OT Antarctica gained more ice than lost

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

Oil prices are dependent largely on the world economy, growth in China and OPEC.

And our domestic non conventional extraction methods. 

No no doubt crony capitalism is not new. I would offer that usually the companies are at least viable and successful. They have many positives to offer down the line. Certainly not one size fits all issue.

Davec433

EGGjlmh said:

johnkitchens said:

EGGjlmh said:

In the 70's I remember hearing we were about to enter another ice age.

I got in trouble in the 7th grade, in the early 80's, when our science teacher was telling our class about an article he had read that described the new ice age. 

We were in middle Georgia, and he was describing heavy snowfall in June and July and freezing temps year around. My classmates were freaking out and on the verge of tears. 

I finally spoke up and told them they were crazy to believe that crap. My teacher was furious with me and took it personal. I didn't care. I knew it was crap. 

So the super smart scientists across the country were wrong in the 70's?  But now the super duper smart scientists are right?

Pretty funny stuff.

That's why it's now Climate Change.

onedbguru

JohnInCarolina said:

Fred19Flintstone said:

There hasn't been one shred of proof other than computer models that man made global warming is occurring.  

Science doesn't deal with proof, but rather data.  As to what the data says regarding  measurements of mean global temperature.... yeah.

Except everyone knows they have been manipulating "the data" for decades.  The Earth has been known to go through warming and cooling cycles and we are using "data" for 130 years to say we are going to burn up. According to the "science" community, the Earth is millions of years old, so we take "data" the width of a pinhead on a line thousands of miles long to say the sky is falling.   Sheeessh!!! 

And now we are importing "greenhouse" gasses from India and China and forcing more restrictions on already overburdened businesses and industry out west. 

nolaegghead

The funny stuff is how someone could actually believe that our collective knowledge isn't improving exponentially, especially since we have computers that are orders of magnitude more powerful and the same to be said with the volume of data we have and can process now versus the 1970s.  

Rocks, not very fun to live under but a gas when you come out from under them. 

EGGjlmh

Lol

nolaegghead

onedbguru said:

Except everyone knows they have been manipulating "the data" for decades.  

I guess when you tell me "everyone knows", that's powerful stuff to some people. 

What you're referring to is a conspiracy theory - you'll find it in this list of conspiracy theories down in the "Miscellaneous" section, probably with a bunch of other facts you hold true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

JohnInCarolina

onedbguru said:

Except everyone knows they have been manipulating "the data" for decades.  

The data here consists of temperature measurements and recordings from all over the world. This is publicly available information.  To manipulate it you'd have to hack into all sorts of archives maintained by a wide range of different countries, and hope that not a single scientist noticed.    

As to your second point about us only using data from 130 years, that's incorrect too.  We only have recorded temperature data going back that far, but there are proxy data that can be used to reconstruct temperatures much further back.   But all of this is beside the point, because anthropogenic forcing only really picked up in the industrial age.  

You can keep just making stuff up I guess, but facts are stubborn things. 

4Runner

Davec433 said:

Begger said:

I'm going to venture an opinion here.   We should be talking about 'climate change' not 'global warming'.
The climate is never the same from one decade to the next.    Warmer?  Cooler?  More rain?   Less rain?  Short term?   Longer term?  
The Western US is in a drought situation.  The Colorado River due to Nature AND mans intervention, hasn't reached the Ocean but a couple times in the last 30 years.    Lake Mead?   It has a 100 foot + BathTub Ring and Hoover Dam has used the spillway in who knows how long.   see picture 

I grew up in Northern California and remember the brown outs. All due to politicians not wanting to add more power plants for whatever reason. Another place I remember being with brown outs, Pakistan. Just because idiots run the govt doesn't make it "climate change."

I'll give you a reason.  The Govt doesn't decide to add power plants. California as a state doesn't want any on its soil and makes it so difficult to add any. That state just want to consume all the generation and tell they world how green a state they are.  

pgprescott

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Ooo, Wikipedia!

we should all know that computers only do what we order it to do. Quickly, I'll give you that. 

Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts. There are very many hypotheses based upon very few actual facts. Even data is only fact as it pertains to its unique set of circumstances based upon timing, location, human error, etc. among many other factors. People take data and form opinion and hypothesis. These are not to be disregarded nor should there be blindly consumed. I would argue that the threshold for acceptance should be exponentially greater than sceptasism or dismissal. Especially if you are asking for individuals to to be contributors to the cost by threat of force (taxation and regulation). Not very many are opposed to voluntary reasonable personal steps regardless of their views. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Right.  Just like birth certificates from Hawaii.  

DMW

pgprescott said:

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Ooo, Wikipedia!

we should all know that computers only do what we order it to do. Quickly, I'll give you that. 

Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts. There are very many hypotheses based upon very few actual facts. Even data is only fact as it pertains to its unique set of circumstances based upon timing, location, human error, etc. among many other factors. People take data and form opinion and hypothesis. These are not to be disregarded nor should there be blindly consumed. I would argue that the threshold for acceptance should be exponentially greater than sceptasism or dismissal. Especially if you are asking for individuals to to be contributors to the cost by threat of force (taxation and regulation). Not very many are opposed to voluntary reasonable personal steps regardless of their views. 

What about Skynet?

nolaegghead

What's astounding is how politicized this issue has gotten on the right.  A wholesale grifting of a large demographic with a conspiracy theory just to gain votes and make money via slashing and burning the future like a berserker.  Even the oil companies are diversifying into alternate energy investments and buy into the predominant scientific analysis for business planning.

