backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 126 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Dec 3 at 6:22 PM


A glacial region in Norway  (Source: NRK)
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.

After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.

The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower, warmer elevations.

The original trend had been fairly rapid decline since the year 2000.  

The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).

DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada, California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both colder temperatures and increased snowfall.

Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is "a bit of an anomaly", but not to be unexpected.

Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the glaciers were even smaller during the 'Medieval Warm Period' of the Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

Not all Norwegian glaciers appear to be affected, most notably those in the Jotenheimen region of Southern Norway.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just curious but
By theendofallsongs on 11/27/2008 11:05:21 PM , Rating: 1
What glaciers are growing in California? What glaciers even EXIST in California?




RE: Just curious but
By jwm on 11/27/2008 11:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
2 simple words in Google 'California Glaciers' revealed the answer.


RE: Just curious but
RE: Just curious but
By rdeegvainl on 11/28/2008 5:56:39 AM , Rating: 5
that... is the greatest thing ever


RE: Just curious but
By truk007 on 11/28/2008 6:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm having trouble stopping the laughter. That really is brilliant!


RE: Just curious but
By MamiyaOtaru on 11/29/2008 5:21:52 AM , Rating: 1
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com was an old favorite of mine


RE: Just curious but
By matorsfan on 11/30/2008 10:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Funny..but scary someone would actually spend money to make a domain for that.


RE: Just curious but
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 3:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
The question is where in the world are Glaciers still shrinking and when was Waldo last out there measuring them?


Incorrect data
By frag999 on 11/28/2008 1:16:40 AM , Rating: 5
I am sorry, but it is impossible for glaciers to be getting larger with the earth's hockey-sticking temperature trend. I gotta run, my Prius is double parked, later.




RE: Incorrect data
By Nighteye2 on 11/28/2008 4:49:05 AM , Rating: 3
The increase is not evenly divided across the earth. Norway, for example, has influence from a warm ocean current that may stop if global warming persists. If it stops, local temperatures in regions like Norway may drop.


RE: Incorrect data
By bkslopper on 11/28/2008 7:45:22 AM , Rating: 3
How does one double park such a small car?


RE: Incorrect data
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:25:38 AM , Rating: 3
One gets quite the mental image of these global warming believers. They are dutiful little children spouting back by rote what their mommy and daddy tell them.

...yes my mommy told me that we are hurting the earth. She told me that we are naughty and must be punished.

Meanwhile the father is estranged in our woman dominated culture and the children no longer listen to the logical parent. They are told not to listen to the evil man who knows how to spot the con. And thus our socialist hopey changey United States is drug further down the road of liardom to the socialist utopia where the left gets to dictate how you live. What is utopian about that? To the left it is perfection.


RE: Incorrect data
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 5:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think it would help to require learning to play chess in grade school? Or would it improve the authority of educated men if there was a geeky nerd tax on Hollywood films and television shows?

The movies and TV did not start out with every logical man a sexless idiot. That came only after the New York networks started making their own shows and selling off sponsorship in thirty second bites.


RE: Incorrect data
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:37:00 AM , Rating: 1
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=how to double park a small car

Wow. That IS fun!


RE: Incorrect data
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Incorrect data
By JonnyDough on 12/1/2008 4:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
I got rated down to 1 for saying I suck? Woohoo! Someone doesn't think I suck!


Coconuts in Britain?
By omgwtf8888 on 11/28/2008 12:06:58 PM , Rating: 5
Based upon my study of cinema the world is warming, as coconuts were found in Britain.

# THE HOLY GRAIL

Arthur approaches an isolated castle guarded by soldiers ( #1 & #2 ) .....

S #1: Where'd you get the coconuts?
A : We found them.
S #1: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
A : What do you mean?
S #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
A : The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
S #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
A : Not at all. They could be carried.
S #1: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
A: It could grip it by the husk!
S #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
A: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here.
S #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
A: Please!
S #1: Am I right?
A: I'm not interested!
S #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
S #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.
S #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
A: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
S #1: But then of course a-- African swallows are non-migratory.
S #2: Oh, yeah...
S #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...




RE: Coconuts in Britain?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/1/2008 9:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
Coconut palms are found on the western coasts of England and Ireland, since they DO migrate on the Gulf Stream, which also provides enough warmth for them to grow on those shores. So you see, a bit of an inside joke on the Python's part.


