E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
This view of the Himalayas was taken from the International Space Station.
Are global warming skeptics being armed with a new weapon? Estimates from satellite monitoring suggest the melt rate from the Himalayas and other high-altitude Asian mountains in recent years was much less than what scientists on the ground had estimated, but those monitoring the satellite data warn not to jump to the skeptical conclusion.
The region's ice melt from 2003-2010 was estimated at 4 billion tons a year, far less than earlier estimates of around 50 billion tons, according to the study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
But study co-author John Wahr, a physics professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, emphasized that it's important to note that the region is a small contributor to overall ice melt and that the satellite estimates for the largest contributors, Antarctica and Greenland, are in line with ground-based estimates: about 385 billion tons a year.
"It's Greenland and Antarctica that pose by far the greatest threat to rising sea levels in the future," he told msnbc.com. "That's, basically, where all the ice is."
In the study itself, the authors also noted that the Asian mountain region has seen a lot of variability in ice melt and that the time period might be too short to be of much use. "These results suggest that care should be taken in extending the 2003–2010 results presented in this paper to longer time periods," they wrote in the study published online.
One potential reason for the huge difference, Wahr noted, is that scientists on the ground are limited to where they can sample the ice.
The NASA satellite used for monitoring, on the other hand, can cover the entire globe and its 200,000 glaciers.
Dubbed GRACE, the satellite "does this by mapping out the Earth's gravity field, all over the globe, every month," Wahr said.
Satellite tracks where ice is melting
"One way to think of this is that as GRACE passes over Alaska, say, it feels the gravitational pull of all the Alaskan glaciers," he added. When it passes over Alaska later on, it also feels the pull of all those glaciers, but now that pull is smaller because there is less mass in those glaciers to do the pulling. So you end up learning about the change in the cumulative mass of all those glaciers. You don't miss any of the glaciers; you see the combined effects of all of them."
"The price you pay with GRACE," he said, "is that because you're 500 kilometers above the Earth, you can't distinguish the effects of an individual glacier from the effects of its neighbor. Individual glaciers are usually just too close to one another for you to separate them in the GRACE data. If you want to know what individual glaciers are doing, you need to rely heavily on those traditional, ground-based methods."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Finally some TRUTH! Global warming my ass!
Well, at least you got your screen-name correct.
Sounds to me like when data doesn't come in favorably for the doomsdayers, they poo-poo the data. They interpret what they want to see out of the data. Of course they wouldn't have jobs if they didn't create evidence of global warming. These scientists get billions of dollars in grants globally to keep finding evidence.
Nobody's poo-pooing anything, can you read? The Himalayan ice didn't melt as fast as they thought it was.. Still Melting! The global warming measurers reported it, not your denialist lackeys!
I could care less about you tree hugging lackeys... It doesn't bother me one bit. You must be living off grant money...
Ya, and I really care about you, parrot
Slug, I live an incredible life and love the way I live it. You live in fear and need to be taken care of. Live in fear little man...
lol I'm sooo hurt waaahh! dude you have nothing I want
Jimcolorado , great comebacks on the liberal lemming .
dude you have nothing I want..Hahaha, he already get's his welfare check from you, he don't need no more.
They just have to protect their phoney boloney jobs. ;)
Skeptic, oh thats what you call people that demand facts and not foolish enough to fall for the made up unproven Global crisis .
I went to school and learned real world facts about this planet and not warm fuzzy made up facts and half baked ideas from people that look at the glass half empty and panic.
The sun is hot,it baths our planet in its rays,our orbit changes and our axis tilts and all without a government grant or a non profit groups help AMEN!
Our planets core is liguid and super hot,our dry land in on an ever moving mantle and 70% of the planet is water covered, life here is carbon based and your foot print is your shoe size.
So now you know how stupid all you eco panicing world is doomed people really are, now go try and save a parking space I hear those are rare and endangered!!!
