West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[One Brow]

You implied they don't cause gluten problems because the science community thinks GMO's aren't bad (and I agree with the science community). Dala agreed with you on this.

The real reason GMO's can't be causing the gluten problem is simply because there are no GMO cereal grains grown in the United States.

My comment was an indication of the foolishness of your lumping together people who are concerned about climate with people concerned aobut GMOs, particularly since the first is a scientifically valid position and the second is not.

The real reason that GMOs are not causing the gluten problem is that there is no biological mechanism by which they can do so, whether in the USa or any other country.

 

[babe]

My comment was an indication of the foolishness of your lumping together people who are concerned about climate with people concerned aobut GMOs, particularly since the first is a scientifically valid position and the second is not.

The real reason that GMOs are not causing the gluten problem is that there is no biological mechanism by which they can do so, whether in the USa or any other country.

Statistically speaking, there would probably be enough of a correlation, a positive correlation, to raise the question about "why".

You are wrong to say one is scientific and the other is not. People who fear a technocracy gone wrong will easily link the two, if only you could come out of your hole and realize what the correlation is.

Money to be made with GMO agriculture, and money to be made selling carbon credits Al Gore invented in the same imagination he used to create the internet. Political science is real science, so far as it shapes opinions. . . . just not in the laboratory where unless you're willing to be biased and produce the desired "facts", you won't get a government grant, and you'll end up talking to the cows in some isolated desert, fighting the BLM whose director is a political hack in the sack for politicians looking for some big campaign contributions.

Until I see some "mainstream", government-funded research that accepts the fact of natural cycles an order of magnitude more important than atmospheric carbon dioxide, and attempting to correlate such a cycle with our present climate, AGCC remains in my book of bogus "science".

 

[One Brow]

Statistically speaking, there would probably be enough of a correlation, a positive correlation, to raise the question about "why".

You are wrong to say one is scientific and the other is not. People who fear a technocracy gone wrong will easily link the two, if only you could come out of your hole and realize what the correlation is.

The height of a parent is correlated to the height of a child (and here the mechanism is known), but we don't assume every tall parent will have only tall children, nor every short parent only short children. Just because some people oppose GMOs and support reducing climate change for irrational reasons is no reason to presume that everyone who supports climate change does so for irrational reasons. It is possible to make the right decision for the wrong reason.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, didn't really understand where he got that from. I don't eat very much gluten, and lots of the stuff in my house is GMO free, but obviously non-GMO crops can have gluten.

My boss has full-blown celiac disease; he can't even have many gluten-free candies because they are processed in factories that make candies with gluten, and traces from the machinery make their way into the candy. I would guess there are stronger and milder forms of this condition, as well as wheat allergies.

 

[babe]

I was still revising my post cited here. . .. sorry. . ..

redundant now to say it again. There are rational reasons for supporting, or opposing, the political use of "climate change", and my objection chiefly is in the class of seeing politicians doing all the wrong things for whatever reasons they can muster, whether true or false.

If AGCC is a fact, and the consequences realistically projected. . . . we should be going nuclear in a big way, and helping the developing countries to do the same, not setting up shop selling carbon credits and killing our industries and our babies. . . err. . . . supporting zero population growth/population reduction goals lie Prince Phillip and Maurice Strong.

 

[babe]

My boss has full-blown celiac disease; he can't even have many gluten-free candies because they are processed in factories that make candies with gluten, and traces from the machinery make their way into the candy. I would guess there are stronger and milder forms of this condition, as well as wheat allergies.

I've been reading about gluten since 1975, never understanding the concern. I do understand that specific allergies are real, and for those who really have them they can be life-threatening. Probably you'd agree that some health-food charlatans are at work on the issue, for all the wrong reasons. . . .

 

[One Brow]

I've been reading about gluten since 1975, never understanding the concern. I do understand that specific allergies are real, and for those who really have them they can be life-threatening. Probably you'd agree that some health-food charlatans are at work on the issue, for all the wrong reasons. . . .

I would absolutely agree on that.

 

[♪alt13]

yup.



defeatism, in other words.

It's a nice one liner that allows you to comfortably ignore reality. You and ob have bought into a fairytale if you think that there is any chance of reducing global emissions in the next 50 years. Short of a massive plague, nuclear war, or aggressive seizure of fossil fuels it's not going to happen. Think it through man.

 

[babe]

So, just how much fresh water is there on the continent of Antartica? /average over a thousand feet of ice over how many square miles??