RE: Coconuts in Britain?
By matorsfan on 12/1/2008 9:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
Coconuts growing in England? Someone's been pulling your leg!


RE: Coconuts in Britain?
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 3:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Coconuts did not even grow in Palm Beach, Florida until a ship wreck dumped a load off shore during a storm. Coconut palms are an invasive species relatively new to the Gulf Stream.


Made me happy :)
By ninus3d on 11/28/2008 7:49:25 AM , Rating: 4
Disregarding wether or not this proves or debunk any global warming/ice age theories but I'm from Norway and these glaciers are stunningly beautifull :)
Keep growing strong!!

I swallowed the "Al Gore" movement whole and was one of those who started showing the movie to friends and families and what not and was ALL THERE on what we had to do etc etc.
Now this was all before I started reading this page where you guys are pretty DARN GOOD at posting scientific sources of studies and while I havent done a complete reverse of my belief of "manmade effect on planet earth" its gone completely away from "affecting weather" to "pollution is really bad".

Btw, one thing I dont like about An Inconvenient Truth is how it appeals so much to humans great fondness of drama, make you feel like you are in a "critical time, action required NOW" kindoff state.
Are there any other movies or books that present this concept a slightly more intriguing or entertaining compared to research study paper on pollution and climate change both!




RE: Made me happy :)
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:28:06 AM , Rating: 1
I have never heard any of my friends from Norway use the phrase "What Not".


RE: Made me happy :)
By Ammohunt on 12/1/2008 2:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I swallowed the "Al Gore" movement whole and was one of those who started showing the movie to friends and families and what not and was ALL THERE on what we had to do etc etc.


http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html


RE: Made me happy :)
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
At least you only had to hear the "Global Warming" and the "I invented the Internet" tales and did not have to listen to Cousin Al's dating successes. (Mother’s side and about five generations separation) Al was always in rare form while his father "Big" Al was shaking down the family reunions for contributions, of course I was only eleven at the last on he attended.


There it is.
By chose on 11/29/2008 9:22:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is "a bit of an anomaly", but not to be unexpected


A.K.A. they don't know /&%"# about /&%"#.




Interesting post
By Andy35W on 11/28/2008 1:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
A nice pairing with the Alaska post you did, cheers.

I live in Enland so not too far away. For the last couple of years the summers have not have very large temp. peaks, 20C+ rather than 30C+ for the years before, presumably because air masses from Africa have not intruded too much into the north and therefore the more prevailing cooler maritime westerly air masses have rained (spelling mistake intended!) supreme. Therefore the current Norwegian glacial increase might be more a weather event than a climate one.

Will be interesting to watch though in case it is climate related, bit hard to tell at the moment.

Regards

Andy




Y'all!
By tyanlion on 11/28/2008 11:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
George W. Bush was right.




Losers
By overlandpark4me on 11/30/2008 12:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
I love it when people post they don't believe it because it doesn't line up with their left whacko views.

Not called global warming anymore people, it's "climate change" lol....It only took 10 years before the argument was over. Now the losers want to play both sides of the fence. The painful part of that is, it rams right up your arse when you do it.




Climate Models
By drilloil on 12/1/2008 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Catastrphic Global warming is based upon the results of computer models that as yet have been ineffective when attempts were made to history match. Virtually all models when run from 1900 to present predicted as much as 4 degrees of warming that we haven't observed. Models are the result of finding numerical solutions to partial differential equations relating a grid square to the one beside it and so on. the only history matches that have occurred have had to tweak the data to force a match and are therefore intrinsically unreliable about predicting the future.

In short, if you don't know enough math to have taken differential calculus and then done numerical computer models then I suggest you refrain from expressing your opinions about fictional global warming.




Global warming?
By resisty on 12/1/2008 5:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of hockey sticks and bogus global warming reports...

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/1editorialbody.la...




Every time I go to town....
By RoberTx on 12/3/2008 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Every time I go to town the boys start kickin' my dog around....

My neighbor is an environmentalist. I showed this article to her then pushed the old woman down. I feel powerful and vindicated.




Glaciers and Mussolini
By FPP on 12/3/2008 6:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, California has Glaciers i.e. on Mount Shasta, for anyone not knowing.

This so called "science" is the worst example of personal bias you can find in a scientific field since a Brit scientist was caught filing off part of a Pyramid to prove his thesis in the 19th century.