You don't want "facts". As your comment clearly indicates. Because the facts" are out there and the body of non-biased scientific evidence is very impressive and totally overwhelms the denialist arguments. And whatever "school" you went to, I'm glad my children are not being taught there. Because obviously you went to a "school" where science is an afterthought. And by the way, your comments on the planet's core and the earth being covered with water? So what. All that shows is you know the basics of earth science. Or at least know how to look it up.
You mean the Unbiased science that was paid for with billions of dollars of taxpayers money?
If they didn't show some results that favored a certain agenda what would happen to their grants and billions of dollars?
How can you possibly claim science is unbiased when its being funded by people with a political agenda?
Here's another story about the data being collected by NASA not matching up with the "Computer models".
I wonder if this is why the Obama admin wants to cut funding to NASA, stopped funding the rocket that was to replace the space shuttle, caused the loss of thousands of good middle class jobs, and forcing the U.S. space program to depend on Russia or China for space travel.
Sounds Like NASA is being punished.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Oh yes the famous denialist Roy Spencer strikes yet again. And as usual, is throughly debunked by REPUTABLE scientists.
1."He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M; University.
2."It is not newsworthy," Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.
3.NCAR's Kevin Trenberth (excerpted from below): "I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?"
NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said of the paper's findings:
"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."
Want to try again? As I stated in a previous comment the REAL SCIENCE, far outweighs the denialist science. And Roy Spencer has been proven wrong so many times it is a joke. But then again no more of a joke that the people who refuse to dig below his continuous line of denialist BS and actually do research to find the truth.
Progressive the funny thing is I provided links to articles. All you would have to do is be considerate and do the same.
Not one of your quotes indicate what "Paper" or article they are referring to.
Oh I see the satellite data is "imperfect".
I remember just a decade ago that scientists believed that life could not exist without photosynthesis. That was until they discovered the black smokers on the Ocean floor in complete darkness supporting entire eco systems. Then they started discovering life in all kinds of places they didn't think life could exist.
Just last year they may have discovered that the speed of light is not the ultimate speed limit.
40 years ago they believed that the Earth was unique in the Galaxy and anyone who suggested otherwise was considered a crackpot. Now they are starting to discover hundreds of planets and the idea that there's life on other planets is actually accepted now.
600 years ago they believed the Earth was flat.
Science isn't as indisputable as you would like to think. But hey its obvious that your a "True Global Warming Believer" so you keep on Believing.
David: this progressive idiot believes the "debate is over". Like Clinton and the stained blue dress. They all said 'let's get beyond this'. Bull! Clinton was censured and debarred for lying. No one EVER brings that up. He was also impeached. Can you imagine if Reagan had a record like that. Yeah, they tried but, guess what idiots. It was never found that he did anything wrong. In fact in many polls he is rated the greatest president ever.
It's not the NASA satellite data that's the problem with Spencer's paper. What he didn't do was compare the data with climate models that include the important El Nino cycle. When you include El Nino in addition to greenhouse gases, climate models match the data well. If you need a reference with actual plots, you can look it up on realclimate.org or skepticalscience.com.
If I understand this right his data matches the increasing El Nino and decreasing La Nina effect over the last several decades. warming trend = more release of heat through the atmosphere? Forgive me if I'm completely wrong. It doesn't sound like more release means less warming though. Kind of like filling a cup with water? More water means more over spill but not less water in the cup. Am I understanding this right? I just want to understand the data without any predisposition to a "side"
Sorry, seamus, but all you did was state facts that have nothing to do with climate and the reason(s) for its changes or the change(s) we are currently observing.
David, your statements only shows how science learns by the more observations that are made. This is also true for climate science. The more we look the more we see just how much of an impact humans do and are having on the planets environment.
