gunnut

Probably bouncing radar waves through the ice. Ice and rock will bounce back the radar waves in different ways and we can generate an image based on the returns.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

mostlymad

Just curious...I can understand when someone says they don’t believe the climate is changing, or that it’s changing, but not due to actions of our species. They don't believe the science. But the “lied to” and “hoax” bit I don’t get.

Can you (or someone else) explain to me why you think these thousands of people would perpetuate such a lie or hoax? I can understand why some might lie to cover up climate change, but not why they would lie to say it exists. That would involve quite a conspiracy - thousands of scientists and policy makers from a wide range of educational backgrounds, cultures, nations, religions - all getting together to co-ordinate this, so I would think they would have a pretty strong motive and I can’t think of one that would draw such a range of people together on this over four or five decades.

I’m serious - I’ve heard people say this before, and would like to know why they think this lie would be perpetrated.

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and expecting a different result.
Albert Einstein.

gunnut

We have theorized this before, on why these scientists would lie.

They aren't exactly lying. They like to take the doom-and-gloom approach because of money.

Think about it. What do they do for a living? Most of them are researchers living on grant money. If you were a research scientist working on a problem, and you tell the world or your benefactor that there is no problem and the world is peachy-key, what happens? They'll say "great, thanks for your work." You get nothing but a hearty handshake and a pat on the back.

How do you secure continued funding? You have to tell them that there "might" be a problem in the world but we don't exactly know the nature of it. It would help if you can further your research. They'll say "oh really? we're in trouble? find out more please. here's some money."

See how simple that is?

brokensickle

If you want to hamstring a economy and constitution, not to mention create more ownerous, greedy, fat, top heavy liberal leftist goverment, it makes perfect sense to lie to line you pocket book if you happen to work for any governmental non-producing agency. And you would seek to keep the fear mongering agenda alive and well to suit your ever increasing money grubbing "**** on a Bull" trade. It's greed and political agenda at the expense of the tax payer that fuels this deception. You actually pay these creeps to make your life more and more miserable. So what happens if we get the global warming even if we find that it was in fact the suns intensity increacing the heat? Will they reimburse the tax payer for the blunder? Ya think?
Curiously the global warming bad crowd has said that the cooling we are experiencing is caused by global warming. They also aspouse that were probably beyond the point of no return. How is it that the global warming crowd gets to work the facts in every conceivable direction to the advantage of their argument. For crying out loud if we do everything we can and they are not correct we pay out the nose and they will simply change the paradigm to a new fear mongering theory. Enter PRAVDA AND THE COMMIE BIG GOVS. IN TWO PART HARMONY. .
Here's a scenerio that won't sell well; 'Global warming will be good for humanity and nature. The same insufferable hype types were saying in the 1970's that we were heading into an ice age and that we would be doomed. Now the globe is ever so slightly warming and the paradigm is reversed. So let me figure these godlike science and media types out. Are they saying that we can keep the globe at some misterious perfect temperature? Would they be attemping this this perfect temperature control if we lived in their idealized CO2 free world and it was heating up? And since so many of them worship the ground that we all walk on as if nature is a god, would they not be violating the tenants of their own religion? What temperature is perfect anyway?



IVAN THE IRACIBLE

__________________
"Evil opposes freedom and uses those who pervert it as pawns to destroy it."

Canmoore

Ok, Lets make one thing clear. The Climate is warming, yes. It has done this in the past, it will do this in the future. With or without Humans.

However, to think that we humans have come along far enough to be so powerful, that we have the ability to kill the planet right from under our own feet is just absurd.

The earths crust is always getting thicker and thicker over time, the crust of today is much thicker than it was say, 10,000 years ago. Now a thicker crust means fewer volcanoes. A single volcanoe as you probably know, can launch more crap into the air than we can even dream of as humans.

Now 10,000 years ago, there was much more active volcanoes than there is today...But wow! somehow, the earth didnt fry, someone we still have an ozone lair, somehow life goes on.

