Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[fskimospy]

I like the way you juxtaposed calling others crazy in the same post you called for large increases in government paying to plant crops that are then allowed to rot in the name of basic economics. Many proggies would be afraid to look that stupid but you sir do not know the meaning of the word fear.

Yes, clearly that's what I was calling for. You of course can't argue the economics so instead you try to pull out some stupid straw man.

I guess this is why I shouldn't discuss things with dishonest people, huh?

 

[Moonbeam]

You have zero idea of what you're talking about (as usual) and if anyone is a nut job it's you. I know I'm a little rough on you...but damn...please stop the madness!

Hehe

 

[fskimospy]

So, someone arranges a trip to the Antarctic, not an inexpensive or easy thing to do, whose sole point is to demonstrate the validity of global warming by evidencing the lack of ice and should the media mention this purpose for the trip it would be guilty of "actively misinforming its readers"?

Astounding.

Fern

Except of course the mission of the ship wasn't to demonstrate the validity of global warming by evidencing the lack of ice. (we do that primarily with satellites and to a limited extent with buoys that I have seen no indication the ship was using) In fact, one of the primary stated objectives was to examine the changes to the regional ecosystem caused by INCREASES in fast ice in and around Commonwealth Bay.

Here are the 9 stated objectives for their mission:

1.) gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle

2.) explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay

3.) use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past

4.) investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands

5.) discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay

6.) understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay

7.) produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay

8.) determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica

9.) provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future

So not only was evidencing the lack of ice not the 'sole mission' of the ship, it appears to be a mission that you completely made up for them to have. You are then astounded that other people's reporting and posting doesn't reflect your made up mission.

Astounding, indeed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Least you are admitting that they are a Climate Science expedition. Don't see how such truthful facts are misleading. Could you explain why it's misleading to say who they are or what they are doing there?

Hell, from what you posted you even found a way for the media to spin this favorably. "Changes" (man-made of course) to the southern ocean currents have created life threatening situations including increased Sea Ice around Antarctica.

I bet if the original story had been sold as such, the media would be tripping over themselves to provide the details.

 

[Lash444]

Least you are admitting that they are a Climate Science expedition. Don't see how such truthful facts are misleading. Could you explain why it's misleading to say who they are or what they are doing there?

Hell, from what you posted you even found a way for the media to spin this favorably. "Changes" (man-made of course) to the southern ocean currents have created life threatening situations including increased Sea Ice around Antarctica.

I bet if the original story had been sold as such, the media would be tripping over themselves to provide the details.

Misleading? Probably not.

Are there areas of the world that have more ice right now than in the last 20 years? Probably. Is this possibly one of those places? I don't know, I am not a scientist and I haven't been watching the Antarctic ice extent.

My first question is going to be, how much global ice do we have today in comparison to the last 100, 1000, 10000 years? Based on those ice bores that they do, how fast is the present ice melting at different locations on the planet?

A ship gets stuck in ice somewhere in the world, and you guys find the "irony" in it having Climate change scientists on it, is somehow proof that climate change isn't really happening? Seriously?

For a forum that hates religion because there is no proof of its existence, I find it "ironic" that people on this forum are so happy to completely looked passed all the scientific data of global warming, and instead take a faith based approach that the earth is just going through natural cycles.

 

[Incorruptible]

What's really interesting is that the MSM is trying not to mention they were there for global warming but instead making up BS.

 

[werepossum]

lol, no. (nice worldnetdaily link and others, btw. You know those websites are for crazy people, right?)

It was done in a very small way, and it is funding for RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, which inherently doesn't pan out sometimes. That's how research works.

Remember, basic economics dictates that we still need large increases in government spending. This is a good way to do it.

Yes, clearly that's what I was calling for. You of course can't argue the economics so instead you try to pull out some stupid straw man.

I guess this is why I shouldn't discuss things with dishonest people, huh?

