fine by me. We all do it. No shame..


(Just so you don't try to make this out as something it isn't, what I am stating is that my 'unsupported' statements are things I have known and worked with for years, and thus I see no need to continually verify with outside sources something that has shown itself to be a fact over time.)


I'm not sure your experience in electrical engineering helps in climate science. It's a false sense of competence that has been noted about engineers.


Action has indeed been taken, and it has not resolved the issue, as my sources revealed.


The effects of acid rain are still notable, acid rain is still an issue. But the legislation has resulted in large decreases in the relevant compounds - cap and trade is working, lol. As I pointed out much earlier and you just did, China is experiencing the problem big time now.

Resolving such problems is not something that happens immediately. Even if we reduce our emissions of CO2, we're talking quite a while for any real effects - we are already locked into future impacts from our past behaviour.

Aside: can I just note that this new post word limit thing is retarded - I'm having to make a direct reply and then copy and post as a new open reply. Silly.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


Again, reverting to intentional dishonesty with no evidence just shows their own ideological biases.

...

And then an attempt to cast doubt on the wider science due to minor errors, lol. Yet we have to take your word for some form of shunning of a term that is still in common use.

You see, the anti-science pseudoscepticism is in the method.


the difference between a minor and a major error being of course, extent, i can safely say that it's not a minor error to have your values jump around, which is physically impossible and it's certainly not a minor error to attirbute the hottest season to the year 1998 when it later turned out to be 1934, when lots of political clout depends on such data.


a lot has happened due to these alledged facts which were presented and these consequences weren't minor either.

PS: i wasn't there, all i can see is that it strains credulity. everyone must endure criticism, yet people shaping the politcal landscape (whether they like it or not) are exempt? reality check maybe?

[edit on 2009.4.13 by Long Lance]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh boy, so once more we have nothing more than responses from someone who just gives "lol" as a response, and claims the evidence presented against his undying myth does not prove anything...

Let's give this wise arse the response he is looking for....




Oh boy, I guess I won since I have more lols than you post in every one of your responses....


Get off that friggen high cloud you put yourself on, you are no wise guy in the least, but another die hard religious Global Warming believer whose only response is laughing, and claiming there is no evidence against your so dear Global Warming RELIGION.



[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh boy, so once more we have nothing more than responses from someone who just gives "lol" as a response, and claims the evidence presented against his undying myth does not prove anything...


You presented evidence of volcanoes.

Well done.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
it's certainly not a minor error to attirbute the hottest season to the year 1998 when it later turned out to be 1934, when lots of political clout depends on such data.


But the data error was just for the US, and the position on that data was:


The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.

pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

It changed little at any notable level, but did give a certain group ammunition in an attempt to cast doubt across the board.


Originally posted by Long Lance
a lot has happened due to these alledged facts which were presented and these consequences weren't minor either.


Nope, they were minor errors.

The data from one area of the globe needed slight correction, this was a result of a switch to an updated data set. It changed nothing of note. At a global level, 1998 is still the warmest for Hadley-CRU and 2005 for GISS.

These things happen, but to paint it as intentional falsification speaks more to that person's motivations than anything else.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


The data from one area of the globe needed slight correction, this was a result of a switch to an updated data set. It changed nothing of note. At a global level, 1998 is still the warmest for Hadley-CRU and 2005 for GISS.

These things happen, but to paint it as intentional falsification speaks more to that person's motivations than anything else.



did they talk about about these minor differences when 1934 was in 2nd place?

they did not and the reasons are clear. data is apparently just means to an end.

which end?


reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


hey, while we're trying to hammer sense into readers, politricksters are stealing what they can via bailout, air tax and the ever present threat of terrorism.....

he has reason to laugh, i think, because he believes to be among the winners.

[edit on 2009.4.15 by Long Lance]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
did they talk about about these minor differences when 1934 was in 2nd place?

they did not and the reasons are clear. data is apparently just means to an end.

which end?


Did you even bother to read the quote from the GISS article?


he has reason to laugh, i think, because he believes to be among the winners.


Wingnuts have become one of my greatest source of lulz.

Shouldn't you be out teabagging today, lol.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

You presented evidence of volcanoes.

Well done.




I presented research which shows the increase volcanic activity is the main cause of the melting of glaciers, and that there is evidence that the ocean warming is the cause for WORLDWIDE land warming instead of being caused by atmospheric CO2.

Stop with your dismissing evidence because it disagrees with your Religious belief in Global Warming...




[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I presented research which shows the increase volcanic activity is the main cause of the warming in the Arctic, and not atmospheric warming, as well as the volcanic/magmatic activity being the cause for the melting of glaciers...

Stop with your dismissing evidence because it disagrees with your Religious belief in Global Warming...


No, you didn't. You presented evidence of volcanoes.

Earlier post highlighting how vacuous your claim is

I know some morons might buy your claim.

..........................................................................

ABE: And to save a waste of a new post...


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Not really, it is clear by now your ego is bigger than the universe, and you dismiss any, and every evidence with your "lols" and claims that the evidence presented does not mean anything


Yes, you did present evidence. It was evidence that volcanoes exist.

As I said, well done. Your cookie is in the post.


Shouldn't you stop using a computer, living in a house with AC, and heaters, since the electricity you are using is the cause of Climate Change?....


Nope.

VVVVVVVVVVV

[edit on 15-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
............

Wingnuts have become one of my greatest source of lulz.

Shouldn't you be out teabagging today, lol.


Not really, it is clear by now your ego is bigger than the universe, and you dismiss any, and every evidence with your "lols" and claims that the evidence presented does not mean anything, when it is obvious you are just dismissing it, or you just don't know how to read, because it interferes with your religious belief in Global Warming...

Shouldn't you stop using a computer, living in a house with AC, and heaters, since the electricity you are using is the cause of Climate Change?....



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join