Offhand, I'd note that more concentrated brines have a much higher heat capacity, and evaporate much more slowly. Letting all that ice melt could balance out the carbon dioxide contribution to the Earth's temp, and maybe even result in increased rainfall, breaking our drought, maybe. Ocean salinity decreases from whatever, about 3% to 2.9%, could be publicized as a 3.3% decrease in surface heat capacity, and a similar increase in evaporation. . . . and rain.

Most morons prattling about global issues have no clue how much effect ocean salinity has in comparison to atmospheric carbon dioxide, or how much methane and other gases affect things, or the "solar winds", or the dispersed particulates in the earth's "capture cross-section" trajectory through space vary, or how the solar system's path around the milky way galaxy brings us periodically into some radically changing environments that impact our atmospherics. . . . and on and on and on.

Yup. We know it all. ACC deniers should be considered morons.

Right.

Bet no scientist has ever included that in the equations they use to predict "anthropomorphic global warming". Convenient to ignore the things that don't contribute to the scare science.

 

[LogGrad98]

So, just how much fresh water is there on the continent of Antartica? /average over a thousand feet of ice over how many square miles??

Offhand, I'd note that more concentrated brines have a much higher heat capacity, and evaporate much more slowly. Letting all that ice melt could balance out the carbon dioxide contribution to the Earth's temp, and maybe even result in increased rainfall, breaking our drought, maybe. Ocean salinity decreases from whatever, about 3% to 2.9%, could be publicized as a 3.3% decrease in surface heat capacity, and a similar increase in evaporation. . . . and rain.

Most morons prattling about global issues have no clue how much effect ocean salinity has in comparison to atmospheric carbon dioxide, or how much methane and other gases affect things, or the "solar winds", or the dispersed particulates in the earth's "capture cross-section" trajectory through space vary, or how the solar system's path around the milky way galaxy brings us periodically into some radically changing environments that impact our atmospherics. . . . and on and on and on.

Yup. We know it all. ACC deniers should be considered morons.

Right.

Bet no scientist has ever included that in the equations they use to predict "anthropomorphic global warming". Convenient to ignore the things that don't contribute to the scare science.

I believe they call all of those "extra" variables "noise" and then they just filter out the noise to leave a nice clean look at exactly how horrifying man's destruction of the planet it, and how important it is for us to dump billions into environmentally friendly concerns while taking immediate economy-stifling moves to stop using all fossil fuels. It is almost always true that you can follow the money to see where the true motivations lie.

And heyhey has it right. Realistically there is no way to stop the train at this point. I have yet to hear a realistic plan to do so any faster than we are now working on the issue. All arguments about that get brushed aside with new cries to "just staaaahp" using fossil fuels.

 

[LogGrad98]

The title of the web page is lying about the CO2 lags specifically, and most of the other papers generally, as supporting denialist (aka "skeptical")arguments about climate change.

Summarily dismissed 1300+ peer reviewed articles showing contrary data to conventionally accepted "consensus" climate change.

Ok then.

Guess it is just more "noise".

 

[LogGrad98]

So you drive an electric car/bicycle, you get all of your power from renewables(PV and pay extra for wind from rocky mountain Power). You recycle everything. You probably don't buy new electronics but prefer to upgrade hardware in used pcs and just live with older models where possible. You must only eat locally sourced food and your garden has got to be impressive. You don't eat sea food period. Point is I bet if you looked at your carbon footprint/environmental impact honestly you would find you are not half the environmentalist you claim to be, but hey you're for stuff.

note: I have an F150 and a Corrolla. I get non of my power from renewables. I recycle quite a bit. I do reuse nut I also like nifty new ****. I don't bother with local food and my garden is not impressive. I eat seafood even though I know we are fishing our oceans to death, but then I'm not claiming to be "the biggest environmentalist you'll ever meet."

I drive a prius. Our family owns 2 actually. The older one has (2007) 150k miles on, still chasing trout on that front, and runs like a champ despite the kids destruction of the interior. The new one (2012) is all gussied up with the fancy gadgets and crap (auto everything, gps, satellite radio, bluetooth, handsfree calling, internet including pandora, etc.). Have had about 50 MPG even for the life of the older one, but it has fallen off a bit as the battery wears into its life cycle. Now getting about 45 on average. The newer one gets worse milleage primarily due to all the extra electronics, only getting 42-44 out of that one.

