Science, fuck you.

Science, is when you go to a glacier and set up timelapse cameras and see that the ice is actually melting.

If I can drink one soda in the after noon, and then feel the effects of the soda on my body when I lace up my gloves, the earth can sure as shit feel the effects of a "little" bit of ice melting.

To bad its not just a little bit of ice.

Correct me if I am wrong but is this not a scientific paper about Polar Climate change?

What about the TED video on melting glaciers?

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

Very lovely setting for a Sift-up/ get-together. It very much looks like Northwestern Montana (Glacier Park/ Waterton) which DFT and I had just visited last month. I nearly froze my arse off when we visited the town of Waterton, Canada in mid-August. Was it cold where you were at that time? I'm sure what is warm to Norwegians is relatively freezing to me... I've become such a wimp! I don't know how I ever lived in a place that had snow. Thanks for showing us your pix!

Who put that glacier in the way! It's blocking the route!

what a wonder
it is to see you
what a wonder
it is to feel you

I found your hideout
in the rubble
where you can cry out
when you're in trouble

now I want to be
in your hide and seek
now I want to make children

do I scare you
or make you frightened
don't you dare to move
the rope's will tighten

is it over
does it hurt you
all I wanted was
to divert you

now I want to be
in your hide and seek
now I want to make
love to, love to, love to you

you're the glacier
I'm the bonfire
you're the treasure
that I desire

you're the ruby
over diamonds
shy and moody
you're a wonder
wonder

The callers on this show make me have many a lawlz. To argue with a standard Christian is (to use a Stephen Colbert analogy) like boxing a glacier.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'funny stargate sg1 prank macgyver humor' to 'macgyver, richard dean anderson, glacier, iceberg' - edited by SlipperyPete

*sigh* ok, faith partially restored. Sorry for threatening everyone. It's just that I really like this 'world' we live in, and I think that this video reminds us of why it's worthy of so much curiosity and wonder. I mean, the fluid in this video isn't even part of that fantastic self-perpetuating, self-refining chain of reactions that we call "life", yet it shows amazingly complexity. Cold and ambivalent, like the Milky Way or the Antarctic Glaciers, but still beautiful -- the kinda thing that could make a person feel lucky to be alive.

Why don't you go record a video of a plastic bag blowing in the wind.

Really people. If this isn't sifted, I'm going to loose my faith in VideoSift, and after Obama's decision to reinstate military tribunals for the prisoners in Guantanamo, I don't have much faith left.

EDIT - *sigh* ok, faith partially restored. Sorry for threatening everyone. It's just that I really like this 'world' we live in, and I think that this video reminds us of why it's worthy of so much curiosity and wonder. I mean, the fluid in this video isn't even part of that fantastic self-perpetuating, self-refining chain of reactions that we call "life", yet it shows amazingly complexity. Cold and ambivalent, like the Milky Way or the Antarctic Glaciers, but still beautiful -- the kinda thing that could make a person feel lucky to be alive.

They are rotating wings, as opposed to fixed wings.

And awesome! Did the video cut out just before it smacked into the glacier though? I think those Alpine rescue/tourism fliers have the best jobs in the world after astronauts and fighter pilots. I wonder if they can get life insurance on their wage.

>> ^quantumushroom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
In a closed, self-sustaining environment, scientists couldn't even keep the oxygen levels up. But they can control the entire earth's climate.
Where's all this mighty religious skepticism when the green-weenies come a-calling? Christians aren't trying to destroy the world's economies with scams like crap-and-trade and carbon credits.
You leftists think you're so attuned to who seeks power versus who will rule benevolently (you, for instance)?
I DEFY YOU.


Sorry quantum, but your analogy is bunk. There is a very big difference between trying to create a life-sustaining environment from scratch and trying to stop people from continuing to do things which theoretically could be contributing to global warming.

That said, the problem with your little mind is that you lump all "leftists" together as if we all go to one meeting and like bees think alike. The funny thing is that I don't quite believe that the measures the "green" folks are recommending will make much of a difference. I've been to the alps and seen the glaciers now compared to what they were 50 years ago and I feel that this process may be natural to a certain extent.

Mind you: You only have to look at the smog in LA to know that humans HAVE an effect on their environment. Be it the trash you see everywhere, the smog, the fewer fish in the sea as we over-fish, etc. it IS an effect of our being here and we can only benefit from trying to think responsibly about the way we consume.

Unfortunately, there are many in the right wing, as you appear to be, who seem to think that an old white guy in the sky is just going to magically provide for us when the shit hits the fan.

As for your jibes at the democrats who have the white-house for less than a year, funny, you'd think after 8 glorious years of Republican rule the would have handed over a perfect nation!

What kind of uneducated morons elected this fool?


