ahh, but the mass of sea water is increasing due ot melt run-off from the land ice. (not arguing, just pointing out)
in fact, just last week (?) we had the posting about how sea levels in the antarctic region were local higher (by ~2mm...which is a lot if you consider the volume over such a large area) due to the incomplete mixing of the fresh water run off and ocean water.
here's a test: if it can be absorbed by the system, the concentration in the atmosphere should remain relatively stable, and not show an increase. observation: levels have increased continuously, from 280ppm to 400+ppm, and show no signs of slowing down. conclusion: it cannot be absorbed by the system. if an equilibrium factor is building, it has yet to catch up to the rate of production of CO2.
and of course, you spout more the nonsense garbage about "no one understands the system" (yes, they do), "the models are wrong" (no, they arent), and "harming everyone" (baseless assumption). in short: youre post contained a lot of words, but contained nothing of importance, insight, or value. good day.
The level of average CO2 has risen from approximately 280ppm to 400+. That's almost a 50% increase. In the entire atmosphere. Do you have any idea just how large a volume that is??? Yearly human activity puts out over 40 BILLION tons of the stuff. 40 billion tons is the same weight as 100,000 aircraft carriers. And we put out that much of a GAS yearly.
Make no mistake: the only one making an error here is you. He presented the very essence of a scientific argument, with testable observations (that have been made and done over and over again). Ever heard of a positive feedback loop? If everything is in equilibrium, fine and dandy. But increase one factor, like say increasing CO2 by 50%, and you trigger a series of events. One of which is: it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer ->.....
Get the idea? Edumicate thyself: http://www.skepticalscience.co... Just because water vapor is common in the atmosphere doesnt mean that CO2 can be ignored. Toe ven posite such a thing proves your own ginorance of the system.
there is no dissenting data. theres more sea ice because it USED TO BE land ice. before it melted. and ran into the ocean. if there was a giant stream of fresh water (and continent worth of melting ice) in teh arctic, we would probably see expanding sea ice up there too. conversely, if you could block all that fresh water in Antarctica from reaching and mixing into the ocean, we'd probably see decreasing sea ice down there.
the science is consistent, regardless of your ability to grasp it.
Global Warming is religion, not science. It is religion because: 1. Neither side can use a common set of facts to support their opinion. 3. Neither side proffers a theory that can predict or explain the scientific observations.
The rest of your post is irrelevant because these lines are bullshit and simply reflect your own ignorance. One side does have a common set of facts and a theory based on them that predicts and explains the observations.
sea ice builds in pretty much the same way, at both poles.
the increase in sea ice in the antarctic is because there is more ice there to start with (an entire continent worth) and more feeding in, whereas the arctic sea ice is declining because it doesnt have a ready source of additional fresh water, or as much of one.
if we could quarantine the fresh water running off the melting ice sheets in the antarctic so it didnt reach or mix with the ocean, we would probably see declining sea ice levels there as well.
the volume, age, and coverage of Arctic sea ice exhibits a very clear, very strong trend downwards. scientists have been repeatedly wondering if this will be the year we see an ice free summer, especially after 2012's record minimum.
in comparison, Antarctic sea ice shows a weak upward trend. so yes, its a very important dinsticntion.
and the reason for action is simple: do you have any idea how much energy it takes to increase the temperature of entire ocean or continent to change the rate of ice formation or loss? hint: ITS A LOT.
as opposed to the hundreds of Republicans in congress who make wrong statements daily?
Statements like "God created the Earth, and as such global warming is impossible", "CO2 is a natural, harmless gas", "Coal ash is harmless", "CFCs have no effect on ozone", "Nicotine doesn't cause cancer", etc, etc etc etc?? Seriously, the list is endless. I dont have to post em all. And these are the same individuals on the science committee btw.
Al Gore is an activist with little real power unless he decides to run for office again. He's also not that influential anymore, as basiaclly everyone has alrady taken a side in regrards to him (hint: only one side is backed by actual science!)
However all those Congress critters are actually current serving politicians. I'd be far more worried about them if you're going to play the "what he says matters" card.
Al Gore is not a scientist. He is an activist, and he can draw attention to issues because of that.
He is also a lightning rod for dogwhistle politics. The only individual who triggers a bigger "do the opposite of anything he says" spite reaction for certain folks is President Obama.
So tell me Mr Troll.... what drives the creation of antarctic sea ice?
The scientists arent confused by this, because they know the answer already. Only you and your fellow trolls are confused by this development.