NASA's Goddard center has flubbed it's job so many times that Robert weeps in the afterlife. In the latest caper, it tried to blame the giant temperature flub on NOAA, who promptly reminded them that it is only responsible for U.S. temperature data.

By the way, the US crushed Mussolini in WWII. If he did admire us, I do not think it was forever, do you?




Global warming is not a yearly thing
By PrinceGaz on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
By wookie1 on 11/29/2008 1:41:19 AM , Rating: 3
"It is worth remembering that Norway as well as the UK getting colder are a predicted effect of global warming"

Wait, cooling is a side effect of warming? What are we worried about then? Also note that the models "predict" everything from slight cooling to steep warming, depending on which one you're looking at. They have model ensembles that run a wide range of scenarios, and they average the results. I'm glad I don't live on model earth, even if it is more predictable.


RE: Global warming is not a yearly thing
By Ringold on 11/29/2008 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
we should be looking at averages over at least 10 years instead of individual year results,


Funny you mention that, hasn't the last 10 years been flat/slightly cooling?

quote:
It is worth remembering that Norway as well as the UK getting colder are a predicted effect of global warming,


Of course, it's not just Norway. Florida has already set several historic daily lows this fall, along with several freezes. It snowed in Baghdad last year, and China saw perhaps the greatest dislocation of travelers in history last winter. A pretty wide variety of places are feeling a little chilled lately.


By Hexxx on 11/30/2008 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
It snowed in my hometown of Johannesburg, South Africa last July 2007. And the previous 2 or 3 years we had sleet. We're a few degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn.


By Avitar on 12/1/2008 4:39:25 PM , Rating: 3
Global Warming nuts are a yearly thing. The problem is the models. I had some professors from NASA while I was in collage and learned a few things in the early days back when "The SST was going to destroy the ozone layer"

If the temperature rose to 150°F degrees, average the remaining ice sheets would still take four thousand years to melt. The sea level would rise about 40 feet, with another thirty feet rise to come as the depressed land underneath the Ice sheets rebounds over the next fifty thousand years.

Finally, an honors physics problem was that without green house gases the earth in its present orbit would be thirty degrees Celsius cooler than it is now. Other people who worked that problem came up with the Snowball Earth theory. Google “Snowball Earth” if you want to know what taking measures against "Global Warming" could hurt.


YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By smokedturkey on 11/27/2008 9:35:09 PM , Rating: 5
yeah, global warming is kinda false. The only thing that causes it is solar radiattion and the Earth's core. Since we are at a cycle where sunspots are no longer present, global cooling is in effect. It is to be expected, since it is natural for the Earth to go through these phases. I wished liberals would just stfu about global warming. Enjoy life!


RE: YAWN...
By smokedturkey on 11/27/2008 9:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Also, CO2 comprises less than .05% of air at sea level.
We need CO2 in order to survive, so the idea that this so-called "greenhouse gas" is causing "global warming" is a complete farce. Another scare tactic by the ultra-liberal wackos.

Nitrogen 78.08
Oxygen 20.95
Argon 0.93
Carbon dioxide 0.03
Neon 0.0018
Helium 0.0005
Krypton 0.0001
Xenon 0.00001


RE: YAWN...
By sprockkets on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:16:14 AM , Rating: 5
Any one who still clings to the Church of Later Day Global Warming is a true believer. The world is cooling. Where I go in Southern Brazil the rivers are up 32 feet this year because of all the rain. This is because with no sunspots / less solar wind we receive more cloud forming cosmic rays. Just like detailed in the Great Global Warming Swindle.

Yet you see people here trying to say we are warming because we are cooling. ( Global warming is preventing the next ice age ). You guys better stoke up the excuse factory because over the next few years you are going to need alot of them to keep your scam alive.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By porkpie on 11/28/2008 2:35:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
what will happen when the next fire age hits us?
Lol, the next what? Did you skip all of high school science? There have been hundreds of ice ages, but I don't remember reading about any "Fire Ages".


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 9:51:21 AM , Rating: 4
oh, it's coming..... I read about it in Revelations.

Now he is missing his information when he said another fire age. There will be only one fire age... and when it happens, I'm going to be a Stephen Colbert's house, because that will be the only safe place on earth.