We are being lied to by the Environmentalists, like David Suzuki. There goal is to reduced peoples ecological footprint, to the size that not even a worm will be harmed by us. To hell with our standard of living, infact David Suzuki can be quoted saying "Someones the Environment must trump the Economy." Now isnt that a scary thought!

With the aid of a media who has hijacked this bunk science, and has the public in a frenzy. Environmentalists want this lie to go on, so that through there eyes, the environment will be saved. What they do not believe in (in this case anyways) is a sustainable approach towards the environment. That does not put either the Economy, or the Environment at risk.

dalem

It's rarely lies, in my opinion. It's mainly populist pressure and bad filtration. The scientists run their experiments (heavily influenced, as all science is) by the money available, which is determined by the "flavor of the day" popular science themes. Once the real science is done, the interpretors start their jobs and begin the time-honored tradition of spin, cherry picking, and incompleteness. They can turn 5 reports that say local deforestation rates should NOT be extrapolated to larger areas into a summary that ignores that part, instead using the numbers to talk about general deforestation rates if the bas numbers are alarming enough in the direction they want.

Same sort of thing that goes on at the Pentagon, for instance. You have a pile of real data on the Soviets (for instance). You want money to build a great tank. You take the data that show total numbers of Sov tanks, Soviet claims of their performance, and project Soviet build rates. These numbers are "real" and from valid sources, and they will all be large and scary. So you get your money to build your tank.

Then someone comes along and challenges the utility of your tank - turns out it's so great that it's pretty expensive and you can't build that many of them. So you go back to your pile of data and show that although the total number of Soviet tanks is huge, most are older models and the Sovs have a real problem with maintenance and spare parts so a far smaller number are actually serviceable at any given time. You also show other data that modify their claims of performance and build rates to less-scary levels.

Now, none of that is a lie and it's all based on fact, but you show different pieces at different times for different reasons.

So for G.W., we have a lot of data that show that it's a veritable certainty - not 100%, but close enough - that the global temp has been increasing in the near past. We have correlative curves for industrial emissions. And we have people's emotions.

That's all we have. There is no tested or proven mechanism for connecting the two. There are other data (orbital, historical, solar) that suggest other causitive factors as strong drivers.

But use a mechanism that's easy to understand from everyday life ("greenhouse"), play up the similarity of curves without acknowledging a lack of connection, and ignore or downplay other causitive factors, and you create something that "everyone knows" is true.

Another theory, albeit non-destructive, that got this exact behavior was the Alvarez Impact theory for dinosaur extinction. Right now "everyone knows" that a comet caused the mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs. Only problem is, it's not true and never was, but it was "spun up" so that everyone thinks it's true. Only now, 20 years or more after the fact, is rationality creeping back into that argument.

And the scientists themselves are not totally blameless - they can be victims and disseminators of religious fervor and zealotry just like anyone else, and even outside of that, it is common to see a bandwagon effect where the new theory on the block gets pulled in every direction to come play in everyone else's yard for awhile. Witness "chaos theory" and how that was jammed into every conceivable niche, etc.

We might indeed be helping the planet to get warmer, but there's not a speck of evidence that proves it yet and plenty that disproves it. That could change tomorrow, but it hasn't changed yet.

-dale

ArmchairGeneral

I expect that the people who calculated the disputed number took this into account.Yes, much of the Antarctic ice cap is grounded below sea level. However, that still leaves 1 to 2 miles of ice above sea level. The important question is how the ice is distributed, whether much of it is below sea level, or not. I found a graphic that gives a cross section of Antarctica. As you can see, the majority of the ice cap in the region shown is above sea level. Notice that my calculations give a figure roughly 1.5 times the actual figure. Below sea level ice probably accounts for much of the difference.

In short, Wiki is right, but, as has been said before, it doesn't really matter.