And this at the same time that Arctic sea ice is still are record lows (and no, it hasnt "recovered 41%" unless you want to ignore the past 3 decades of data to focus on only the past year or two, when it hit its lowest level ever)
And now cue my mod point stalker who mods every factual post i make "flamebait".
the fact of hte matter is, the overwhelming majority of people are in absolutely no danger of someone breaking into their home. of those who actually get break ins, almost none are interesting in even harming the home owners. they target homes that are empty, and they are after stuff, not people.
i find that laughable considering that there ARE NO statistics on it beucase, like most gun related statistics, any effort to actually quantify it, by building a database of records, have repeatedly been squashed with the help of the gun lobby/NRA.
we literally do not know how many times: - police shoot someone - kids shoot someone - gun owners use a gun defensively - someone is killed with a gun
The only statistics we even have are culled from media reports, which are incomplete and don't reflect the total picture.
that's nothing but absurdism. you cant eliminate floors.
you can however do something about "an average of one mass shooting every 2 weeks for the past 5 years". you can however do something about "yet another child shoot and killed himself/a friend accidentally". you can however do something about "40,000+ gun deaths a year".
they said the same thing about semi autos when they were first introduced. they also said it about the safety switch. the M16 still has a problem with its locking sear (wears down, eventually turning burst into full auto).
its an engineering problem. nothing more. this irrational fear of guns with better safety is just that: Irrational.
the worlds scientists would love to see it. no one wants to think that we're destroying the world. its not a rational want. but it is the current reality.
that's not radical. we could build a smart grid and enough solar to provide for the entire country and cut off all emissions in 5 years (expensive, but doable). that's radical.:P
point is theres lot of options that vary only timetable and cost.
the only thing lacking is political will, and as long as half the country believes scientists are evil money grubbing bastards who lie to "get rich off research funding" it always will be. we cynically say things like "Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy, only to be exposed by a plucky group of oil billionaires", but half the country sees that as reality instead of as a joke.
net neutrality is still useful to have, even if competition actually existed. competition by its very nature leads to less and less competition over time, til we end up right back where we are now.
neither you, nor the gp, has any clue what hte words "capitalism" and "communism" mean. im just as critical of bad actors as anyone here, but in order to have any meaningful discourse you must use proper definitions, not merely a sense of vitriol.
Slashdot Mirror
ahh, but the mass of sea water is increasing due ot melt run-off from the land ice.
(not arguing, just pointing out)
in fact, just last week (?) we had the posting about how sea levels in the antarctic region were local higher (by ~2mm...which is a lot if you consider the volume over such a large area) due to the incomplete mixing of the fresh water run off and ocean water.
really?
here's a test: if it can be absorbed by the system, the concentration in the atmosphere should remain relatively stable, and not show an increase.
observation: levels have increased continuously, from 280ppm to 400+ppm, and show no signs of slowing down.
conclusion: it cannot be absorbed by the system. if an equilibrium factor is building, it has yet to catch up to the rate of production of CO2.
and of course, you spout more the nonsense garbage about "no one understands the system" (yes, they do), "the models are wrong" (no, they arent), and "harming everyone" (baseless assumption). in short: youre post contained a lot of words, but contained nothing of importance, insight, or value. good day.
miniscule?
miniscule?!
The level of average CO2 has risen from approximately 280ppm to 400+. That's almost a 50% increase. In the entire atmosphere.
Do you have any idea just how large a volume that is???
Yearly human activity puts out over 40 BILLION tons of the stuff.
40 billion tons is the same weight as 100,000 aircraft carriers.
And we put out that much of a GAS yearly.
Make no mistake: the only one making an error here is you. He presented the very essence of a scientific argument, with testable observations (that have been made and done over and over again). Ever heard of a positive feedback loop? If everything is in equilibrium, fine and dandy. But increase one factor, like say increasing CO2 by 50%, and you trigger a series of events. One of which is: it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> leading to mroe water vapor in the air -> trapping more heat -> it gets warmer -> .....
Get the idea? Edumicate thyself: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Just because water vapor is common in the atmosphere doesnt mean that CO2 can be ignored. Toe ven posite such a thing proves your own ginorance of the system.
there is no dissenting data.
theres more sea ice because it USED TO BE land ice. before it melted. and ran into the ocean.
if there was a giant stream of fresh water (and continent worth of melting ice) in teh arctic, we would probably see expanding sea ice up there too.
conversely, if you could block all that fresh water in Antarctica from reaching and mixing into the ocean, we'd probably see decreasing sea ice down there.
the science is consistent, regardless of your ability to grasp it.
Global Warming is religion, not science. It is religion because:
1. Neither side can use a common set of facts to support their opinion.
3. Neither side proffers a theory that can predict or explain the scientific observations.
The rest of your post is irrelevant because these lines are bullshit and simply reflect your own ignorance.
One side does have a common set of facts and a theory based on them that predicts and explains the observations.
sea ice builds in pretty much the same way, at both poles.
the increase in sea ice in the antarctic is because there is more ice there to start with (an entire continent worth) and more feeding in, whereas the arctic sea ice is declining because it doesnt have a ready source of additional fresh water, or as much of one.
if we could quarantine the fresh water running off the melting ice sheets in the antarctic so it didnt reach or mix with the ocean, we would probably see declining sea ice levels there as well.
bingo.
that's pretty much exactly what scientists say too.