Make note: a nearly 6'4" 17 year old who weighs over 250 lbs does not fit all that well in a prius, and will be typically clumsy enough to break things since he doesn't realize his own strength. But they are fantastic little cars, actually fun to drive because they are so nimble, and quicker than you would think. My next one will be a Prius C because tricked out in black (or even gray or red) with blacked out windows and low profile tires they look cool (ok cool for a prius, but I think it looks cool), and I prefer the front seat interior layout to the newer prius layout, which seriously sucks in some ways. I mean really what is that space under the "bridge" there for anyway? Give me back my spot for a garbage can Toyota!!




For anyone interested, to date things broken by the aforementioned 17 year old ox: passenger side air vent fins broken out; rear seat cupholder assembly (which never attached to the center console very well anyway) completely ripped loose, currently held in place by duct tape; pulled entire center console (cupholder and storage thing in the middle) loose from the floor breaking the plastic around the screws; passenger side seat only has 2 possible settings now for the seat back, luckily one of them it perfect for most people, the other one is simply flat; both doors on interior in the back completely caved in by giant feet being pressed against them on long rides, center rearview mirror replaced as he knocked it down by whacking his head into it.

 

[♪alt13]

I believe they call all of those "extra" variables "noise" and then they just filter out the noise to leave a nice clean look at exactly how horrifying man's destruction of the planet it, and how important it is for us to dump billions into environmentally friendly concerns while taking immediate economy-stifling moves to stop using all fossil fuels. It is almost always true that you can follow the money to see where the true motivations lie.

And heyhey has it right. Realistically there is no way to stop the train at this point. I have yet to hear a realistic plan to do so any faster than we are now working on the issue. All arguments about that get brushed aside with new cries to "just staaaahp" using fossil fuels.

Now here is where I will have to disagree. We know how the greenhouse effect works and it is calculable how much more heat will be trapped by x amount of co2 and other gasses we emit. Other variables will either cause us to undershoot or overshoot the anthropogenic warming. When you consider the number of positive feedback loops it is much more likely(almost damn certain) that we will overshoot the base calculations. The IPCC estimates for future warming are actually very conservative. It would be much easier to make the argument that they are grossly under estimating future warming than it would be to claim that they are exaggerating.

 

[LogGrad98]

Now here is where I will have to disagree. We know how the greenhouse effect works and it is calculable how much more heat will be trapped by x amount of co2 and other gasses we emit. Other variables will either cause us to undershoot or overshoot the anthropogenic warming. When you consider the number of positive feedback loops it is much more likely(almost damn certain) that we will overshoot the base calculations. The IPCC estimates for future warming are actually very conservative. It would be much easier to make the argument that they are grossly under estimating future warming than it would be to claim that they are exaggerating.

I don't have a problem with undershooting vs overshooting, it is simply that the models don't necessarily take all environmental variables into account, instead "filtering" them to give a smoother outcome, and labeling that outcome anthropogenic. So maybe instead of man causing the "problem" 100%, there are variables that are natural and not within our scope to effect that are causing the bulk of the issue, but these get smoothed out with some kind of "cosmological constant" of the climate variety. That was what is largely in the link I posted to peer-reviewed articles, many of them detailing exactly these kinds of variables and their impact, things like those pointed out by babe. Yet the climate science community labels them as "noise" in the data rather than considering the full impact of an almost overwhelming number of variables. And therein lies one of the problems. The oversimplification has almost taken on a cast of either it is definitive proof of anthropogenic climate change, or we can just label it "noise" and get rid of it.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't have a problem with undershooting vs overshooting, it is simply that the models don't necessarily take all environmental variables into account, instead "filtering" them to give a smoother outcome, and labeling that outcome anthropogenic. So maybe instead of man causing the "problem" 100%, there are variables that are natural and not within our scope to effect that are causing the bulk of the issue, but these get smoothed out with some kind of "cosmological constant" of the climate variety. That was what is largely in the link I posted to peer-reviewed articles, many of them detailing exactly these kinds of variables and their impact, things like those pointed out by babe. Yet the climate science community labels them as "noise" in the data rather than considering the full impact of an almost overwhelming number of variables. And therein lies one of the problems. The oversimplification has almost taken on a cast of either it is definitive proof of anthropogenic climate change, or we can just label it "noise" and get rid of it.

let's take this one

Abstract

A record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration during the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene, obtained from the Dome Concordia, Antarctica, ice core, reveals that an increase of 76 parts per million by volume occurred over a period of 6000 years in four clearly distinguishable intervals. The close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature indicates that the Southern Ocean played an important role in causing the CO2 increase. However, the similarity of changes in CO2 concentration and variations of atmospheric methane concentration suggests that processes in the tropics and in the Northern Hemisphere, where the main sources for methane are located, also had substantial effects on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract

Admittedly I did not read the full text(it has not been nearly long enough for me to do so)but I think this is straightforward enough to get us somewhere.