RE: YAWN...
By Regs on 11/28/2008 7:18:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But you can't deny that hurricanes have become more ferocious in the last few decades


I'm sure the Inca's, after their sacrifices too their gods, booted up their MAC lap tops in the 14th century to measure how bad their hurricane season was.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:31:22 AM , Rating: 1
Lies. They didn't have computers! By the way, I was pretty much poking fun at people who think they can measure global temps over a very short time frame like one hundred years. Maybe nobody understood that I was kidding. But for the record, during times of global temp change, many people died. We've studied Europe and the last ice age.


RE: YAWN...
By DASQ on 12/2/2008 6:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
The last ice age climate data consists of a cave relief of a guy huddling in a mammoth skin cloak in a cave with a bewildered look on his face that seems to question 'why sharp stick hurt?'


RE: YAWN...
By gregpet on 12/1/2008 2:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But you can't deny that hurricanes have become more ferocious in the last few decades


Tell that to the people of Galveston in 1901. The entire city was LITERALLY wiped off the map by a hurricane. Because of that Houston displaced Galveston as the major Texas city on the Gulf coast.


RE: YAWN...
By jimbojimbo on 12/1/2008 3:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
They haven't gotten more ferocious or more frequent. You're just hearing about them a whole lot more because the news entertainment channels love stories about destruction and death. What gets more viewers, one story about death and destruction of the world or one story about how the day was just your average day?


RE: YAWN...
By MamiyaOtaru on 11/29/2008 5:26:17 AM , Rating: 1
Stop using "begs the question" incorrectly. Just say "raises the question" kthxbye


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/3/2008 12:44:15 AM , Rating: 1
I don't have to google the phrase "I should of done that" to know what was meant either, but that doesn't change the fact that it's also wrong.


RE: YAWN...
By zivnix on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By grenableu on 11/28/2008 11:41:16 AM , Rating: 3
We haven't used "almost all" the carbon. We've barely begun to touch coal deposits, and haven't even started on things like oil shale.

Also, there's a thousand times as much CO2 stored in the ocean as there is in the atmosphere. And guess what? When you warm water, the CO2 comes out. That's the real reason CO2 levels are climbing. It gets warmer, and the gas comes out.


RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By TheSpaniard on 11/27/2008 10:40:54 PM , Rating: 4
the sun has the GREATEST effect on the changes in earth's temperature because it is constantly changing (see: sunspots)


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/27/2008 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 3
How do you call the sun stable? The fact that it is always the same size in the sky means that its output is a constant? Like stated above, look up sunspots for one. The sun's output is extremely variable, and is a large cause of fluctuation.


RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2008 12:37:13 AM , Rating: 5
In total insolation, the sun changes very little during a solar cycle, yes...a few tenths of a percent. However, in some frequency bands, such as the far ultraviolet, energy output can very by several percent. Do feedback effects exist which amplify these insolation changes to cause climate shifts? Many solar physicists believe they do.

Even more compelling is the widespread belief that orbital variations (ala Milankovitch cycles, etc) cause widescale climatic changes. The evidence for this is compelling...but those cycles also only cause very slight changes in total solar insolation themselves. Therefore, if one accepts the "orbital wobble" explanation of past climate shifts (many of which occurred much faster than the one we're now experiencing) then one has to accept such positive amplifications exist.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By whiskerwill on 11/28/2008 10:15:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Just what is the real downside to not polluting so much?
You mean, besides the $50 trillion dollars the UN says it'll cost to reduce emissions? And that's just to get started. The final bill is so large they're even afraid to even estimate it.

Maybe you and me are different, but I really don't look forward to a future where energy (and every product and service that depends on it, which is literally everything) is much more expensive. All to solve a "problem" that apparently doesn't even exist.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/29/2008 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
OK, now take all of the billions of people who actually cant afford that, then all of the countries that aren't going to play along, and what do you have left? a LOT more per person.


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/29/2008 5:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Like the other guy just pointed out, that's more money than some people will earn in a lifetime.

Divide the 50 trillion by the 1 billion who actually could pay it, and it's $50,000. That's, what, two years or so of global rich-world output? As the current economy shows, just slight variations of 1 and 2% of total output can lead to huge increases in unemployment, and, well, just a lot of all-around suffering. The suffering isn't limited to just people who would pay the cost either because the world is deeply connected by international trade. A bank collapses in Europe, and Malaysians may loose chunks of their retirement. Euro-zone consumers cut back, and thousands of factories close (and have already closed) in China, etc.

