search results matching tag: antarctica
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (83) | Sift Talk (2) | Blogs (14) | Comments (112) |
Videos (83) | Sift Talk (2) | Blogs (14) | Comments (112) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
kulpims (Member Profile)
Your video, Antarctica Condition 1 Weather, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Antarctic blizzard at Halley Research Station
Antarctica Condition 1 Weather has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.
Wanderers - a short film by Erik Wernquist
The first step is to build a self-sustaining base in Antarctica. Greenhouses, etc.
The second step would be a self-sustaining base on the moon. Then Mars. Then in a space station in orbit around the Earth.
Then... anywhere
Bill Nye: You Can’t Ignore Facts Forever
@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.
And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.
The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.
When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.
They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"
Here are some links worth reading:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274
And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."
Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/
And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/
And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/
"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."
http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf
Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."
http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf
So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"
"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."
And from the same author's series:
"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."
http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf
Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.
"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."
Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/
Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html
Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."
What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "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."
Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."
Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html
Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/
And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Don't Visit Antarctica
Wow, these people went a long way to see penguins...that's why we have zoos people!
I know there's international agreement that no nation will 'invade' and try to take control of Antarctica, but I often wonder why no private group has 'annexed' at least part of it and started a new country. There's plenty of 'free' land, and natural resources galore in both minerals and a large percentage of the worlds fresh water. There must be some reason I'm just not getting.
mintbbb (Member Profile)
Your video, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Don't Visit Antarctica, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Bilderberg Member "Double-Speaks" to Protestors
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
It is the winter, true. My mistake. But the overall increase is not taking place in just those months, is it? Because if in the summer it melted more than it increased, then you'd have an overall decrease and not an increase, even if you are comparing one winter to the next winter.
If every winter, the ice increases compared to previous winters, then the ice is increasing each year.
oohlalasassoon (Member Profile)
Your video, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station Antarctica Tour, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
David Blaine: Real or Magic with Harrison Ford
You keep thinking that then if you'd like. As I watched this, when he asked what card he was thinking of I thought to myself 'nine of hearts'- NO SHIT
Somewhere embedded in his technique is the answer to the suggestion
Metaprogrammings' a motherfucker.
Anyone else??
Or wait....Maybe it's simply having seen this before and the 9 of hearts was already there, locked into the folds of the hippo-campus/cerebral cortex highway? Don't recall ever having seen this before...
Either ways...If David Blaine came over, I'd prolly tell him what Han Solo here told him BEFORE he had a chance to mind-fuck me..The difference? It wouldn't be......"ACTING!!!"
Seriously though, y'all really thought that Blaine was being rudely and cruelly ejected from his home?? C'mon people...suspend your disbelief for the sake of your hearts and get over yourselves....all he said was the 'eff' word.
"Next up: Blaine will bury himself in the permafrost of Antarctica in a steaming-hot bubble-bath of human blood and for forty days and forty nights with but a single meal-worm to snack on for the duration. When he rises from his ghoulish and self-imposed sarcophagus he will have drunk all the contents of the bathtub...But first, this commercial interruption to your body's natural vibrations."
... obviously a suggestion technique... quite cunning though... He suggests the 9 of hearts constantly somehow and make him only come up with that through suggestion. The rest is simple. I concur, terrible reaction... almost to much, kinda forced...
randeepsamra (Member Profile)
Your video, 2 months on icebreaker in Antarctica (in under five minutes), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Orange LED in liquid nitrogen
Does this mean people in Antarctica have different colored Christmas lights, than what they bought?
Chris Draws a Cartoon
This is an awesome premise.
There must be a tvtropes section for this premise, but I can't really think of an analogous situation where a designer gives intentionally ridiculous specifications for a creative project to try and frustrate a director / artist / engineer.
Edit: the closest trope I've found: Reassigned to Antarctica. Not a perfect fit, though:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReassignedToAntarctica
Hot interviewer wants his package:
I was thinking I would so do his wife if he was in China or Antarctica then she opened her mouth.
Keeping traffic at bay in an ex-police car
fuckit, if ant can put this in nsfw I can put it in *Antarctica
Climate Change; Latest science update
>> ^alcom:
@Sagemind: The validity of his Roberts' talk comes from the fact that the cumulative effects of human activities have a self-perpetuating momentum based on things like the methane contained in permafrost. The simple argument that we simply cannot afford to be wrong far outweighs the idea that his entire thesis must be thrown out because of a handful of appeals to popularity or "hearsay" evidence. This is not a court, or even a peer-reviewed research paper.
Ice cores reveal he annual accumulation of snow in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica contains isotopic markers of the temperature, so there are indeed scientific methods of measuring prehistoric temperatures.
Well said Alcom.
Sagemind, If you would take advice from a fellow skeptic, we do have temperature reconstructions going back more than 100 years. The instrumental record, from actual direct human measurement of temperature goes back just over 100 years, to around the late 1800's. That record graphs a rather consistent and linear warming trend from start to finish. More over, it records an increase of exactly the degree the speaker in the video mentions.
There is a trick to all this though. The temperature record going back more than about 100 years is measured with an entirely different methodology. It shows, again, as the speaker mentioned temperatures over the last few thousand years that has not varied very much.
There are people like the speaker who then put those 2 pieces together to declare proof positive that unprecedented warming began 100 years ago, right when man started burning fossil fuels. As I said, I'm skeptical myself. The other significant thing about 100 years ago is the change of methodology for building the graph and reconstruction of temperature. With 1 method, we have a fairly static graph, with another method we immediately have another. Any scientist worthy of the name would look at that and say the same, and investigate ways to rule out the methodology as the cause of the different results.
That's why I insisted on directing people to google scholar and looking at Mann's own work. He's the one that came out with the famous hockey stick graph that 'proved' man-made warming. All of his follow up work is showing more and more evidence that reconstructing the last 100 years with same methodology used to construct the last few thousand shows a much less scary picture.
But don't take my word for it. Don't take the speaker in the video's word for it. Don't even take Mann's word for it. Go look at the raw results in his article's and the other available related scientific literature. I promise I have and come back convinced it is looking like a good portion of the gloom and doom is merely an artifact of methodology change over at the same time as man started burning up fossil fuels.