New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



That is a statement of an average.


No, it is an estimate. It does not say an average of, it says is estimated as......and that does not mean it is an average. There just is no way your can derive that from estimate. If you look at this Merriam Webster entry for 'estimate' ypu will not find the word 'average' anywhere on that page.

I really don't understand why you are getting in a twist about this as surely more accurate data is a good thing, irrespective of whether it supports or goes against ones pet vision of a subject.




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



That is a statement of an average.


No, it is an estimate.


Yes - it is an estimate.

That doesn't stop it being an average as well!


Edit: Actually I wonder where they got that figure from - it is not in the report.

Its abstract:


We find annual mass loss estimates of the Greenland ice sheet in the range of 191±23 Gt yr−1 to 240±28 Gt yr−1 for the period October 2003 to March 2008. These results are in good agreement with several other studies of the Greenlandice sheet mass balance, based on different remote-sensing techniques.


so the report points out that there is a range of different amounts of mass lost per year - hence giving a single figure can only be a derived figure - it could be a median...
..but it seems unlikely - whether an average or a median - using it's error in comparison with the annual increase rate is still invalid

edit on 29-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


:shk: It does if it does not say it is.

Why not go somewhere else and stop disrupting the thread.

edit on 29/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


Not calling your info incorrect, I really don't know.
But the disclaimer at the bottom of the page leaves one less than confident about it's validity:


Every item of information comes from the most recent and reputable scientific sources and published dialogues. As citations would impede the text, and as most may be looked up on the web, we decided not to fill the text with them.


They don't bother listing them at the bottom of the page either.
It's all on the web, go look it up for yourself.




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by steve1709
 


Not calling your info incorrect, I really don't know.
But the disclaimer at the bottom of the page leaves one less than confident about it's validity:


Every item of information comes from the most recent and reputable scientific sources and published dialogues. As citations would impede the text, and as most may be looked up on the web, we decided not to fill the text with them.


They don't bother listing them at the bottom of the page either.
It's all on the web, go look it up for yourself.



Bwahahahahaha

That is F'ing hilarious!

Gotta love the interwebs . . .




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by steve1709
 


Not calling your info incorrect, I really don't know.
But the disclaimer at the bottom of the page leaves one less than confident about it's validity:


Every item of information comes from the most recent and reputable scientific sources and published dialogues. As citations would impede the text, and as most may be looked up on the web, we decided not to fill the text with them.


They don't bother listing them at the bottom of the page either.
It's all on the web, go look it up for yourself.



Thanks for that,

"Every item of information comes from the most recent and reputable scientific sources and published dialogues. As citations would impede the text, and as most may be looked up on the web, we decided not to fill the text with them"

was from one of the sites. But the other site was the ABC re this link

www.abc.net.au...

and it was a report on the conference being held presently by the UN. so even if the other report has no references, the ABC report does. And as you have recently posted in a new thread, there is an argument directly contradicting the articles you referenced. Your comment that carbon taxes etc won't help is fair enough. But after a lot of study down here in Oz, it was found that a tax would be the best way to go in the long run. since businesses work on bs, it would be prudent of them to find better practices so that their bottom line isn't compromised. I can follow that logic, what about you? If not, then instead of just stating what WON'T work, can you give a suggestion as to what WILL work. What is the point of a comment that won't help us solve the problem?

Respectfully

steve

www.abc.net.au...



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 





it was found that a tax would be the best way to go in the long run. since businesses work on bs, it would be prudent of them to find better practices so that their bottom line isn't compromised.


So where is the evidence for this? After all companies that are NOT producing too much co2 anyway can sell their carbon credits! lol... Also do you really think when a company has an expense THEY foot the bill? Do you really believe that? Seriously they will just pass it on to the end user! Look at petrol prices for god sake! Tax goes up, petrol prices go up! Strange that, don't you think? Hell even if crude oil prices go up, petrol goes up... The end user will be footing the bill and NOTHING will be done for the environment... You'll see...

I have gone over in my previous post how we can make a real difference so no need to repeat myself here...



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mee30
 


Where's the evidence? Look it up yourself!

studies were done by people that are much smarter than me and may I hazard a guess, much smarter than you and came out with papers showing that a carbon tax is better than other model.

sick of flogging a dead horse over this.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


Ah heck here ya go

www.carbontax.org...

and

www.garnautreview.org.au...

There's the spoon feeding but I draw the line at wiping your _ _ m



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Great post as always. It seems that the science is not settled after all, but try telling Mr. Gore that. They will still find a way to force a global carbon tax down our throats in the interest of "sustainability". Out of all of the world's religions, man made global warming is the worst.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by mee30
 


Where's the evidence? Look it up yourself!

studies were done by people that are much smarter than me and may I hazard a guess, much smarter than you and came out with papers showing that a carbon tax is better than other model.

sick of flogging a dead horse over this.



That is hardly a denial of ignorance. "Look it up yourself" is the antithesis of denying ignorance.

But to comment on your claim of these smart people....I would love to know what these people's intentions are. its that whole "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Ehhhh....

I look at it like this.... statistics are manipulated and biased.

Time will tell whats truly going on.


Ultimately, concerns about Earth's fate would be better focused on slow-acting problems such as climate change rather than some sort of cosmic catastrophe, said Andrew Fraknoi, an astronomer at Foothill College in California.


www.space.com...

The weather changes.... the Earth goes through cycles.... and hey.... no climate change. Whatever.