The satellite data only covers the period from about 2000 to date, during which there have been a couple of El Nino/La Nina cycles. El Nino releases heat from the ocean into the atmosphere, sometimes warming the air as much as 10 years of carbon emissions would, but the extra heat from El Nino quickly dissipates (sort of what you're calling "release of heat through the atmosphere (into space)") whereas the CO2 remains to continue absorbing heat. The net effect is that it can appear as if the rate of warming is low if you start with a warm El Nino year (like 1998). See the global temperature averages on the NOAA or NASA websites.
Reminds me of a House hearing on cspan a few years ago run by boxer or feinstein, one of those left coast hags. Had witnesses for and against AGW-- so equal hearing, right? NOT!!!!. All the questions to the "for" guy were in the form "dont you agree that <dem talking point here> ". And the "against" guy didnt get one question for the whole hour. Made things pretty clear on the politics vs science issue.
Even if we're experiencing Global Warming, I could honestly give a rat's ars... So I sell my snowmobiles. That's the extent of my pain.
You can't really be this ignorant. Actually, from your comment, apparently you can.
Actually, I'm much more arrogant than ignorant...
What I cannot figure out is how the Elite class of the progressives can honestly mandate anything. They are as bad as the wealthy opponents as far as I am concerned.
Most drive gigantic SUV's and Limousines which range from 9 to 15 miles per gallon. I drive a 1994 Mercury Topaz which gets 30 to 38 miles per gallon.
They often live in 10,000 square foot mansions. I am shivering in a 600 square foot house, with the thermostat set at 48 degrees, not because I am an eco-lover, but because I do not wish to surrender my entire paycheck to Black Hills Energy.
And a Toyota Prius driving at 100 miles per hour does not get better gas mileage than a full sized car driving at 60 mile per hour. 100 miles per hour is a lethal danger to others on the road. (Hint: Al Gore's kid who got the DUI)
Can people who cut such a massive swath in resources, for shame, ever tell someone who has less, they have to even have lesser still? This talk smacks of the Victorian Robber Barons and Aristocrats who caused, through their greed, the creation of the Soviet Bloc in the first place.
I may be an ignoramus, but I am not a Hypocrite either.
Well, said T.R. Hendricks. Rock on.
Here's some hints:
Use more insulation. You can go on Craigslist and find people giving away excess insulation. A friend triple layered their attic and double lined their underfloor and spends far less on heating.
Look up baffled heat, an idea created by Franklin and used still in farm houses. It uses less fuel and provides greater radiant heat. There are also ultra efficient pellet stoves out on the market.
Nothing wrong with your Topaz, but look up the older Mazda (Mazdarati). They can get over 40 miles to the gallons and cost just a few thousand, mostly because they're ugly as sin. But hey, they work great.
Keep the faith.
Really? 30-38 mpg, huh? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/10918.shtml
Longer growing season, more co2 means faster plant growth, more food production, milder winters like this one, nice toast "pool weather" in the summer. Not my idea of pain. :)
That's only partially true, Peanut. Many plants consider higher CO2 levels toxic. As the ground becomes acidic it kills the plant. This also happens with the air they use. That's also why many of the plants we have today weren't around several thousand to tens of thousands (or longer) years ago. Not all plants consider your view a better view.
This is great news , I guess we can all chill out now ....
I can't wait for summer so I can go swimming ;)
the worst is yet to come
Cap and trade, carbon tax, etc. etc. Taxes fix everything, RIGHT???
Nope as I'm sure you know. But what you might not be aware of, is that Cap and Trade and the Carbon Tax were both originally conservative/Republican ideas originating from the highly conservative American Enterprise Institute. But of course, now it is evil Democrats who want to give us yet another tax. Yet another example of how the right wing propaganda machine works.
But you can pay more to pollute more. Makes perfect sense to me!
Actually on this one Jim (and I know your not going to believe this) but I agree with you. It does not make sense to me either. And I have studied this issue at length. It is yet another way for the wealthy and commodities speculators to make more money, while ignoring the consequences of their actions. And yes, that includes Al Gore.
progressiveforAmerica, You finally are waking up.
