supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
http://www.dailytech.com/...e13834.htm

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.


As we speak, the Faithful are gathering at the Goracle to reassert that despite all evidence to the contrary, MBP's Second Coming is imminent. The Goracle himself is unavailable for comment.
Top
Posted by ABC (+381) 12 years ago
Rick:

You may very well be right, but by using words like "Goracle" you really undermine the effectiveness of the facts.

ABC
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
The rapidity of the swing is the problem Rick - it shows that the system is becoming increasingly unstable.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Bridgier, that'd be a cute game if it didn't so closely follow this...

http://www.dailytech.com/...e10866.htm

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.


Huh. Lower global temperatures, now expanding ice caps... that's not reasonable. As the Goracle instructs, Global Warming is really the culprit behind Global Cooling. Just wait a decade or two... then you'll see it! But in the mean time WE MUST ACT NOW!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
" For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down"

Sweet Gravy Rick, are you really this dense?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Maybe I am... are you saying that the entire Globe cooling is evidence of Global Warming?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
It's because Gore's message is being received, you dummies.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
"Sweet Gravy Rick" has almost as much of a ring to it as "Rickenhawk."

I'm curious, Rick - whether it's heating or cooling, does the thought of such a precipitous change in temperature NOT concern you in the least?

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 1/5/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Absolutely not, Brian. In efforts to contain the impending doom of a new age of ice, I will try to drive at least 30 extra miles per day, run my lawnmower for no apparent reason, and use as much electricity as the 100A panel in my house can muster.

Paint the ice caps black and open 5 coal plants per week.

It is our only hope... for the Children.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Today's lesson in logical fallacy: reductio ad absurdum. You didn't answer Brian's question, which led from my point that rapid climate swings (+/-) are the real problem, not a pedantic fixation on "heating" or "cooling".
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Bridgier - he answered my question exactly how I thought he would.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
And the story turns...

Now we're not so much concerned about "warming" and oceans rising, and drought and all that jazz we were sold in the movie. Now we're worried about "changiness" Even if we don't understand what it brings or where it comes from...

We must DO SOMETHING, for the Children.
Top
Posted by Bill N (+64) 12 years ago
I thought that the whole point of global warming was that the Earth's average temperature was directly related to the amount of CO2 in the air. Wasn't the point of "An Inconvenient Truth" that dumping CO2 into the air was going to heat up the atmosphere and melt the ice caps and drown the coastal regions and destroy the Earth? Looks like the average temperature went down an awful lot last year. Did we cut our Carbon Emissions last year? If not, maybe we should rethink the whole Carbon Emissions causes global warming theory. Maybe Gore isn't hurting the environment at all when he flies around in his jet.

The fact that you're changing the subject to rapid climate swings makes me think that you're giving up on the global warming theory too. So if you're changing the subject, what should we do about the system becoming increasingly unstable?

Also, can Nobel Peace prizes be taken back?

[This message has been edited by Bill N (edited 1/5/2009).]
Top
Posted by Tracey (+14) 12 years ago
http://www.guardian.co.uk...t.research

Will global warming trigger a new ice age?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
Screw it. The earth is a disk supported on the backs of four elephants standing on the back of a turtle. Discuss.

Science is just too goddamned hard.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 1/5/2009).]
Top
Posted by Tracey (+14) 12 years ago
From "A Brief History of Time"

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 12 years ago
But her model fails to include the elephants, which is VITAL to this cosmology. Otherwise it's just rubbish.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
Well, I'm just kind of hoping one of those turtles doesn't collapse.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
Problem is Rick is again looking short term. Over the last year its cooler.... OMG! We are saved! The last 100 years mean nothing!

Rick, I have a solution for you. Let me run an extension cord over to your house so I can use your electricity. When you get your bill it will feel like you are 'doing your part' to curb this coming ice age without doing any actual damage. Looks like 'win, win' to me.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
Small sample sizes are statistically irrelevant. Anyone who loves baseball already knows this. We got a head start on much of the world, but with the current industrialization of countries like China and India and crowd -- uhmm, let's just say there's a train rolling down the tracks -- and the result is not going to be pretty. Instead of "Global Warming" it should be called "Global Climate Change". Oh, duh, it already has that moniker.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
You won't hear a word from Rick this summer when it gets hot. That's how Rick works.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2732) 12 years ago
Everyone knows the earth's climate is a simple system that has one and only one variable: temperature. If the theory is that things are going to get warmer and you get a cooler temperature anyplace at anytime on the face of the planet, then obviously the theory must be wrong.

The best label is probably something like Climate Chaos cuz from what I've read, high temps will probably get hotter, low temps will probably get colder, swings will probably get faster and more extreme, and all of these things will get less predictable.