This is saying that over 6,000 years co2 concentrations increased by 76 ppm in four intervals. Over the last 100 years we have increased over 100ppm in one steady accelerating climb. Even if we didn't have this rather stark example we know how much co2 we are releasing because we know what we are burning.

How does this not strengthen the argument for usgenic climate change.

usgenic is a new word. I just made it up cuz it's easier to type and it rolls off the tongue a little nicer. It also has the added impact of US as in USA or us as in the developed world.

 

[LogGrad98]

let's take this one


https://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract

Admittedly I did not read the full text(it has not been nearly long enough for me to do so)but I think this is straightforward enough to get us somewhere.

This is saying that over 6,000 years co2 concentrations increased by 76 ppm in four intervals. Over the last 100 years we have increased over 100ppm in one steady accelerating climb. Even if we didn't have this rather stark example we know how much co2 we are releasing because we know what we are burning.

How does this not strengthen the argument for usgenic climate change.

usgenic is a new word. I just made it up cuz it's easier to type and it rolls off the tongue a little nicer. It also has the added impact of US as in USA or us as in the developed world.

From the article:

These data support the idea that the Southern Ocean was an important factor in regulating the CO2 concentration during the last transition. However, the fast increases between intervals II and III and at the end of interval IV show that additional mechanisms in the Northern Hemisphere influenced CO2, presumably through changes in NADW formation.

also

The fast increases of CO2 and methane concentrations between intervals II and III, at ∼13.8 ky B.P. according to the Dome C time scale, correspond to the fast warming in the Northern Hemisphere observed at 14.5 ky B.P. on the GRIP time scale. This warming was probably caused by enhanced formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) (30), suggesting that the sudden CO2 increase could have been caused by changes in thermohaline circulation. The methane increase, on the other hand, is thought to have been caused by an intensified hydrological cycle during the B/A warm phase, which led to an expansion of wetlands in the tropics and northern latitudes.

They appear to be claiming causes that are not anthropogenic.

 

[One Brow]

Bet no scientist has ever included that in the equations they use to predict "anthropomorphic global warming". Convenient to ignore the things that don't contribute to the scare science.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-3.html

 

[One Brow]

Summarily dismissed 1300+ peer reviewed articles showing contrary data to conventionally accepted "consensus" climate change.

No, I was dismissing the lies of the website about the meaning of the contents of the articles, not the articles themselves. For example, CO2 rises following temperature rises is a well-known feedback mechanism of climate change, not an argument against it.

Guess it is just more "noise".

I guess when one doesn't want to believe something, one will grasp at any straw one can to deny it.

 

[One Brow]

I don't have a problem with undershooting vs overshooting, it is simply that the models don't necessarily take all environmental variables into account, instead "filtering" them to give a smoother outcome, and labeling that outcome anthropogenic. So maybe instead of man causing the "problem" 100%, there are variables that are natural and not within our scope to effect that are causing the bulk of the issue, but these get smoothed out with some kind of "cosmological constant" of the climate variety. That was what is largely in the link I posted to peer-reviewed articles, many of them detailing exactly these kinds of variables and their impact, things like those pointed out by babe. Yet the climate science community labels them as "noise" in the data rather than considering the full impact of an almost overwhelming number of variables. And therein lies one of the problems. The oversimplification has almost taken on a cast of either it is definitive proof of anthropogenic climate change, or we can just label it "noise" and get rid of it.

First, there is a real statistical issue with using too many variables; you wind up with a model that gives an artificially good fit. So naturally, you find denialists claiming that scientists are already using too many variables in their climate models; here you are complaining they are using too few.

Second, you really should repeat babe's use of "noise" without thinking that, just maybe, he didn't know what he was talking about anyhow (as the link showed). Instead of grabbing on to buzzwords, try engaging in the actual positions.

 

[Stoked]

No, I was dismissing the lies of the website about the meaning of the contents of the articles, not the articles themselves. For example, CO2 rises following temperature rises is a well-known feedback mechanism of climate change, not an argument against it.



I guess when one doesn't want to believe something, one will grasp at any straw one can to deny it.

This made me smile.