Feed me... Im starving, wanna get full and go back to sleep.
edit on 30-11-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


I seen the exact same thing on the bbc news. But on their website they have not got a video of the report. The only thing they have posted recently is the following link:

www.bbc.co.uk...

However, Channel 4, also reports of the melting ice caps, and has video on YouTube:



So what's happening? Are the Ice Caps melting or not?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
posted this on another topic

www.seafriends.org.nz...





posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Different sources, different spins. The first source I saw said:


Greenland and Antarctica 'have lost four trillion tonnes of ice' in 20 years
• Landmark study by global team of scientists published
• Finds melting polar ice has led to 11mm rise in sea level
• Greenland losing ice five times faster than early 1990s


Sounds like a problem. 20 years = 11 mm x 5 = 0.55 meter in 100 years = a major problem to many parts of the world.


Ian Joughin, another member of the team, of University of Washington, Seattle, said: "Climate change is likely to accelerate ice loss greatly." He added significant challenges remained in predicting ice melting, due to the complexity of the interactions between the warming air and oceans and the great ice sheets and glaciers. "In Greenland, we are seeing really dramatic losses in ice, but it is still uncertain if it will slow, stay the same or accelerate further."


He doesn't mention a possible increase in ice cover. Is this completely ruled out by scientists? Seems like nobody even thinks that it's a possibility.

Guardian

Were the Grauniad scaremongering in their headlines, or just matching the dishonesty/spin of the skeptical news writers?

It seems that the credible scientific community isn't really sure of the future trend except that ice cover ain't gonna increase in the foreseeable. Whatever, responsible folk should be really concerned. The bury head in sand and carry on regardless mob should be ashamed of themselves. Even if we are not sure if burning everything burnable is the cause of current events, surely alarm bells must ring inside the heads of intelligent people.
edit on 30-11-2012 by lazernation because: cc
edit on 30-11-2012 by lazernation because: tp



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by steve1709
reply to post by mee30
 


Where's the evidence? Look it up yourself!

studies were done by people that are much smarter than me and may I hazard a guess, much smarter than you and came out with papers showing that a carbon tax is better than other model.

sick of flogging a dead horse over this.



That is hardly a denial of ignorance. "Look it up yourself" is the antithesis of denying ignorance.

But to comment on your claim of these smart people....I would love to know what these people's intentions are. its that whole "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".



I expected more from you than a snazzy quip. Guess I had the wrong impression of you. If you took the time to read the very next post, I decided to spoon feed the imo ignoramous.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


The main problem is that the green's are really red, communist red. They tried to use an eco scare to trick people in global communism. The big warning should of been "we have an eco problem and the only way to solve is massive taxes(that would destroy the Western nations) and wealth redistribution".

Granted as many have said that doesn't excuse pollution and deforestation(which are serious concerns that require serious, non leftist solutions).

The last thirty years should offer more then enough proof that the vast majority of lefties are pathological liars. I wonder, it makes sense, people drawn to communism and socialism are probably just psychopaths and sociopaths. People incapable of shame and see no wrong in stealing from or hurting others if it benefits them.
edit on 3-12-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazernation

Ian Joughin, another member of the team, of University of Washington, Seattle, said: "Climate change is likely to accelerate ice loss greatly." He added significant challenges remained in predicting ice melting, due to the complexity of the interactions between the warming air and oceans and the great ice sheets and glaciers. "In Greenland, we are seeing really dramatic losses in ice, but it is still uncertain if it will slow, stay the same or accelerate further."


He doesn't mention a possible increase in ice cover. Is this completely ruled out by scientists? Seems like nobody even thinks that it's a possibility.


Indeed - there are many more credible analysis of this report around that point out that the question is how fast ice is melting - not whether or not it is, or whether or not it will reverse and increase within our lifetimes - not even from analysts that broadly don't like the AGW theory:

"the establishment":
www.jpl.nasa.gov...
www.arctic.noaa.gov...

"Doubters":
www.theregister.co.uk...
www.realclimate.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
While sanctimoniou pr1cks (global warming sceptics) think they make forum points about global warming, the reality (to use a commonly thrown around word here on ats) is that people are walking the walk of climate change. Here is a good example

"DOHA (AFP) - The Philippines urged bickering UN climate negotiators in Doha on Thursday to take heed of the deadly typhoon that struck the archipelago this week and wake up to the realities of global warming.

Philippine climate envoy Naderev Sano made an emotive appeal for action as the annual United Nations gathering hit deadlock on the issue of money for poorer countries' efforts to adapt to a warming world in the next few years.

"I appeal to the whole world, I appeal to leaders from all over the world, to open our eyes to the stark reality that we face," he said to applause from delegates."


source:
au.news.yahoo.com...

This is why these know it alls get under my skin. how about they go and live on one of the islands that "isn't" affected by global warming? Better still, why not send their kids there to live.
edit on 6/12/12 by steve1709 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I don't care what any evidence says either way, we need to take action to protect the environment or we will be nearly extinct within fifty years. We have to open our eyes to the big picture, we are doing wide spread devastation of our environment and the environment of our foodchain. We can't keep it up, people are worried about sustaining their way of life without consideration for our future. Look at our national debt. It did not get there by practical spending. It got there by trying to please too many people without respect for the national economy. It is the same with Ecology. give people cheap airfare and they go places they couldn't afford to go before, creating a tax on the environment. The common sense has gone out the door, and it will never have a chance to return. I know there are people who have the means to kill off mankind. I guess I would not hold it against them if they did.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join