There's a whole lot of "probably" in that last paragraph, but I put a lot more faith in the predictions of those who admit they are unsure than I do in the proclamations of those who state with certainty that they know what's going on.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 1/6/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Everyone knows the earth's climate is a simple system that has one and only one variable: temperature. If the theory is that things are going to get warmer and you get a cooler temperature anyplace at anytime on the face of the planet, then obviously the theory must be wrong.

But a guy who shows footage of ice melting in August as proof of the apocalypse... get that man a Nobel prize!

There's a whole lot of "probably" in that last paragraph, but I put a lot more faith in the predictions of those who admit they are unsure than I do in the proclamations of those who state with certainty that they know what's going on.

How's this, Steve...

"The entire north polar ice cap will be completely gone in 5 years"

-The Goracle... last month. Dude should've asked around.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Small sample sizes are statistically irrelevant.

You're right, the globe warming from the late 1970's to 1998 is "statistically irrelevant." Taking into account that it followed a period of significant cooling from 1940 or so through the mid 1970's.

And now all that supposedly "catastrophic" warming over that time has essentially been wiped out in 1 year. So the pretty plain conclusion should be that the warming from 1970 to 1998 was statistically irrelevant. As many (non-GW-payrolled) scientists said it was.

Bruce, I'd be happy to plug you in and all, but since your own consumption would just decline to match my increase, the net effect would be 'carbon neutral.' Suddenly I like that phrase Anyway, The Ice Age would still cometh...and like many left-leaning solutions... we'd feel good, but accomplish nothing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Here is how we know that the climate change issue is really a political hoax:

The scientific method always seeks to disprove the original hypothesis. After repeated testing and failure to accept alternate hypotheses, the original hypothesis becomes scientific fact.

Al Gore and his disciples are going at this issue backwards, by attempting to prove that the change in climate is man-made. They are attempting to prove their original hypothesis, rather than disprove it. If they used proper scientific methodology, there are a myriad of alternate hypotheses that would be accepted and the issue would fall in the ash heap of history. The global warming is not really about science. It's about "Gorasim" and commandeering political clout, which can be used to manufacture policy controlling the way we live.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
And the smog in LA is just a figment of our lungs... Can you seriously believe that we are not having an effect on the earth ?

Rick, plug me in! I know the net effect would be nil, but you convince yourself that you are fighting the 'ice age'. Hell, you are already delusional about the whole thing anyway..
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Bruce, I'll let you in on a secret, it was a small bit of parody.

But not by much, really. After all, if I said I'd do the opposite and cut my consumption, even marginally, you'd tell me I was 'saving' the planet.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Global warming. It is back. Right now the temp here in Missoula is 42 - well above the normal temp for this date and time. Proof positive of global warming.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Here's another piece of evidence you trotted out before, Bob...



But the entire planet cooling at the fastest rate ever recorded? Pah! Just a crappy anecdote. It's hoodie weather in Missoula!
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
And the highest ranking member of the Grand Old Party, is who? And what does he have to say about "Global Warming"?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Not that it matters, but it's a good question... who?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
You don't know the highest ranking member of the GOP?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Of the party itself? Or highest ranking Republican public official?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
In either case, I think the current President might be.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
You mean "the most anti-environmental President in History?"
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 12 years ago
No, I think I meant the most anti-fiscal-conservative President in History.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Well, he's no FDR, but the last year would've given him a run anyway.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2732) 12 years ago
Rick, Why do you insist on tying all of your debunkery junkery to Gore. Gore is not a scientist, he's a statesman -- or, for those of you who hate him, a salesman. And, like any statesman or salesman, he focuses on the pitch and sometimes oversells the product.

Here's my question: Given the catastrophic consequences of waiting for 100% proof positive conclusions on the science of global warming, what is the benefit of continuing to rely on the strategy of denial and delay?

A second question: Given the economic benefits of investing in the kind of technologies that are needed to reduce pollution, use resources more efficiently, and leave future generations a healthier planet, what is the benefit of continuing to relay on old, inefficient technology that poisons our planet and depletes its resources?

Finally, a third: Where would we be if our ancestors had refused to embrace the changes that came with taming fire? smelting metal? harnessing steam? conducting electricity? creating computers?

Oops, no - there's one more: How does it benefit us as a species to shrink away from the challeges of living in better harmony with our planet as we confront the very real possiblity that the human race may be pushing our planet's capacity to its limit?

I just do not understand the Luddite response to tackling climate change issues... I don't understand it one bit.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
If you don't like the message, kill (or at least slander) the messenger. It's easier than dealing with the message.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 1/8/2009).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 12 years ago
Here is how we know that the climate change issue is really a political hoax:

The scientific method always seeks to disprove the original hypothesis. After repeated testing and failure to accept alternate hypotheses, the original hypothesis becomes scientific fact.