PC101-3548820,
and when you come to the realization that just because someone like Al Gore is a douche doesn't change the facts or negate the consequences of global warming we might be able to say the same about you.
You dont have to be wealth to ignore the consequences of your actions. Just look at all the 99ers that bought houses with no income and werent smart enough to buy some politicians as a hedge.
Methane is by far the biggest contributor to global warming and the biggest producers of methane are termites. So why has not Brother Gore raged against those spawn of satan? Alas I feel abandoned by this, more than just a man, he is like Michael Moore 0.2. Next thing you will try and tell me is that he did it for the money. O geez what fresh hell is this.
Sorry, but Methane is not "by far the biggest contributor to global warming.
"
What the science says...
"While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes."
"While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. Here is a graph of the various forcings that influence climate (methane is CH4, right above CO2)."
Water is the greatest contributer of global warming.
Hell I thought cow farts were the biggest contributor, lets ban beef & milk.
No, water vapor and clouds are the biggest contributors to the natural greenhouse effect (about 75% combined). Excess CO2 is currently the biggest contributor to warming above the natural level, and water vapor actually enhances the effect (since warmer air can hold more moisture).
EricH, ding ding ding, you are correct sir!
This round goes to ericH.
Move along, people. Nothing to see here! Global warming is just a pinko commie liberal hoax, and all the data found throughout the world by unrelated scientific groups is completely fabricated.
The overwhelming consensus of the world's brightest scientific minds is a lie because scientists hate freedom. Real patriotic Americans know that pollution standards and environmental protection leads to the DEATH CAMPS.
This message brought to you by Koch Industries, one of the nation's leading polluters, and the financial backer of the Tea Party group Freedomworks.
Live in fear people! Your government will take care of you! I'll take care of myself; I always have...
I'm with you but we have to band together. Semper Fi! I do fear obama and his marxist ilk. I hate progressive socialists. I will fight them.
I do not "hate anybody" But I dislike ignorance. And ANYBODY who believes Mr. Obama is a socialist, or for that matter a "progressive socialist" is ignorant. Or anybody who believes that a progressive is also a socialist is also ignorance at it's finest. But then again, what would you expect. A critical thinking conservative is basically an oxymoron.
Proctolically pontificating I see, eh lefty?
"Proctologically" speaking....
Typical progressive. You do not like what I say you attack. We will attack back. The days when you blithely propagandize everyone are over. Most of what has been going on for 40 years is unAmerican bull@!$%#. Your lies and the will full destruction of our Constitution will stop. Conservative Americans will take back their country. You are not wanted and we will see that your influence is stopped.
You seem to have contradictory beliefs about the thought processes of others there. If people believed that their government would take care of them, they wouldn't live in fear because they would believe they would be taken care of.
This is just my opinion, but the only unamerican bull@!$%# I've been seeing lately has been coming from the right.
By the way, that right there, is unamerican bull@!$%#. So you are a case in point. This is a democracy where all people are supposed to have some influence and input. You right wing nutjobs want to turn this country into a dictatorship where the government has total control over every aspect of a person's life right down to who they sleep with in their own bedrooms, how they do the nasty, and what, if any contraceptives they use.
What an idiot. Look at what obama is doing and that is not telling people what to do? Homosexuals are deviants. Sex is not mentioned in the Constitution so a society can set it's own values. A community can censure any one they want. Likewise, it is not the governments right to provide contraception either. Maybe the next one will prohibit it. obama is a dictator.
Post 37.8 reported for violation of #1 of the COH. Goodbye Paul, the vine is not for you.
Depends on what you call progress.
There is no man made global warming. In fact, global climate change cannot be predicted. No body can explain the Little Ice Age nor the warmer period before that when Greenland actually got its name. We are in an interglacial warming period. Taking a 150 year snapshot and claiming fossil fuels are the problem because you have a political agenda is, at best stupid and at worse criminal and dangerous. Believe me when I tell you progressive marxists this. You are now in a war and the UN and all you "green' socialists will be taken to task in the future. We will resist your socialist take over so beware.