If you think 50 trillion is trivial, stop paying attention to the current global government as if they are some kind of good example, tossing hundreds of billions around as if its nothing. Governments are going to have to "thread the (monetary) needle" carefully; if they get it wrong, hyperinflation catastrophe, if they get it right, possibly a repeat of Japan's decade-long stagnation.

It's not just me saying this, either. Numerous economists have done cost-benefit analysis suggesting that it makes sense to only spend relatively small sums of money curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Higher levels of spending could reduce output and thus reduce global warming damage in the long run, but by less than the value of forgone investments with that same marginal dollar. (Yeah, I know, left-wing ideology and economics doesn't mix well)


RE: YAWN...
By TomZ on 11/28/2008 10:32:49 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
do you still want to breathe in pollution?

The AGW debate is about CO2 - and CO2 is absolutely not a pollutant in the sense of the word as you are using it.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/2008 2:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. CO2 is a NATURAL gas. However, I'll drink to not being polluted with toxins. Except alcohol. That toxin running through my veins is often intentional (except when I'm forced to drink it at thin camp - they love us all liquored up because let's face it, anorexia is hot and beer makes freshman college girls fat within 2 years) and should only be of concern to parents who let their good-looking teenage daughters frequent the university bars on weekends. Scientists and the mass public however, can relax. CO2 is a natural gas, and so is my after-effect from drinking a few beers.


RE: YAWN...
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 5:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
What planet is JonnyDough from? Where I am from we have things called Volcanos. And every five hundred years or so a big one goes off and emits more CO2 than the last one hundred years of the industrial revolution. The biggest impact we have here on the levels of Carbon Dioxide is deforstation.

We would like to get people to replant the forest trees, primarily for the wood, like the United States started doing a century ago but we keep getting resistance from people who want to run their cars on "biofuels." The rest of us would use the coal-to-oil conversion for the next 300 years and pave the parking lots with nanoantennas during the next century.


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/2008 12:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
It depends exactly what you mean by stable. Is it going to explode or collapse? no. Is it going to massively fluctuate? no. But it will fluctuate. Again, i urge you to look into sunspots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots

Each sunspot causes a fluctuation in the sun's energy output. (ie, temperature)


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/2008 6:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
How does health care and sun screen have anything to do with proving there are fluctuations in the sun? I never said it wasn't going to affect anything.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:19:43 AM , Rating: 1
Get a REAL job! Dude, you're too serious.


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/29/2008 2:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
I knew it wasn't serious, but it wouldve helped if your post had anything to do with what i was talking about.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 12/1/2008 5:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well now, that's a bit selfish!


RE: YAWN...
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
Tom Cruise is stable in his acting output.... but does that make him stable in real life?

uhhhh...no.


RE: YAWN...
By porkpie on 11/27/2008 11:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
pick one tiny fact in one place on Earth
Norway, the Arctic, Antarctica, Canada, California, New Zealand, are all just "one place"? I think you need to learn basic counting skills.

Yeah, greenhouse gases warm the earth. That's why CO2 doesn't matter. Because water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas, and its a thousand times more prevalent.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:19:43 AM , Rating: 3
Any one who believes in Global warming is either a non-scientist with a liberal arts degree or a scientist that gets his budget from the feds and is just a government schill.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see global warming is not only a scam but the world is cooling.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 12:19:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Any one who believes in Global warming is either a non-scientist with a liberal arts degree or a scientist that gets his budget from the feds and is just a government schill .

So, in your opinion, AGW can be reduced to a conspiracy impulsed by non-scientists and government schills. And if this is not enough, you compare the support of a scientific theory with something that's faith-based (beliefs)
quote:
Anyone with an ounce of sense can see global warming is not only a scam but the world is cooling.

And then I'm supposed to take right-wingers seriously. Everything is a government-sponsored scam or a conspiracy of some sort. I'll give you some advice: if you want a conspiracy theory with some ground on reality, take a look at the financial world of the last 30 years (debt and currency crisis on the 3rd world, the birth of junk bonds, OTC derivatives, a forex market which is many times bigger than the underlying economy, insane leverage on the banking system, repealing of laws made in the 30s, deeply flawed models of risk analysis, etc)

In other unrelated news, the central area of Argentina is suffering the warmest November in 50 or 75 years. Links in Spanish:
http://genteadiario.blogspot.com/2008/11/noviembre...
http://www.lacapital.com.ar/contenidos/2008/11/26/...

This site tends more and more to the right. Even my right leaning friends (I'm considered a radical centrist) like to poke fun at the opinions (and some articles) written on this site.


