MormonFreeThinker Posted July 1, 2014 Author Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) It is amazing to me that people will gladly point out one piece of data about something as complex as the environment and then smugly draw complete conclusions from that one bit of data. True, that is what Zakuska is doing. Yes, the South Pole is increasing, but the North Pole is shrinking, and the temperatures are rising, all climate scientists agree that the Earth is getting warmer. That is why the church is going green. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html Edited July 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
strappinglad Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) :That's OK. Soon the poles will flip and the North pole will be magically covered again. Edited July 1, 2014 by strappinglad 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 :That's OK. Soon the poles will flip and the North pole will be magically covered again. The poles don't flip. Magnetic North simply become magnetic South.http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/reversals.html
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 True, that is what Zakuska is doing. Yes, the South Pole is increasing, but the North Pole is shrinking, and the temperatures are rising, all climate scientists agree that the Earth is getting warmer. That is why the church is going green. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html The Antarctic is also increasing in heat, and its loosing huge area's of sea ice. We don't know exactly why that is happening. But some propose that the increased heat allows for more precipitation thus more snow turning to ice. What is certain is that the Arctic including Greenland is loosing not only sea ice but land ice as well. Whatever the motivations it is good to see the Church take positive steps to reduce its carbon footprint.
Zakuska Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) The Antarctic is also increasing in heat, and its loosing huge area's of sea ice. We don't know exactly why that is happening. But some propose that the increased heat allows for more precipitation thus more snow turning to ice. What is certain is that the Arctic including Greenland is loosing not only sea ice but land ice as well.Whatever the motivations it is good to see the Church take positive steps to reduce its carbon footprint. Actually, both north and south poles over the last 10,000 years have been gradually decreasing in temperature.Note the graphs of both greenland and antartica. Peaks are decreasing in magnitude.http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htmYou also missed the anouncement (linked earlier) from the university of illinois over the weekend of Record setting Antartic ice yield. Edited July 1, 2014 by Zakuska
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Actually, both north and south poles over the last 10,000 years have been gradually decreasing in temperature.Note the graphs of both greenland and antartica. Peaks are decreasing in magnitude.http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm No one is saying that climates don't change over long periods of time. It is our present rate of increase in temperature that is worrisome.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 No one is saying that climates don't change over long periods of time. It is our present rate of increase in temperature that is worrisome.Except it isn't There has been no warming since 1998. Speaking of smuggly declaring something from one piece of data. The irony of Nehors post.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Actually, both north and south poles over the last 10,000 years have been gradually decreasing in temperature.Note the graphs of both greenland and antartica. Peaks are decreasing in magnitude.http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htmYou also missed the anouncement (linked earlier) from the university of illinois over the weekend of Record setting Antartic ice yield.Well, Zak, I am glad you are still going, but you are really wasting time. Facts don't matter the the global warming propagandist crowd. There are many that see things the way you do we are just tired of hitting the wall. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Except it isn't There has been no warming since 1998. Speaking of smuggly declaring something from one piece of data. The irony of Nehors post. Not true.
Zakuska Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) No one is saying that climates don't change over long periods of time. It is our present rate of increase in temperature that is worrisome.We don't have to make this more difficult than it needs to be. its just a simple law of thermal dynamics. Heat the earth at the equator and greenland and antartica are naturally going to cool off. Which is what the data shows. Record levels of ice in antartica, lowering peak temperatures in antartica and greenland. Higher temperatures in the sahara.Percipitation as the culprit actual supports what I was saying earlier. That man has raised the humidity in the air so much that there's more rain and snow cooling things down. Edited July 1, 2014 by Zakuska
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) We don't have to make this more difficult than it needs to be. its just a simple law of thermal dynamics. Heat the earth at the equator and greenland and antartica are naturally going to cool off. Which is what the data shows. Record levels of ice in antartica, lowering peak temperatures in greenland. Percipitation as the culprit actual supports what I was saying earlier. That man has raised the humidity in the air so much that there's more rain and snow cooling things down. It is not difficult at all. CO2 traps heat. The basic law of thermodynamics is that heat always moves to cold. Entropy works.Yes the poles act as refrigerators for the earth. What we are doing is overwhelming that refrigerator effect by adding more heat than they can displace. The poles are getting warmer. The site you linked to even says so. The poles are essentially deserts. Even your refrigerator can't make ice without more water. We have raised the relative humidity by raising the heat. At any given temperature the air can hold only so much water. IE; 100% relative humidity at 32 degrees F is less water in the air than the same air at 100% relative humidity at 100 degrees F. Edited July 1, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Zakuska Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Well, Zak, I am glad you are still going, but you are really wasting time. Facts don't matter the the global warming propagandist crowd. There are many that see things the way you do we are just tired of hitting the wall.I'm beginning to realize that.
