Ice in Antarctica proves Global Cooling!

Post Reply New Topic

Well, you know, Walrus, calling someone stupid is what a troll would do so I find it doubly ironic you would accuse me of being a troll when I haven't insulted you in any way, just disagreed and I don't disagree with you completely. This process is much more complicated than anyone wishes to acknowledge.

You do not take into account the sun's contribution or the Earth's history or anything but CO2. That's the only thing you look at. Sun is something you have ignored, somewhat, while you have emphasized CO2. I am just saying open your mind and look at everything from the broadest perspective possible instead of reciting greenhouse gasses over and over. One of the reasons it seems incredible is the alarmist comparisons the media has made to Venus. If you look at the stats on Venus and then look at Earth these planets are virtual strangers. They aren't alike much at all. Venus might have been more earth-like but it was billions and billions of years ago. Earth has had times of volcanic activity creating far more pollution than what we have now. So have meteors. And yet Earth cooled down, has had periods of increased surface ice since these occurrences. You wouldn't think that based on the hype but YES has been the case. People need to do a bit more research.

Anna
None of this matters until you answer for us all this one question. A question about a certain basic thing you seem to not understand. This whole discussion has to stop in its tracks until we get this straightened out.

The question is this: are you aware of the fact that you cannot transmit "coldness"? Are you aware of the fact that it doesnt work that way? If you dont grasp something THAT BASIC than there is no point you speaking anymore because no one is going to listen to you!

Heat can be transmitted from point A to point B. "Coldness" can not literally move from point A to point B (though we all speak as if it as if it did-but thats just a figure of speech). When coldness APPEARS to be moving from point A to point B what is really happening is that heat is moving from point B to point A- causing the illusion of 'coldness' moving the opposite way. Capice?

Glaciers dont trap 'coldness' (which might escape and wreck havoc or whatever).

Scale it down to a block of ice sitting in your house slowly melting because your house is room temperature. The ice cube doesnt give off 'coldness'. It absorbs heat from your house. This causes your thermostat to tell your furnance to burn more juice to keep the house at the same temperature. The ice block appears to be giving off coldness and raising your heating bill. But its the fact that the ice cube is sucking heat out of your house that causing your bill to go up slightly.

Do you grasp that?

Why not explain to me how an atmosphere can be even more dense than it is now, with more carbon and methane, yet look at the planet. Does it sustain us? Is it still here? Is it like Venus? This is what you are not grasping. You must allow yourself to become aware of cycles and study up on the effects of microclimates, how certain variables create certain conditions, how Earth is not one complete climate but several smaller ones connected by wind and currents.

I am not saying climate won't change because it always changes. I am not saying CO2 is good. It isn't good for anything that requires oxygen for respiration just as anything that isn't Oxygen would be bad for such organisms. They would not be able to complete the process.

And I do not see why condescension is necessary. I am well aware of the facts.

Hey Ana,

You're missing a post:

Well there's many variables if you take the planet Venus into consideration. For one thing, Earth is farther from the sun. Venus grew it's green house effect over a billion + years. Venus has never had complex life (that we know of.) Earth has it's own green house effect, that's why we aren't in a continual ice age.
Explain Venus's history and compare it to that of Earth and we'll go from there.

Again, what variables are the climatologists missing. Heck, just give a few examples! Either way, please be specific.

We are misunderstanding each other. I am talking about the Earth becoming a desolate, hellish nightmare like Venus with clouds of sulfuric acid and a dense atmosphere that's 93% carbon.

You must be talking about the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of earth. which is concentrated at about 0.04%. Hmm compare 0.04% with 93%...
These are examples of variables between Earth and Venus.
Also, Venus is closer to the sun.
Venus does not have a carbon cycle.

See? This is what I am talking about.

The most obvious problem, if Earth's atmosphere becomes too polluted, is trouble breathing. Oxygen is easier for you to use than CO2 although you can breathe it in. We all know what happens when someone gets trapped underground or in a cave...they run out of oxygen, the chamber fills with CO2 and they can suffocate. So logically, yes, it would be a good idea keep our breathing supply in good order unless we all want to run around with oxygen tanks and nose tubes in each nostril.

oxygen was originally a toxic by product of early biological systems. this thread is getting sillier and sillier.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo you seem to keep demanding that people listen to facts that are obviously flawed and in some cases bewilderingly simplistic

I think most of you do not wish to see the entire picture. You don't want to study complicated atmospheric systems throughout the solar system and you are too complacent watching cleverly edited documentaries, perhaps. You also refuse to acknowledge I am against polluting the air, so I am not entirely opposed to the idea we should be good stewards of our atmosphere, whenever possible. Humans do tend to overreact and panic. I am quite rational and willing to utter declarations.

I am not interested in calling oxygen a toxin, that's stretching things. It's obviously not toxic to humans at this stage and to many living creatures on Earth.

Step 1: Get a bunch of scientists that know far better what they are doing in this subject than anyone in this thread including me.
Step 2: Consider all the s**t you've mention plus a bunch of stuff you have doubtlessly failed to consider because you're not trained or educated in the field.
Step 3: Conclude that anthropogenically-driven global warming best fits the preponderance of evidence.
Step 4: Shake your motherfucking head while a bunch of clueless laypeople try their hand at being smart and end up absolutely bastardizing the entire institution of science.
Step 4a: Alternative, shake your motherfucking head while a bunch of clueless laypeople shout "TEH LIBRAL CONSPURRACY!" as their best counter-argument, often in concert with Step 4.
Step 5: Stick a gun in your mouth as you realize all the logic and reasoning in the world won't sway these people.