----------------

Therefore, the earth is 6,000 years old.

OK, got it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Exactly.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
It really is funny to read your seemingly earnest words about the scientific method, Richard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Steve, I saw this video tonight that reminded me of you.
http://www.theonion.com/c...olutionary

Especially the part where it says:
Jobs: People who use Keyboards 'Standing in the Way of Human Progress'
on the byline.

Finally, a third: Where would we be if our ancestors had refused to embrace the changes that came with taming fire? smelting metal? harnessing steam? conducting electricity? creating computers?

I'm glad you laid it out like that Steve. Let's play a game of "Which of these is not like the others..."

Taming Fire...carbon-based energy harnessed, CO2 released, standards of living raised, people make money (or wampum or whathaveyou)

Smelting Metal... carbon-based energy harnessed, CO2 released, standards raised, people make money

Harnessing Steam... carbon-based energy harnessed, CO2 released, living standards up again, money made

Conducting electricity... carbon-based energy harnessed, CO2 released, living standards through the roof, cash growing on trees

Computers? carbon-based energy harnessed, CO2 released, living standards up again, money money money

Limiting CO2 emissions... no CO2 released, negative energy harnessed, living standards are supposed to "go up" because a piece of paper with some politicians' names on it says it will, and a "new economy" will emerge because some politicians say it would be real cool if that happened.

Maybe I'm just being negative, though. I mean when has a politician ever failed to deliver on a promise.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2732) 12 years ago
You're great at seeing half of the equation, Rick. I can only wonder what it will take for you to see the rest of the picture. I'm not holding my breath (even tho someday, under your approach, that will become a necessity! )
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Sorry, Steve, I should've given you the courtesy of answering the questions you laid out

Here's my question: Given the catastrophic consequences of waiting for 100% proof positive conclusions on the science of global warming, what is the benefit of continuing to rely on the strategy of denial and delay?

First, I think even you'd have to concede that we're nowhere near 100% proof positive. And then, kind of in line with what Richard said, the burden of proof should be on those advocating change rather than those happy with the current arrangment. Getting to where you're 50% sure you're causing damage isn't good enough when proposing bone-crushing economic regulation. In short, the benefit is competitiveness (and market reality). Even if we could cut back on CO2 emissions, every ounce we'd cut would be made up by a pound overseas. You're just shifting production from countries who somewhat care to those that absolutely don't.

A second question: Given the economic benefits of investing in the kind of technologies that are needed to reduce pollution, use resources more efficiently, and leave future generations a healthier planet, what is the benefit of continuing to relay on old, inefficient technology that poisons our planet and depletes its resources?

You say inefficient, but in reality, in terms of economy, nothing more efficient has come along. If it had, it would be in place (or in the works) You say there are economic benefits, but in reality there usually aren't. It reminds me of when Lonely Joe talked about developing clean coal tech so we could 'sell' it to the Chinese. That'd be a fun conversation:

"Hey, China, you want to buy our clean-coal technology? We don't use it, but it's great?"

"Is it free?"

"No, but we'll install it... only $49.95"

"Too expensive, no thanks"

Oops, no - there's one more: How does it benefit us as a species to shrink away from the challeges of living in better harmony with our planet as we confront the very real possiblity that the human race may be pushing our planet's capacity to its limit?

To be honest with you, I see the coming world population implosion as a much greater threat than Planet Earth reaching its occupancy limit.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2732) 12 years ago
Hey Rick - thanks for putting a good faith effort into those answers. I'll return the favor, but it will have to be tomorrow. I'm on my way out the door to Open Mic and Johnny Burgers... I've never had one before, and I've been assured it's a real treat!

Stay warm! (hehe)
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
"nothing more efficient has come along"
Rick. As long as there's tons of money to be made, efficiency has little to do with it. Exxon, who now espouses their own "greenness" has also spent plenty to rebut global warming theories. And I'm sure they've done that with nothing but "efficiency" and "the good of the planet" on their minds. I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with profits.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Bob, one would wonder, with Exxon in such tight control of things how gas prices have gone back a decade in the last 6 months or so.

Has corporate greed been suspended?
Top
founder
Posted by Bart Freese (+926) 12 years ago
Rick,

Go check into this whole ice thing for yourself -- first hand. How? Get your ice skates and hit the city rink -- you'll be glad you did.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Believe it or not Bart, this kid has never owned a pair of ice skates in his life.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1893) 12 years ago
Exxon, and all oil producers, got a little taste of a world a little less dependent on them.
Top