"Believe me when I tell you progressive marxists this."
Does making radical statements make you feel powerful?
It is not just a statement. IT IS A WARNING.
Your statements are totally wrong. Climate change can be predicted (albeit imperfectly), and there are plausible explanations for the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. (Start with Wikipedia, although it isn't perfect either.) The real danger is in ignoring the evidence that the world is warming rapidly. Most scientists don't have a political agenda.
No! Why did the South Atlantic current stop? No explanation. Why was it so warm? Must be all those cars in the year 800AD. The warming is also dependent on where you get your data which has changed from. It is now taken in spots that are inner city heat sinks etc:
Research (including one study published last year that was partly funded by conservatives) has shown that the urban "heat sink" (otherwise known as "heat island") effect cannot explain the temperature increase since the 1970s. Urban weather stations are usually corrected for this effect, and there is plenty of other data including ocean temperatures and satellite measurements. And while it's true that there isn't yet a full explanation of the Medieval Warm Period, most temperature reconstructions say that we've now exceeded the average temperature during the MWP.
I always found it suspicious that the early algore hand-waving period always referred to the 1C temp rise over the "last 10 yrs", which was conveniently after the 1C cooling caused by mt pinatubo in 1991. Hmm, selective data?
I honest to God don't care about Global warming. If it's true, people will adapt and move around the globe to suitable climates... They've been doing this for thousands of years.
Your post shows a lack of understanding of the effects of global warming.
It shows great understanding of how we've survived challenges in the past using much less technology. The whole world will not suddently catch on fire. Some cold places may get warmer and more liveable and the people in the "too hot" areas will move there. We will not go extinct.
No, it shows a total lack of understanding. Nobody is saying "extinction"... well, some are, but no matter how you slice it... nothing but bad happens when you ignore the problem.
Do you know what happens when mass populations have to move to new resources? Simply saying "we've always done it" illustrates great lack of what ELSE happened when we did. Not to mention... we've "always done it" with a formerly stable world population. We've never done it with anything close to current population... so after you look into what happens when we do "what we always do", perhaps you should then look into why we've never had to do it at all with anywhere NEAR current world populations. And you don't think the result would be bad?
I wonder how the penguins feel about this good news ....
penguins don't have feelings
They will adapt.
Just how many penguins do you think there are in the himalayan mountains?
Zing!
ProgressiveforAmerica, yuo just can't resist bad mouthing God can you? It's been my experience that the majority of Atheists actually believe in God but hope that there isn't one because if there is they might have to answer for their sins. If you really want to hedge your bets, try cleaning up your own life, if he exists you've lost nothing and, if he does, you've moved up the line a little bit.
I'm sorry, but where did I "badmouth God"? I did say the religious zealots strike again. That is not insulting God, or for that matter any religion. It is simply stating a fact. And for the record, my life does not need "cleaning up" thank you. In fact, I will place my morals, values and life against yours anytime. And please note, again for the record, that does not mean I am perfect. Far from it.
atheism is a belief also
Who would want to be a part of any religion with people in it that say such douchy things as that?
We should jump on this result bandwagon...right?
If it's new data it must be true...right?
Especially if we read it on the internet...right?
Scientific studies don't lie....right?
Internet articles are fact checked...right?
Like they said there is no global warming and never has been.
No, that's not what they said. How does 385 billion tons of ice melt per year in key areas translate into "no global warming?"
deniers see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear and nothing else Eric.
I would REALLY like you to copy and paste that statement from the article, because I read it three times and still haven't found that or even where it implied it.
The problem with environmentalists is they exaggerate and take everything to the extreme. Yes, I think most of us realize that humans are having a negative impact on our environment. No, I don't think every city near the ocean is going to be under water in 100 years.
The main problem with them is that they make their money from fear mongering. How many grants would they be getting if they all said, "actually everything is fine."