OTOH, Global warming isn't so bad if you're willing to evacuate every coastal city in the world as the glaciers melt on top of the rocky continent of Antarctica. A pretty big percentage of the world's population lives less than 150 feet above sea level.

Fair enough, it would probably be hard to get investors to fund primary research, but for the more applicable stuff, the potential ROI is in some cases so massive that it might motivate some long term commitment.

But I really have no idea how the world of research funding works today. Seems to be moving at glacier speed though.

And yeah, military research (i.e. DARPA) has probably been the most successful route to progress so far... although it's a little sad.

They may take our glaciers, but they`ll never take ... OUR VOLCANOOOOOOOOOOES!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations.

Rambling nonsense, in science there is no such term as "unproven theory" A theory is a construct and means to explain the available facts

Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

This is more nonsense. while it is true that the highest peak on the scale so far is 1998,( or 2005, depending on how you measure) the point is that that the TREND is what counts, every year temperatures vary, some years are hot, relative to their time, some are cold, relative to their time. However, the upwards trend is not in question if we look at 128 years of recorded weather history, this is the image this report provides See image That image is scary enough, but it gets worse as we compare it to millions of years
Full report here

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures


Again, not quite right, the actual data shows a complex pattern of both increases and decreases, overall, it is correct that there hasnt been any dramatic changes over the 4-5 years these buoys have actually been in operation, however, this is consistent with known patterns that includes "quiet years" in 5-10 year periods. The 50-year perspective is whats important

Argo Blog:
The results of Domingues et al (2008) do not show a constant rate of warming. Instead there are periods of warming interspersed with multi-year cooling periods. There is also regional variability in the multi-decadal trends. Moreover, there is uncertainty in the results because of sparse sampling of the oceans and instrumental errors during the pre-Argo era. In spite of the variability and the uncertainty, the evidence for a 50-year warming trend in the oceans is compelling.

The Argo site and the Argo blog




4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)


Since you give no source of this information, I can only take your word for it, but the term "arctic ice" on google, comes up with report after report confirming that the ice is thinning, melting, receding and dissappearing. Every climate report I've seen lately seems to say the same thing

"December 3 , 2008
Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual"


6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)


No, infact any data I can find shows polar bears are negatively affected by the climate change. again, this is either an extreme oversimplification of bits of data from an unnamed report, or simply a lie. Here is an actual article by a real scientist, showing a complex but worrying future for polar bears


7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”


http://www.livescience.com/environment/070611_gw_kilimanjaro.html

This is the first point that actually holds, its still melting tho, and snowfall is decreasing, I'm no glacier expert, so I'll leave this one alone.


The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

Yes it is, as all sources indicates. You can say different, doesnt make it so.

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

no sources here either


10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

It is correct that 07/08 was the coolest winter since 2001, but it was still warmer than the average 20th century, and more importantly and the fundamental flaw in most of these points, seemingly contradicting data from 1 year does not "wipe out" the last 100 years of temperature increase. If the trend continues on a steady reversal for 10-15 years, THEN we are talking.




11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)



13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
This seems to be based on this article...which has been refuted here and here


14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.


Irrelevant, see my earlier post.


15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

No.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2] Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.


16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.


By "Many scientists" you mean of course this guy his prediction is based on 30 years cycles.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured



Again, wrong. it is true that we humans didnt create the greenhouse effect, and compared to the total effect it actually has, our contribution is miniscule. However, since the earth, or more precicely, the creatures living on it, are evolved to fit the environment as it is, even relatively small adjustments in the system can potentionally have catastrophic consequences. Or perhaps not, and thats one of the things about GW, we do not know for sure what happens, which could prove costly


I hope to have shown, with no other preparation than google at my disposal, that nearly all of the above points are based on shallow, irrellevant cherry-picking of data, unreliable sources. One to take a closer look at the sources of these claims, it turns out that either these points are willfull misrepresentations of the full source, or that the source itself turns out to be single individuals with no actual evidence to back it up.


I also found QM's entire post on a facebook post which ofcourse doesnt mean its not true, but it indicates that this is some kind of "fact-sheet" spread around the net with little or no actual source-checking like I've just done. Its one of those things that , just because someone's written it down and cited a few reports (dishonestly represented) people will believe it and think they've become "climate Skeptics".

A proper skeptic would check the sources.

>> ^chilaxe:
>> ^MINK:

(Please share your thoughts, anybody.)...

I, for one, totally agree. Academia moves forward at glacier speed (remember? glaciers?), and the vaguer the field, the slower the progress.
No one asks the humanities to make any progress, because no outsiders know exactly what it is they're supposed to do - not many insiders either.

I'm almost done with my BA, and I still don't know.