RE: YAWN...
By sigilscience on 11/30/2008 4:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the central area of Argentina is suffering the warmest November in 50 or 75 years
That means it was even warmer 75 years ago. If that's the best you can do to show the world is still warming up, you better give up while you can.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 5:43:58 PM , Rating: 1
It seems that your reading skills aren't up to the task:
- First, I didn't want to imply that this hot November here in Argentina is in anyway proof of AGW. If you read that sentence again you'll find a little amount of sarcasm ("... in other unrelated news...".
- Second, if you even bother to read the links (use an online translation service if you aren't fluent in Spanish) you'll know that this is the hottest November using reliable records. Some excerpts:
-"Con su máxima media de 31,4 grados hasta anteayer, este noviembre es el más caluroso del que tiene registro el Servicio Meteorológico, que elabora series de esos valores desde 1935, es decir, desde hace 73 años."
"With an average high of 31.4 ºC until yesterday (11/26), this November is the hottest (1.8 ºC more than the previous record and 4.7 ºC more than the "normal" average high) on the records kept by the National Weather Service, which began keeping records since 1935, 73 years ago"


RE: YAWN...
By sigilscience on 11/30/2008 7:59:14 PM , Rating: 3
According to my translator, that page just says the city itself set a record, not an entire region of the country. It's also a very fast growing city, which means temperatures are going to go up anyway, with or without global warming. All that extra black pavement and dark rooftops make for rising temperatures.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 12/1/2008 3:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to my translator, that page just says the city itself set a record, not an entire region of the country.

I only posted two examples (a blog referencing Buenos Aires and the online version of Rosario's main newspaper). Both cities are a mere example of a phenomenon which affected vast areas.
quote:
It's also a very fast growing city, which means temperatures are going to go up anyway, with or without global warming. All that extra black pavement and dark rooftops make for rising temperatures.

Bad call for the UHI effect.
- Most climate models are already adjusted for the UHI effect which, BTW, is thought as not being important in the general scheme of things.
- Rosario isn't a "very fast growing city".
- The weather stations of Bs. As. are placed in places not affected by urbanization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroparque_Jorge_Newb...
http://www.buenosaires.gov.ar/areas/barrios/buscad...
- The records are far off the scale
"Aunque parezca pequeña, la diferencia de 1,5 grados entre las marcas de 1994 y las de este noviembre es muy elevada , explicó el licenciado Leis. Y agregó: Lo habitual es que las marcas se superen por apenas unas décimas ."

Straight from the horses' mouth:
http://www.smn.gov.ar/?mod=clima&id=73


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/30/2008 5:35:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if you want a conspiracy theory with some ground on reality, take a look at the financial world of the last 30 years (debt and currency crisis on the 3rd world, the birth of junk bonds, OTC derivatives, a forex market which is many times bigger than the underlying economy, insane leverage on the banking system, repealing of laws made in the 30s, deeply flawed models of risk analysis, etc)


So, to spin things slightly different, you say he thinks its a conspiracy theory because he doesn't understand the science. Then you list some financial and economic issues which you don't understand, and then hint that it's a conspiracy. Nice.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 6:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then you list some financial and economic issues which you don't understand, and then hint that it's a conspiracy. Nice.

Thanks, but I understand those financial and economic issues. I even profit from them. Since you didn't understood my sarcasm, I'll make it more obvious:
Conspiracy theories are silly explanations made by ignorant people or people who developed high degrees of cynicism (lots of plausible explanations for this cynicism). Conspiracy theories have one key element, an elite who wants to hide things.
When you analyze AGW, there's no elite trying to hide things and there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians from different ideologies.
When you analyze the evolution of the global financial system in the last decades, you may find some well-connected people and some hints of an elite. Even if I think that this conspiracy theory is silly, stupid and lacking some key evidence I can "accept" that it has some "merits".


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/30/2008 7:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When you analyze AGW, there's no elite trying to hide things and there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians from different ideologies.


Since you understand economics, then perhaps you'll see what bothers me most about all this "science." In economics, if one has a model, they take the known population data, split it up, input some of the data and attempt to predict the rest. If it fails, the model is refined until it or does or trashed entirely as nonsense -- it definitely never sees the light of day in the public realm. As Masher points out, we're just now starting to get such climate models. The fact we've gone on and on about global warming with such guesswork suggests motivations exist beyond mere science. These people in the real world of finance wouldn't last a week.