You said we still need large increases in government spending and that "this" is a good way to do it. The "this" you were specifically defending was government funding the planting of crops which were then allowed to rot in the field. No way do I believe you are honestly too stupid to follow that. You simply had a kneejerk proggie reaction to defend even the most stupid government spending by demanding even more of the same without thinking about how stupid it made you look.

 

[Jaskalas]

For a forum that hates religion because there is no proof of its existence, I find it "ironic" that people on this forum are so happy to completely looked passed all the scientific data of global warming, and instead take a faith based approach that the earth is just going through natural cycles.

1: I continue to maintain that this story is inconsequential to AGW, but that the media showed bias in concealing who / why this ship traveled.

2: As for "faith based". It's not faith, it's the data. I find nothing unprecedented about having a mere 20 years of warming since the 1950s. I see the warmup of the 1930-40s match that of the 1980-90s.

My adversarial stance may simply be blowback against the incredulous claims of Hurricane Katrina and others being blamed on CO2 when the data points to Hurricanes and Tornadoes becoming less frequent. Less severe weather is absolutely expected when the poles warm fastest and the thermal difference between them and the tropics is lowered.

The data matches the established science, and yet for their agenda claims to the contrary are made. This whole "extreme weather" business is just propaganda. A grave disservice to anyone claiming to be a scientist. Those of integrity would condemn them for making the attempt of connecting the two.

Yet instead of integrity I witness deafening silence. I see politics, not science, controlling the topic. Such corruption becomes easy to despise. Makes us close our hearts and aim to strike. Apologies if that bitterness is what you see, instead of an honest scientific debate.

When it comes to the overall topic, my focus is on Climate Sensitivity, the short term nature of our Satellite data when compared to the 60 year AMO / PDO, and whether or not there is any viable alternative to emitting CO2 for energy / human prosperity.

Ultimately I am ready to concede that something must be done past 1,000 PPM... and that all available force / effort should be made to stop a rise past 2,000 PPM. Yet we are a couple centuries from such dire considerations, and I've not been convinced that it'll have as much impact on the temperature as some computer models or short term trends suggest.

 

[fskimospy]

You said we still need large increases in government spending and that "this" is a good way to do it. The "this" you were specifically defending was government funding the planting of crops which were then allowed to rot in the field. No way do I believe you are honestly too stupid to follow that. You simply had a kneejerk proggie reaction to defend even the most stupid government spending by demanding even more of the same without thinking about how stupid it made you look.

I can't believe I have to do this.

Oh, I didn't see your question.

More than anything though I want us to fund alternative energy sources in order to make them more price competitive with oil.

That (ie: alternative energy funding - eskimospy) was done Obama's 1st term.

It amounted to huge amounts of government waste is all.

I know this from personal observation;as the government payed for about 150 acres of sorghum to be planted and then abandoned the project.It sat there dead until the next leaser plowed it under.(at his own expense)

The plants to synthesize the fuel were funded..but scrapped..just..crap all the way around.

lol, no. (nice worldnetdaily link and others, btw. You know those websites are for crazy people, right?)

It (ie: alternative energy funding - eskimospy) was done in a very small way, and it is funding for RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, which inherently doesn't pan out sometimes. That's how research works.

Remember, basic economics dictates that we still need large increases in government spending. This (ie: alternative energy funding - eskimospy) is a good way to do it.

You will notice in my posts that "research and development" was the most recent subject noun before the final paragraph, so much a subject that I even capitalized the whole thing. Why you would attempt to argue that the pronoun 'this' referred to the subject of someone else's post that I at best tangentally mention instead of the subject of my post is either due to a baffling inability to read (which makes me recall your difficulties with the dictionary and the definition of 'nationalize'), or a continuing effort at deliberate dishonesty.

Based on your track record I think we both know which one it is.

 

[werepossum]

I can't believe I have to do this.