In terms of human history, no, the climate will probably never get warm enough for that. In geologic time, easy as pie. Evidently it's melted before, no reason it can't melt again. Of course, we'll have problems long, long before the ocean rises 60 meters. 1 meter might be enough for some places to be wiped out. Not necessarily very important or highly populated places, but people's homes, nonetheless. Do we care enough about them to use enormous amounts of resources to save them? I don't know. Is a rise of 1 meter likely? I don't think so, but as has been pointed out before, we really don't know. Just as a general principle, I'm sticking with the null hypothesis until I see some more convincing evidence.

Attached Images

antarctica.jpg (132.7 KB, 54 views)

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

ArmchairGeneral

How would you "prove" a climatological model? Do their models not give reasonable accurate predictions for long term climate trends? Obviously they haven't had enough time to really see if their models are correct, but are accurate predictions what you're looking for?

Also, could you tell me where to find some of the data you mention? Google tends to just give either pro-global warming stuff, or anti-global warming stuff by people who don't know what they're talking about.

I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but the "greenhouse effect" has little effect on greenhouses. Radiative heat loss in a greenhouse is infinitesimal compared to convective heat loss. Of course, the earth doesn't lose heat by convection, so the greenhouse effect has a much larger role in controlling temperature.

dalem

That would be a start.

Which data? Lomborg is a good point source for a lot of the stuff. I'm not relying on Google. For the orbital and otehr stuff I usually rely on my Geology texts, or my science books, or my education, little things like that. If you're Googly, Google Milankovich Cycles to start with. Google sunspots, solar activity highs, etc.

And this is relevant to my point how?

-dale

ArmchairGeneral

Anything else? Let's say the data continue to match the models for another decade. Or two. How long before you would be provisionally convinced?



I'm not a big fan of Lomborg. When a political science professor talks about politics, I listen. When he talks about environmental science, I listen less. He makes good points about the economics of environmentalism, but enough scientists have strongly criticised his research that I'm kind of wary.

I figured you weren't relying on Google, I was just saying that that's the problem I have with finding accurate info. I don't really have time for serious book research-Calculus and Halo take too much time.

As for Milankovitch Cycles, as I understand it, that's a very long term phenomenon, and I don't really see how it applies to the current warming trend. Especially as scientists can't seem to agree on whether Milankovitch cycles indicate we should be cooling or warming right now.

Anyhow, thanks for the info. I will continue my (possibly bootless) Googling, and perhaps I'll have time to read a book someday.



It ain't. Just my penchant for random fact insertion.

Canmoore

Here is an excellent source of information, it is an open letter to Stephen Harper and his government from a whole slew of climate experts.

dalem

The data can't continue to match models because the data don't currently match models.

I'd be interested to see what the proportions were. I suspect that the number of scientists who have strongly criticized Lomborg's research is less than the number who have criticized the theory of anthro-driven global warming. Probably an impossible thing to measure.

Well, I would buy some books on general junk science to show what poor theories look like, then I assume there are some authors who get published who are critical of anthro g.w. I think Steve Milloy is one such.

Yes, but they show the larger curves and trends are completely and utterly independent of man. that's an important thing to internalize. And look at sunspot cycles in relation to the "little ice age", etc., for good correlative data that weaken the idea of anthro g.w. And I think a guy just wrote a book about a 1500 year climate cycle - a quick google shows it might be this guy: THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EARTH'S UNSTOPPABLE 1,500-YEAR CLIMATE CYCLE | Daily Policy Digest | NCPA . if there's a book too I'll probably pick it up.

-dale

Canmoore

Well yes, in Geological time then yes the Antarctic ice caps could melt dramatically. However the Antartic is getting colder, not warmer, a fact that the doom and gloomers seem to forget, when they panick that the world is going to see a 1m rise in water temperatures.

dalem

Hey, when I've got Mark Steyn writing exactly the same thing I've been saying for years, I'm going to take that as a major feather in my cap.

Steyn article.

-dale