But they might be. The problem with the nay sayers is that they might be wrong. And if they are wrong, the coastal cities will be under water. It seems much more sensible to thoroughly investigate the problem rather than make snarky comments about Al Gore and thump you chest and proclaim you will never change your lifestyle.
Gore has been proven very wrong. There will be no cities underwater. He has made $100,000,000 off you clowns and is laughing at your stupidity. He burns more fossil fuel than a small city. He doesn't care. He buys you off by saying he has "carbon credits". What lunacy. You actually buy that? But you want to dictate how I live. @!$%# you! and the camel you rode in on.
Coastal cities won't be completely under water, but even the predicted 3-foot sea level rise in 100 years will make storm surges and flooding much worse than now. The current average rate of sea level rise is already 1 foot per century, and the rate will increase as warming continues.
Nor does anybody else... the problem, well, YOUR problem is that you got your ideas about what climate scientists predict from pundits like Rush Limbaugh who are well known for exagerating the claims of others to make them appear wrong, insane and stupid.
That's YOUR problem, Paul. You listen to people like, Gore, who is NOT a scientist in ANY sense of the word! He is a politician and like any politician or businessman if he sees an opportunity to turn a profit he's going to take it. The ONLY credit I give him is that he tried to bring attention to the public at large of a problem that can and will effect us all sometime in the future. That's it. Period.
Cities have been going underwater for centuries. So what? We move. Start over. Continue living. Its not going to happen so fast that you have to worry about drowning in your sleep.
Peanut, you do realize that nearly 80% of Earths population live near the coast don't you? So just how do you plan on moving that many people when ocean levels increase to the point where those locations are no longer habitable??
Where is mr. methane...al gore? That fat, bloated bag of gas is personally responsible for "glo-bull" warming.
He's probably trying to reduce emissions from his many homes, airplanes, SUV's and his wife's factories.
You mean gorebal whining .
He's getting a massage right now.
Humans are such a self grandizing species. We are just a spec on the globe, we have about as much impact on weather as a bunch of farting cows!
I sleep in a cabin with four retrievers. At any moment, one of them will expel methane, CO2, sulfur and other gases. My electric bill is very low because the gases trap the heat inside the house and creates a greenhouse effect.
There are 7 billion people on Earth and combined (not counting breathing) we create 26.7 billion tons of co2 emissions every year. We add more parts per million of CO2 to the atmosphere each year than it would take to make a person legally too drunk to drive if it were alcohol in our bloodstream, and that's just what we add in one year.
Really, Z1P2?? I've always wondered about that. Would you happen to have a link to that info? Thanks in advance.
Yes, but to cut down on my time if you'll tell me which piece of info it would be helpful so I don't have to dig out 20 or 30 different links to info you weren't referring to.
Yeah, guess that would've been helpful in specifying which I'd like. A link to Earths population and the excess CO2 we generate. Thanks again.
Give me a valid reason, aside from a reduction in profit margins, why it's necessary to continue poisoning our air, land and water with pollutants and toxic chemicals. We can pay a small price now or a huge price later. It's the lack of concern for the safety, health and welfare of the masses that bothers me.
Because I'm not changing my lifestyle. That's why. I seriously don't care.
A little selfish and self centered are we?
Yup. I'm in this for me!
And your attitude is the REAL problem with America. I care, because it is mine and more importantly my childrens and their childrens future.
I don't see it as a problem. I see you fear mongers as a threat to my way of life. One of my cars is a 2008 LP640 Murcielago that gets 6 MPG the way I drive it. I LOVE it! I love my life!!! Woo Hoo! No way I'm changing baby!
The problem with you is your context....
You say mine "not ours"......you say my children "not our children".
It's clear with you that you, at any cost, think that you are better than the rest. That is the progressive mantra.
Eugenics is a popular progressive topic.....do you believe in it? I bet you do.
Jimcolorado, they will never understand your thinking, it would require them to soul search themselves.
We will send you and you godless children packing you progressive slime.