You will notice in my posts that "research and development" was the most recent subject noun before the final paragraph, so much a subject that I even capitalized the whole thing. Why you would attempt to argue that the pronoun 'this' referred to the subject of someone else's post that I at best tangentally mention instead of the subject of my post is either due to a baffling inability to read (which makes me recall your difficulties with the dictionary and the definition of 'nationalize'), or a continuing effort at deliberate dishonesty.

Based on your track record I think we both know which one it is.

So we need government to plant more crops which rot, but only in the name of alternative energy research. Gotcha.

I agree we need a lot more alternative energy research, but not wasting crops. If you plant it, use it, or allow someone else to use it. Crops rotting in the field are not a good thing. Even if it is government.

 

[Jaskalas]

I agree we need a lot more alternative energy research...

I favor this as well.

 

[fskimospy]

So we need government to plant more crops which rot, but only in the name of alternative energy research. Gotcha.

I agree we need a lot more alternative energy research, but not wasting crops. If you plant it, use it, or allow someone else to use it. Crops rotting in the field are not a good thing. Even if it is government.

No, we need more alternative energy research.

Seriously, just stop.

 

[monovillage]

The hapless Australasian Antarctic Expedition is finally homeward bound - and thousands of trees will have to be planted to offset the carbon footprint from the prolonged rescue effort.

The expedition had pledged to plant about 800 kauri trees in Northland to cover its carbon footprint. Environmentalists believe planting trees helps to offset the impact of burning fuels such as diesel.

But former Act Party leader and Herald on Sunday columnist Rodney Hide said that would have to increase to about 5000 trees to make up for the fossil fuels burned in the rescue.

Expedition leader Chris Turney said more trees would be needed than earlier estimated but he was yet to work out how many.

The funny part is that these assholes are actually serious.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181470

 

[Victorian Gray]

From the horse's mouth

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ntarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney

 

[werepossum]

No, we need more alternative energy research.

Seriously, just stop.

You specifically refuted schmuckley's post about waste because it (planting crops which are left to rot in the field) was funding for research and development. To most of us this makes as much sense as supporting the arts by renting concert halls for Elvis.

Paying to plant crops which are allowed to rot in the field is not research and development, even if it was funded under that pretense. It is merely government waste.

 

[WHAMPOM]

You specifically refuted schmuckley's post about waste because it (planting crops which are left to rot in the field) was funding for research and development. To most of us this makes as much sense as supporting the arts by renting concert halls for Elvis.

Paying to plant crops which are allowed to rot in the field is not research and development, even if it was funded under that pretense. It is merely government waste.

Crops left to rot in the field are a source of green manure and when plowed under add to the soil's fertility. Try looking up "cover crops" and "green manure".

 

[fskimospy]

1: I continue to maintain that this story is inconsequential to AGW, but that the media showed bias in concealing who / why this ship traveled.

2: As for "faith based". It's not faith, it's the data. I find nothing unprecedented about having a mere 20 years of warming since the 1950s. I see the warmup of the 1930-40s match that of the 1980-90s.

My adversarial stance may simply be blowback against the incredulous claims of Hurricane Katrina and others being blamed on CO2 when the data points to Hurricanes and Tornadoes becoming less frequent. Less severe weather is absolutely expected when the poles warm fastest and the thermal difference between them and the tropics is lowered.

The data matches the established science, and yet for their agenda claims to the contrary are made. This whole "extreme weather" business is just propaganda. A grave disservice to anyone claiming to be a scientist. Those of integrity would condemn them for making the attempt of connecting the two.

Yet instead of integrity I witness deafening silence. I see politics, not science, controlling the topic. Such corruption becomes easy to despise. Makes us close our hearts and aim to strike. Apologies if that bitterness is what you see, instead of an honest scientific debate.

When it comes to the overall topic, my focus is on Climate Sensitivity, the short term nature of our Satellite data when compared to the 60 year AMO / PDO, and whether or not there is any viable alternative to emitting CO2 for energy / human prosperity.