I don't have a lot of faith in anything anyone says regarding climate or meteorology for that matter. They can collect data but when it comes to predicting...I have seen too many predictions that didn't pan out. I don't have a lot of faith in predictions.

These scientists can collect data but they cannot tell me for certain what will happen. Too many variables.

People will put millions of dollars into equipment and computers. They will pay meteorologists thousands of dollars each month only to pick the wrong computer model. I have seen it time and time again on the local news.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/78291 ... total-hoax
http://www.policymic.com/articles/74635 ... ate-change

Climate change is not a hoax because climate always changes. Who denies that? I don't buy into this gloom and doom about the entire Earth becoming uninhabitable. No matter what people do there will be droughts, floods, hurricanes, typhoons and frigid arctic blasts. We had those practically every winter when I was growing up and controls are far more rigid now than they were then.

Humans have a negative impact on other species and on other humans - yes
Humans pollute the air - yes
Humans change entire climate systems so the Earth becomes like Venus...that I am not so sure of.


What I propose is drastic anyway. People should stop overpopulating. That would solve a lot of problems. Politicians and religions need to accept population balance instead of shamelessly promoting population growth. Population balance should be the aim and cope with that. Find innovative ways to make that livable. Just change the philosophy. There does need to be a paradigm shift.

It is also what someone would do when confronted with a person who:

1) Makes basic mistakes in their claims about physics
2) Insists that they are the only person who truly understands the climate
3) Repeatedly fails to provide intelligent responses to posts, instead responding with trite soundbites that are already covered by the response.

As an example of point 3 (and indeed point 2):

... and yet people on both sides of this debate have already acknowledged multiple factors that affect the climate. Evidence has been posted that the most important factor is greenhouse gases released by man.

As another example:

This is demonstrably false. In the post you quoted, I said:
"The sun is not the sole factor that affects Earth's temperatures. GGPViper has already posted a graph detailing how the sun's activity has decreased slightly during this warming period since the Industrial Revolution. Both Viper and myself have posted links to graphs and/or studies that show that the current warming is best explained by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors."

Another example:

I believe I have already addressed this... at least three times.

Being open minded doesn't involve giving every single factor the same weight. For one, we can't do anything about most of them. It just so happens that, in the short term, the factor that will make the most difference is the one that we, as a species, control.

This isn't something I got from watching a documentary - I rarely watch documentaries as they are time consuming - but rather from speaking to and reading the works of people who have dedicated their lives to studying these topics.

A fourth example:

Everybody knows about the ice ages, they are prevalent in popular culture.
Most people who engage in these sorts of conversations know about times of increased volcanic activity in the past. I have considerable training in both biology and chemistry, which requires me to have knowledge of Earth's early atmosphere, but this is also something covered in basic detail in science lessons for 13 year olds.

I apologise if you felt insulted when I said you were either stupid or a troll, but it was not a groundless accusation.


Obviously I can't speak for all the documentaries you've watched, but generally Venus is only raised in these discussions to show how the greenhouse effect works (and even then, I very rarely see it mentioned). Venus is warmer than Mercury, even though it is much further from the sun, because of its thick atmosphere. This is part of the reason we know that the greenhouse effect is real.

If you are genuinely interested in the accuracy or otherwise of predictions, I strongly recommend reading "The Signal And The Noise" by Nate Silver. It deals with how good predictions are made, the limits to our ability to make predictions, and takes a close look at some areas where predictions are often made. One of them is meteorology, one is climate change. Mr Silver has a good background, he has previously worked as a baseball analyst (which requires making good predictions) and currently works as a blogger, where his USP is predicting the results of elections- he has got 99 out of the last 100 states right in Presidential elections.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-new ... ws-oakland its actually been a lot colder this winter than last year as well as the year before, t is not often the Sanfrancisco Bay area hits the 20s for quite a while usually the 40s and upper 30s during the winter time.

Here is everything I have to say on the subject:

A larger percentage of scientists agree that global warming is happening than agree that evolution is fact, how genes interact, or the ideal levels of blood sodium and blood pressure.
The percentage of scientists that agree that global warming is happening is far above the percentage considered to be "unanimous" in the scientific community.

In the last 15 years, either 13 or 14 of those have had higher average temeratures than any time in recorded history (depending on which records you use; international or US).

The greenhouse effect is scientific fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing CO2 levels are a fact. Human caused CO2 emissions are easily measured and quantified (as of 2013, CO2 concentration is over 42% above pre-industrial levels). Carbon dioxide makes up 95 per cent of direct greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing CO2 levels have a proportional exponential (vice linear) effect on global warming.

An increase in ocean temperature will likely lead to the release of large quantities of methane trapped in methane clathrate in seabeds and permafrost. The global warming potential of methane is 72 times higher than CO2 (although average atmospheric residence time is much shorter, meaning that a rapid increase in global warming via methane would not have as long lasting of an effect as the centuries for CO2).

The vast majority of those in the media who argue against climate change and/or global warming are very wealthy people who have much of their current net worth tied to industries that would be economically hampered by any efforts to curb GHG emissions.