Its not a distinction without a difference.
the volume, age, and coverage of Arctic sea ice exhibits a very clear, very strong trend downwards. scientists have been repeatedly wondering if this will be the year we see an ice free summer, especially after 2012's record minimum.
in comparison, Antarctic sea ice shows a weak upward trend.
so yes, its a very important dinsticntion.
and the reason for action is simple: do you have any idea how much energy it takes to increase the temperature of entire ocean or continent to change the rate of ice formation or loss? hint: ITS A LOT.
as opposed to the hundreds of Republicans in congress who make wrong statements daily?
Statements like "God created the Earth, and as such global warming is impossible", "CO2 is a natural, harmless gas", "Coal ash is harmless", "CFCs have no effect on ozone", "Nicotine doesn't cause cancer", etc, etc etc etc?? Seriously, the list is endless. I dont have to post em all. And these are the same individuals on the science committee btw.
Al Gore is an activist with little real power unless he decides to run for office again.
He's also not that influential anymore, as basiaclly everyone has alrady taken a side in regrards to him (hint: only one side is backed by actual science!)
However all those Congress critters are actually current serving politicians. I'd be far more worried about them if you're going to play the "what he says matters" card.
Al Gore is not a scientist.
He is an activist, and he can draw attention to issues because of that.
He is also a lightning rod for dogwhistle politics.
The only individual who triggers a bigger "do the opposite of anything he says" spite reaction for certain folks is President Obama.
So tell me Mr Troll....
what drives the creation of antarctic sea ice?
The scientists arent confused by this, because they know the answer already.
Only you and your fellow trolls are confused by this development.
And this at the same time that Arctic sea ice is still are record lows
(and no, it hasnt "recovered 41%" unless you want to ignore the past 3 decades of data to focus on only the past year or two, when it hit its lowest level ever)
And now cue my mod point stalker who mods every factual post i make "flamebait".
^conspiracy nut disconected from reality
your guns in no danger jimbo. they are never going away.
because guns already have a 99.99% reliabilty rate?
no. not even close.
the fact of hte matter is, the overwhelming majority of people are in absolutely no danger of someone breaking into their home.
of those who actually get break ins, almost none are interesting in even harming the home owners. they target homes that are empty, and they are after stuff, not people.
He'll get death threats same as the lady who was trying to sell a smart gun last year.
(is it ironic that these are also the "free market" people?)
"statistical noise" ?? really?
i find that laughable considering that there ARE NO statistics on it beucase, like most gun related statistics, any effort to actually quantify it, by building a database of records, have repeatedly been squashed with the help of the gun lobby/NRA.
we literally do not know how many times:
- police shoot someone
- kids shoot someone
- gun owners use a gun defensively
- someone is killed with a gun
The only statistics we even have are culled from media reports, which are incomplete and don't reflect the total picture.
that's nothing but absurdism.
you cant eliminate floors.
you can however do something about "an average of one mass shooting every 2 weeks for the past 5 years".
you can however do something about "yet another child shoot and killed himself/a friend accidentally".
you can however do something about "40,000+ gun deaths a year".
they said the same thing about semi autos when they were first introduced.
they also said it about the safety switch.
the M16 still has a problem with its locking sear (wears down, eventually turning burst into full auto).
its an engineering problem. nothing more.
this irrational fear of guns with better safety is just that: Irrational.
although if it looks really illegal, probable cause can come into play, and its reasonable for it to do so.
they are facts dickweed.
you got better data? bring it on.
the worlds scientists would love to see it.
no one wants to think that we're destroying the world. its not a rational want.
but it is the current reality.
that's not radical. :P
we could build a smart grid and enough solar to provide for the entire country and cut off all emissions in 5 years (expensive, but doable). that's radical.
point is theres lot of options that vary only timetable and cost.
the only thing lacking is political will, and as long as half the country believes scientists are evil money grubbing bastards who lie to "get rich off research funding" it always will be. we cynically say things like "Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy, only to be exposed by a plucky group of oil billionaires", but half the country sees that as reality instead of as a joke.
net neutrality is still useful to have, even if competition actually existed.
competition by its very nature leads to less and less competition over time, til we end up right back where we are now.
...it appears that no one has much idea of either the chemistry in the troposphere, or the natural fluctuations which occur.
well, your analysis is flawed.
so you can go on your merry way and not bother anyone with your ignorance again.
your ignorance is showing
neither you, nor the gp, has any clue what hte words "capitalism" and "communism" mean.
im just as critical of bad actors as anyone here, but in order to have any meaningful discourse you must use proper definitions, not merely a sense of vitriol.