Ultimately I am ready to concede that something must be done past 1,000 PPM... and that all available force / effort should be made to stop a rise past 2,000 PPM. Yet we are a couple centuries from such dire considerations, and I've not been convinced that it'll have as much impact on the temperature as some computer models or short term trends suggest.

I strongly encourage you to go look at the science more closely. Your claim that the warming we have seen is not without precedent badly misunderstands the multiple factors that go into earths temperature.

The science behind the AGW position is extremely strong; if you are worried about politics affecting science then you should be among your fire at AGW denialists.

 

[Agent11]

The politics is that every 'third world' country (including CHINA!) is demanding a giant hand out.

That is not reasonable.

 

[Jaskalas]

I strongly encourage you to go look at the science more closely. Your claim that the warming we have seen is not without precedent badly misunderstands the multiple factors that go into earths temperature.

The further we get from the short term trend of the 80s and 90s, the more insignificant it looks.

 

[Moonbeam]

The further we get from the short term trend of the 80s and 90s, the more insignificant it looks.

The further we get from the dip in 1929 the hotter stocks look.

 

[TerryMathews]

The further we get from the dip in 1929 the hotter stocks look.

Adjusted for inflation, I'm not sure that's entirely true.

 

[Moonbeam]

Adjusted for inflation, I'm not sure that's entirely true.

How not entirely true do you think it is, maybe like 80 dollars for the dow to 480 today? You miss the point however. A dip isn't relevant when looking at a long term trend. It is just a dip in the trend. As the earth warms some years or periods of years may actually be colder than previous ones as in longer terms it trends up.

 

[TerryMathews]

How not entirely true do you think it is, maybe like 80 dollars for the dow to 480 today? You miss the point however. A dip isn't relevant when looking at a long term trend. It is just a dip in the trend. As the earth warms some years or periods of years may actually be colder than previous ones as in longer terms it trends up.

According to DLB, CPI in 1929 was 17.1 and 2013 is trending to be 233-234.

Both are chained to 1985=100%. I am not an economist, but if I understand this correctly: (233.5-100)+(100-17.1)=216.4% inflation.

So actually less than your quote, it would be about 80:173. That said, I dont know if CPI is a good way to figure inflation or not. I know ive heard both sides argue for and against it and I don't know enough about it to really know who is right. OTOH, the list of people who truly understand how it works in a fiat paper system is probably fairly short.

Your point isnt lost on me, however the economy is a poor model for global warming.

 

[Moonbeam]

According to DLB, CPI in 1929 was 17.1 and 2013 is trending to be 233-234.

Both are chained to 1985=100%. I am not an economist, but if I understand this correctly: (233.5-100)+(100-17.1)=216.4% inflation.

So actually less than your quote, it would be about 80:173. That said, I dont know if CPI is a good way to figure inflation or not. I know ive heard both sides argue for and against it and I don't know enough about it to really know who is right. OTOH, the list of people who truly understand how it works in a fiat paper system is probably fairly short.

Your point isnt lost on me, however the economy is a poor model for global warming.

I wasn't talking about the economy to any extent other that a graph. A dip for a depression on a graph of economic growth is analogous to a dip in temperature on graph that shows a dip in rising temperature trends. When the dip first appears you don't know if it's a dip or a change in overall direction. Nothing can be predicted from the dip at the time it occurs long term. I gave my extrapolation of the numbers for the DOW from about 1920 to the present adjusted for inflation. They dipped around 1929 and are much higher today even adjusted for inflation. I wanted to show that the case was still true adjusted for inflation but even though it's not relevant to my point.

 

[werepossum]

Crops left to rot in the field are a source of green manure and when plowed under add to the soil's fertility. Try looking up "cover crops" and "green manure".

Which would explain why farmers do this.

Oh wait, farmers DON'T do this. I was raised on a farm, dude. Yes, there is some benefit, but it's very small compared to the cost of planting and the cost of fertilizer and lime.