You don't see this massive level of scientific ignorance anywhere else in the developed world.

JohnInCarolina

nolaegghead said:

What's astounding is how politicized this issue has gotten on the right.  A wholesale grifting of a large demographic with a conspiracy theory just to gain votes and make money via slashing and burning the future like a berserker.  Even the oil companies are diversifying into alternate energy investments and buy into the predominant scientific analysis for business planning.

You don't see this massive level of scientific ignorance anywhere else in the developed world.

That's true.  It's really only politicized in the US.  Obviously we're the only ones who have it right.  

nolaegghead

4Runner said:

I grew up in Northern California and remember the brown outs. All due to politicians not wanting to add more power plants for whatever reason. Another place I remember being with brown outs, Pakistan. Just because idiots run the govt doesn't make it "climate change."

I'll give you a reason.  The Govt doesn't decide to add power plants. California as a state doesn't want any on its soil and makes it so difficult to add any. That state just want to consume all the generation and tell they world how green a state they are.  

Joe, that's part of the problem.  But not even close to the whole story.  Market manipulation by Enron is a bigger reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

And because no one probably looks at any of my links lest they learn something:

California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price.[9][10] Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[11]

DMW

I think I'm gonna go post food pics on a political/science forum.

JohnInCarolina

DMW said:

I think I'm gonna go post food pics on a political/science forum.

Chris Christie is WAY ahead of you there. 

nolaegghead

@DMW F-U TROLL M-EFFER!!!

Darby_Crenshaw

If you don't believe in science, then don't try to use science to back up your argument. Very simple.

You don't get to say that climate scientists don't know anything, and then say "we all know the earth goes through cycles".

Who told you about those cycles?

Um. Climate scientists? 

JohnInCarolina

Relativity - just a theory!

nolaegghead

pgprescott said:

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Ooo, Wikipedia!

we should all know that computers only do what we order it to do. Quickly, I'll give you that. 

Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts. There are very many hypotheses based upon very few actual facts. Even data is only fact as it pertains to its unique set of circumstances based upon timing, location, human error, etc. among many other factors. People take data and form opinion and hypothesis. These are not to be disregarded nor should there be blindly consumed. I would argue that the threshold for acceptance should be exponentially greater than sceptasism or dismissal. Especially if you are asking for individuals to to be contributors to the cost by threat of force (taxation and regulation). Not very many are opposed to voluntary reasonable personal steps regardless of their views. 

Now you're just being a troll.  Not a very interesting one either.  These are just platitudes that lack context.  When I read, for example:

"Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts."

or

"Ooo, Wikipedia!"

My eyes roll back in my head and your stock just plummeted like, Enron. Keep on point.

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

pgprescott said:

Data can be manipulated easily. Where when how and who picked the data points etc. 

Ooo, Wikipedia!

we should all know that computers only do what we order it to do. Quickly, I'll give you that. 

Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts. There are very many hypotheses based upon very few actual facts. Even data is only fact as it pertains to its unique set of circumstances based upon timing, location, human error, etc. among many other factors. People take data and form opinion and hypothesis. These are not to be disregarded nor should there be blindly consumed. I would argue that the threshold for acceptance should be exponentially greater than sceptasism or dismissal. Especially if you are asking for individuals to to be contributors to the cost by threat of force (taxation and regulation). Not very many are opposed to voluntary reasonable personal steps regardless of their views. 

Now you're just being a troll.  Not a very interesting one either.  These are just platitudes that lack context.  When I read, for example:

"Most at of the information people cite as facts are anything but facts. There are very few facts."

or

"Ooo, Wikipedia!"

My eyes roll back in my head and your stock just plummeted like, Enron. Keep on point.

nolaegghead

Just try to read that objectively.  Please, I'm begging you.

theyolksonyou

DMW said:

I think I'm gonna go post food pics on a political/science forum.

Wait! You people cook? 

DMW

theyolksonyou said:

DMW said:

I think I'm gonna go post food pics on a political/science forum.

Wait! You people cook? 

No, I just search Google images.

Darby_Crenshaw

"Numbers and facts and data can be skewed! And scientists are biased!  But here is some science and data which supports my opinion, and an unbiased opinion from a guy on the radio who I agree with!"

Lit

You guys are white girl drunk. 

JohnInCarolina

Darby_Crenshaw said:

If you don't believe in science, then don't try to use science to back up your argument. Very simple.

You don't get to say that climate scientists don't know anything, and then say "we all know the earth goes through cycles".

Who told you about those cycles?

Um. Climate scientists? 

What I love is the idea that there's a simple explanation for global warming that an entire scientific community has managed to overlook.  Like... the sun.  Or... nature.  

pgprescott

Darby_Crenshaw said:

"Numbers and facts and data can be skewed! And scientists are biased!  But here is some science and data which supports my opinion, and an unbiased opinion from a guy on the radio who I agree with!"

You are entitled to your opinion and I totally respect that. When you start to say it's not opinion, you just loose me. Even if I agree with your opinion btw. 

nolaegghead

There was an internal newsletter in my company that said water is the leading cause of climate change. Fortunately these don't go to customers.

Edit - it was published by a guy for his little department who's a denier.  Also not a scientist.

DMW

Dihyrdogen Monoxide is the cause of all our problems. If we would eliminate it from our ecosystem, no one would have anything to worry about anymore.