Indeed, listen to some activists own admissions, and you'd know what those motivations are. I've linked before to environmentalist websites, particularly those with blogs and thus expressed views on a range of issues. They're almost all anti-trade, anti-development, left-wing front groups who find environmentalism a cute shroud to hide behind. Most are anti-nuclear, and many apparently still claim clean-coal doesn't exist or is an oxymoron -- despite the functional German coal plant that proves otherwise. If it's a solution, they're against it, unless its onerously expensive.

Of course politicians of different creeds would pander to those groups. They want to get re-elected, and a large portion of the population has been brainwashed with 'green' ideology and ideas like wind and solar being our future salvation. Notice some of the Republican's advocating a shift to the left for the party; they'd rather embrace John Maynard Keynes and get elected rather than embrace Goldwater or Milton Friedman and get left in the cold.

But this popular appeal therefore trickles back to the science. Want to study, say, squirrel populations? Forget it, times are hard, budgets are thin. Want to study squirrel populations and the impact of global warming? Ka-Ching, here's your grant money! The amount of government money spent globally on 'global warming' is amazing, but it has to be done by politicians to gain green 'cred'. And where have all these climate scientists come from? Where were they 30 years ago? Did we suddenly train thousands of competent climate specialists globally? I find it interesting that some of the climate scientists who were plying their trade long before this recent fad are some of the ones who tend to put up caution flags on GW.

At any rate, the conspiracy of GW isn't so much the science IMHO. The scientific consensus is just part of a feedback loop that represents the fundamental weakness of democracy. The conspiracy is in the response to global warming, and the policies advocated. Thats where the extremists are.


RE: YAWN...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2008 8:25:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians...
Consensus among politicans is meaningless. AGW is a dream come true for most elected officials: an excuse for more government, more taxes, and a "crisis" that only they can solve.

Among scientists, consensus doesn't exist. Just before reading your post, I happened to be watching some proceedings from the International Geological Convention this year in Norway. Attended by hundreds of researchers from around the globe, A panel debate on global warming was part of the agenda. With it headed by IPCC climate modelers and even an environment minister for the Danish government, the conclusion seemed foregone. However, once the panel allowed questions from the researchers in the audience, you'll see scientist after scientist question whether AGW exists and is a crisis:

http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&Pa...

About half the scientists were openly skeptical of AGW; several denied it outright.

Last year, 100 scientists wrote an open letter to the UN IPCC, telling them their efforts were misguided. Among the signatories on that letter was the president of the World Federation of Scientists, a past president of the American Physical Society, and many other noted figures. Several were even IPCC expert reviewers themselves:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10032

Since that letter was initially sent, several hundred more have chosen to add their names to it as well.

In any case, the claim of consensus itself is meaningless. As Michael Crichton says:
quote:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had .

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

... Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough . Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
My thanks again to Ringold or whoever it was who originally posted this text.


RE: YAWN...
By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
DAMMIT MASHER!

I should have been on yesterday (or finished reading the Thread), So I could have posted this before you! (or not posted it as you already had)


RE: YAWN...
By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 3
WARNING WARNING DANGER DANGER DANGER WARNING WARNING
The previous post contained an idiotic statment that SHOULD NEVER be used in a scientific discussion!

quote:
there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians


Consensus has NO place in science. You are either CORRECT or INCORRECT, and Politicians are never allowed in science.

Look up all the Scientific consensuses in history, you will witness an astronomical failure rate. The only time Scientific Consensus is correct is after the Scientific Individual (Discoverer/Inventor) has prooven it to the rest of the world, and the scientific community has to accept it because it is true. All other cases of Scientific Consensus were adopted to thwart or obstruct discoveries or inventions that the Scientific Consensus does not want to allow.

The only benefit of Scientific Consensus is to prevent Bogus Science from reaching main stream. It is not an indication of proof but rather disproof, such as mechanisms used in court which cannot proove guilt but only innocence.

As such anyone who cites Scientific Consensus as proof of a subject, only cites consensus as there is no other evidence. Stating Consensus is an admission that there is no proof and none forthcomming. It is a political ploy to further an ajenda of obstruction or misdirection.

If you had discovered a scientific principal or law. You could proove it scientifically. If you cannot proove it scientifically, it should be nothing more than a theory or hypothesis, no action should be taken, other than further studies until proof can be made.

Anything further?