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 The facts are pretty clear about the warming at both poles and its effect on ice coverage. The Russians have figured that out and are already working on a fleet for the Arctic Sea. The one we should be worried about, however, is the ice coverage over Antarctica because it like the loss of the ice coverage on Greenland has the potential to raise sea levels.
ERayR Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 The facts are pretty clear about the warming at both poles and its effect on ice coverage. The Russians have figured that out and are already working on a fleet for the Arctic Sea. The one we should be worried about, however, is the ice coverage over Antarctica because it like the loss of the ice coverage on Greenland has the potential to raise sea levels. Move to the mountain tops like maybe Ararat.
The Nehor Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Except it isn't There has been no warming since 1998. Speaking of smuggly declaring something from one piece of data. The irony of Nehors post. I didn't give one piece of data and smugly declare anything. The study of climate is very complex. I have an amateur interest in the subject at best. I know enough to follow most arguments and understand some of the data but that is about it. The idea that a bunch of people on a message board who seem to know even less are going to settle the topic of climate change with 2-3 sentence posts is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 1, 2014 Author Posted July 1, 2014 I'm beginning to realize that. Two questions Name one climate scientist that doesn't believe the Earth is getting Warmer? Why is the church making solar power meeting houses? How does that benefit the environment?
Anijen Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 True, that is what Zakuska is doing. Yes, the South Pole is increasing, but the North Pole is shrinking, and the temperatures are rising, all climate scientists agree that the Earth is getting warmer. That is why the church is going green. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.htmlEmphasis mine.All? I could name some that disagree. Being absolute in taking a side weakens your argument.
ERayR Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Emphasis mine.All? I could name some that disagree. Being absolute in taking a side weakens your argument. Go ahead name one MFT wouldn't know the difference. He would disqualify them for some reason. "Just name One (fill in the blank)" is his favorite challenge for all topics. I dare you just name one____. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Move to the mountain tops like maybe Ararat. No need for that. But if you live anywhere near a sea port anywhere on the globe, moving will be the least of your problems.
Anijen Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Name one climate scientist that doesn't believe the Earth is getting Warmer? 1. Joe Bastardi, Chief Hurricane and Long-range Meteorologist2. Dr. Roy Spencer, Climatologist past senior scientist for climate studies at NASA3. Dr. Will Harper, Princeton University 1
ELF1024 Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 I'll start buying into Global Warming when they fix the models to where they can accurately repoduce past events. At this time, they cannot do that. They are in no way certified models. They do not agree with each other, and do not model what is currently happening accurately. Until such time, first rule of programming... Garbage In, Garbage Out. 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Emphasis mine.All? I could name some that disagree. Being absolute in taking a side weakens your argument. Sure; There are some that dispute Global Warming about 3%. There are also some that dispute that man ever landed on the moon. I don't know the percentages there. It is a sad state of affairs when a TV comedy show gives better, more accurate, information than the so called "news" shows.
ELF1024 Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Sure; There are some that dispute Global Warming about 3%. There are also some that dispute that man ever landed on the moon. I don't know the percentages there. It is a sad state of affairs when a TV comedy show gives better, more accurate, information than the so called "news" shows. I do not agree with the comparision that those who do not believe in Global Warming are akin to the Moon Landing deniers. Shall we pull out Godwin's law while we are at it? It is my opinion that Al Gore, and his minons of Climate Change Lemmings have not made a convincing case. They resort to insults, such as the one above about the moon landing, and sensational claims (Arctic Ice Free by 2013) , which end up landing on their face. Those kind of things are not science. The data does not support the conclusions. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 I'll start buying into Global Warming when they fix the models to where they can accurately repoduce past events. At this time, they cannot do that. They are in no way certified models. They do not agree with each other, and do not model what is currently happening accurately. Until such time, first rule of programming... Garbage In, Garbage Out. The facts of Global Warming are not based on models. They are based on actual temperature recording starting in the 19th Century.SEE Bad, Better, BESThttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo#t=127
ELF1024 Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) The facts of Global Warming are not based on models. They are based on actual temperature recording starting in the 19th Century.SEE Bad, Better, BEST The so called "Facts" of Global warming are indeed based on models and projection. The observed temperature record does not show any warming since 1998. The image is very large, or I would have posted it, as an Image. However, since this has nothing to do with the Church, I am going to leave this thread, as I feel it has been derailed. Edited July 1, 2014 by ELF1024
Recommended Posts