Jim:colorado-
earlier in the post you stated global change would mean human population would shift as they have for millions of years. It is happening, but you dont care as you admit your an arrogant person.
Bengladesh was part of Pakistan. It is seperated by India and is at sea level. It is a muslim country with a very high population density and high poverty.. They are losing land today, as we speak. If the trend continues and lets say 5 or 10 million Muslims need to shift and want to migrate to Pakistan. how do you think India would react. how do you think a nuclear armed Pakistan would react.
I know Jimcoloradr- its thousands of miles away, you live a privileged life style, who cares if a nuclear armed India and Pakistan get into a war over millions of former Pakistani's wanting to migrate over Indian land.
Media does not do a good job of informing. News can. 95% of what we call news is media, which needs advertising dollars and needs celebrities for a "buzz" and politicians and celebrities need the media.
Science by the way it works will get the truth 99.9% of the time. As with any study with a number of variables involved in global warming, may take decades to arrive at a consensus that has few distractors. Yet Jimincolorado who is a self proclaimed arrogant and self absorbed individual not one Academy of Science of ANY nation has refuted the believe that the vast majority of gloabal warming is man made. Not one.
Sichuan:
There is no "Reason" but if you look at the sample data, it is small. Also, why is the finger being always pointed at the west, while China has become the biggest polluter and is abusive of people as well.
Science changes. Science findings also change. When Pluto was discovered in 1930, it's diameter was guessed to be greater than that of Earth. We know now the diameter is less than 1500 miles and is possibly smaller than the dwarf planet Eris. The estimate of the sun turning into a red giant was 5 billion years from now when I was in School. Now the estimates vary from 600 million years to 7.5 Billion years: That is a huge variation. Can you really push "Facts" with such variations? No, that is why it is called a theory, and that is what the global warming argument is now - a theory. Theories are neither facts, nor are they fallacies. They are just theories.
What bothers me is the Progressives addiction to expropriation and over-legislation. I find it hard to take the "or else" tone from a politician whose own personal lifestyle makes a mockery out of what he expects others to adapt. Protection of the ecology would work much better if it were to become economically advantageous to adopt, rather than the Neo-Bolshevik, punitive tactics which are being used now.
Theories are not really good material to base any legislation on. What if the theory gets disproved? Will not the people who have lost income, property and livelihoods due to some form of ecological expropriation feel like they have been robbed and then rebel? And possibly rebel with weapons? That is one of the reasons we have the terrorism issues we have today.
A theory in science is something well-supported by data, not just a guess or hypothesis. In this case, the theory of global warming is directly supported by accurate experimental measurements of the thermal properties of greenhouse gases, as well as the underlying theory of quantum physics that explains why gas molecules absorb and emit thermal radiation. Still not enough? Then consider the latest detailed NASA analysis of the Earth's heat balance, which shows that the oceans were still absorbing excess heat even during the 2007-2010 solar minimum.
Ah, but we're talking about tempurature changes, not toxic pollutions. Warming has advantages to some. Pollution is bad, period. Dont want to be breathing "china air." But few more sunny days? H#ll yea, sign me up.
All gorebal whining is really about is lefty govts of the world , wanting to control the @!$%# out of everyone as usual .
Yeah, its "lefty's" who are forcing woman to get sonograms in Texas. It's lefty's who are forcing people to get identifications to vote, based on the total BS of massive voter fraud. It's lefty's who are denying rights to homosexual americans because of their sexual orientation. It's lefty's who are fighting against regulations on Wall Street and Corporate America that would actually shine some light on just how much of a Corporate Plutocracy America has become. Sorry to rain on your conservative parade, but the real control freaks are conservatives, not "lefty's.
gee...massive voter fraud...like when ACORN submitted 1800 voter registrations and 8 were valid in seattle?
naw... couldn't happen....lets just let anyone vote....my dog has rights you know...
All far right-wing & far left-wing nuts fall from the same tree.
And of course, lefties believe proper ID shouldn't be required to vote...
A real question (no, really) for any scientist, global or otherwise. The theory is that melting ice caps will cause a rise in sea levels, but when the ice in my (sweet) tea melts it dilutes the tea but does not overflow the glass. So I can see oceans desalinating, but why would the levels rise? It is the same volume, or am I missing something obvious.
Actually, it's because the ice isn't in the water, therefore it isn't displacing the water. If it were floating ice, it wouldn't make the oceans rise if melted. Basically, it's new water when a glacier melts.
But no need to worry because it won't happen.
Do not worry. It is a scare tactic and lie by the commies (reds who became greens). Beware of them and the UN because their agenda is to destroy America and our freedoms. They hate us. Hate them back.
It's because the ice that's melting is on land (not already in the water). There is plenty of geological evidence that sea levels can vary by +/- 200 to 300 feet during warm and cool periods (such as ice ages). Thermal expansion is also important in addition to runoff from ice melt.
You want to know what scares me, Paul? Is people like you calling other people "commies" because they're concerned about what's happening to our planet. There was another person from history that sounded like you. What was his name? Uumm...oh yeah...McCarthy.
I think you're going to have to explain to him how that's not a compliment... and how McCarthy was about as un-American as it gets.
If he can't figure THAT out, then he truly is lost. Unless he's got a poster of McCarthy hanging on his wall. That I wouldn't doubt one bit.
Subordinating individuals for the good of the greater society IS a commie idea.
It is NOT a "commie idea" to try and solve an increasing problem NOW rather than later!
50 billion tons of water. Sounds like a lot. It's about the annual rainfall over a good sized state like Missouri. Going to take a long time to have much impact on sea levels. In any event, the sea level has been rising for over 10,000 years. At the peak of the last ice age oceans were about 100 meters below current level. Why is a rising sea level news?
Because the radical ecologists are banking on the ignorance of the masses not be able to the math necessary to realize the actual impact. The right leadership does the same thing. As we are naturally weak in comprehending an abstract art such as mathematics, The suffixes Million, Billion, Trillion, Quadrillion, become dulling and we do not realise what those designations really mean. This also applies to the poor pathetic slobs who live at the lottery station at the convenience store, the keno bar, or the casino out in the country.
Climate and weather change, but how fast is something we probably cannot tell in a lifetime. No one lives 10,000 years.
It's news because even the 3-foot (about 1 meter) increase in sea level predicted for the next century would have serious consequences in terms of flooding, storm surges, etc. Plus it might not stop for a few centuries even after carbon emissions are reduced.
The one thing I haven't seen anyone mention is what role glaciers play to certain societies around the globe. MANY people, upwards in the tens of millions or more, depend entirely on glacial melt for their drinking water. When those glaciers disappear so does their drinking water.
Also, many island nations are running out of water because of the saltwater contaminating their drinking water supplies. So now you have two different peoples in completley different environments losing their drinking water supplies due to the same thing. Just something for everyone to think about.
I wonder if Al Goofball will quit useing toilet paper or want to tax it? The rain forests, the largest CO2 to O2 exchangers in the world, are being clear cut to make more toilet paper. Now the Gorests can blame global warming on takeing a dump.
So, what you're really saying is that you don't want to take responsibility for yourself and would prefer others pay for your pollution?
You sound like a liberal.
I'd like to see a source on rain forest lumber being used for TP. Of course, you can buy cheaper paper that's made from the usual sources of scrap wood, slash, small trees, etc. What to you think happens to the paper after it's flushed?
Also, would like to see a source on rain forests being largest exchanger. I think it's the little microscopic buggers floating around in the ocean, you know, the ones that have been turning into oil over the last bazillion years as they die and sink to the ocean floor. I'll have to check one of my Gorest sources.
My name is corn-holio! Need TP for me bung-hole!!
Just I'd throw in a little Beevis and Butt-head humor for kicks. ;))