What 40 years has done to change Earth [Archive]

SnakeBoy

07-25-2012, 03:16 AM

Is that because we really don't have much forest left to cut down?

We have a little over 30% forest coverage so there is plenty to cut down, hopefully we don't. Still a far cry from the 50% + coverage we should have. According to the fao we are making gains...for now.

In North and Central America as a whole, the forest area was estimated to be almost the same in 2010 as in 2000. While the forest area continues to decrease in all countries in Central America except Costa Rica, it is increasing in North America, where the net loss in Mexico is outweighed by a net gain in the United States of America.

This is the one area that I thought Obama might be good on but it hasn't been on his to do list.

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:34 AM

We have a little over 30% forest coverage so there is plenty to cut down, hopefully we don't. Still a far cry from the 50% + coverage we should have. According to the fao we are making gains...for now.

I thought that at least here in the USA, we have been gaining in forested areas. Don't we have more forested area than 200 years ago because we put out natural fires?

boutons_deux

07-25-2012, 06:25 AM

I thought that at least here in the USA, we have been gaining in forested areas. Don't we have more forested area than 200 years ago because we put out natural fires?

Between 2000 and 2005, the United States lost an average of 831 square miles (215,200 hectares, 2,152 square kilometers or 531,771 acres) of "primary forest" -- defined by FAO as forests with no visible signs of past or present human activities. These forests, often termed "old-growth forests," have the highest number of plant and animal species and are generally considered a top priority for conservation by environmentalists and government agencies.

Despite the drop in primary forest cover, America still managed to post a gain in total forest cover due to the regeneration of previously cut forests and new forest plantations. These forests are generally considered ecologically inferior to primary forests for their reduced biodiversity but now make up major of American -- and world -- forests.

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1116-forests.html

USA is planting industrial forests to replace the incredible natural forests From Sea To Shining Sea.

Halberto

07-25-2012, 08:28 AM

"USA is planting industrial forests to replace the incredible natural forests"

If you could ever kiss a tree's ass, this would be it. :lol

DarrinS

07-25-2012, 08:33 AM

To put moonbat's numbers in perspective, Harris county is 1778 sq miles.

AussieFanKurt

07-25-2012, 08:33 AM

It depresses me looking at this kinda thing

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 08:42 AM

To put moonbat's numbers in perspective, Harris county is 1778 sq miles.

How does that put it into perspective? Would it not be better to measure the amount of trees in SuperDomes?

boutons_deux

07-25-2012, 08:45 AM

ABC News On Stunning Greenland Ice Melt: ‘Scientists Say They’ve Never Seen Anything Like This Before’

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/07/24/icemap.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/580371/abc-news-on-stunning-greenland-ice-melt-scientists-say-theyve-never-seen-anything-like-this-before/

jack sommerset

07-25-2012, 09:52 AM

boutons_deux

07-25-2012, 10:07 AM

When God passed out brains, he passed you over.

jack sommerset

07-25-2012, 10:19 AM

When God passed out brains, he passed you over.

I guess that's means "no". God bless

George Gervin's Afro

07-25-2012, 11:28 AM

I thought scienctist said the entire earth was one huge block of ice at one point? God bless

the infinite wisdom of the dumbest poster on spurstalk...

gone west

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 12:35 PM

I found these images in another story which illustrates the point I've been making in another thread...

Greenland ice melt 'unprecedented', says NASA (http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/64925-greenland-ice-melt-unprecedented-says-nasa)

http://img.tgdaily.net/sites/default/files/stock/450teaser/environment/greenland_melt.jpg

"Ice cores from [Summit Station in central Greenland] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
Sounds cyclical to me.

I suggest someone look up the definition of "unprecedented."

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 01:48 PM

You just can't stop the stupid. Read the first line of the NASA article. Thanks.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 01:50 PM

You just can't stop the stupid. Read the first line of the NASA article. Thanks.

This one?

Almost all of Greenland's surface ice cover has melted at some point this summer - twice as much as usual. It's the largest melt ever seen in more than 30 years of satellite observations.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 01:52 PM

You just can't stop the stupid. Read the first line of the NASA article. Thanks.

Or, this one?

For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 01:56 PM

So, you're suggesting the use of "unprecedented," in the title, was just meant to explain such melting was unprecedented during the 30 years of satellite records?

Please tell me that's what you're suggesting...

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 02:01 PM

Here's NASA's title:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
Wouldn't this have been a better title?

Satellites See Cyclical Sesquicentennial Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
It's certainly more accurate -- not to mention it has nice alliteration.

xrayzebra

07-25-2012, 02:20 PM

When God passed out brains, he passed you over.

leave to our resident little left wing socialist to skew the facts:

"Even Greenland's coldest and highest place, Summit station, showed melting. Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/ice-melting-nearly-all-over-greenland-a-freak-event-not-seen-since-1889-1.891444#ixzz21fD4MjI7
"

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 02:25 PM

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 02:34 PM

You're down to complaining about how good a title is. Pretty funny that Darrin did the same thing. Its an unprecedented satellite observation. I guess that upsets you guys but they told you in the article that it happened before.
Yeah, go with that Manny. :lmao

I posted it as just another example of the way in which AGCC proponents are misleading the public.

That it was a cyclical phenomenon, occurring every 150 years, wasn't disclosed until the next to the last paragraph. The rest of the article is nothing but alarmist pap.

In fact, in the article posted by jack sommerset, thinkprogress.com quotes James Hansen explaining away the cyclical nature of the event as being due to something called "scientific reticence." You must have not got the memo.

Face it, NASA satellites record an event that happens every 150 years and they try to sensationalize it into an "unprecedented" event.

You were right, you.just.can't.stop.the.stupid.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 02:39 PM

They're misleading hte public by giving you the information that its cyclical? WOW.

DarrinS

07-25-2012, 02:39 PM

You're down to complaining about how good a title is. Pretty funny that Darrin did the same thing. Its an unprecedented satellite observation. I guess that upsets you guys but they told you in the article that it happened before.

Technically, you are correct -- it is "unprecedented" in the satellite record, but it is not unprecedented in the historical record. Which do you think they were trying to convey?

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 02:39 PM

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 02:40 PM

Technically, you are correct -- it is "unprecedented" in the satellite record, but it is not unprecedented in the historical record. Which do you think they were trying to convey?

Considering the first sentence that should be obvious.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 02:40 PM

Oh yeah, and the fact that they state its happened before.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 02:44 PM

Yonivore never bothers to read past the head line so this is the most obvious case of projection I've ever seen.

NASA expects the average person can read and does so. They didn't account for Yonivore.
Actually, I read all the way to the end. How else would I know how misleading they had been in the rest of the article.

How 'bout that "scientific reticence" explanation; up to speed yet?

I think AGCC proponents and NASA count on the general population not reading all the way to the end...or past the headline. In fact, I think there was a study (probably several) that discovered most people don't read beyond the headlines and even fewer make it past the first paragraph.

It's a misleading article. Why is it important to note satellite technology has recorded an unprecedented measurement over a 30-year history?

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 02:52 PM

It's a misleading article. Why is it important to note satellite technology has recorded an unprecedented measurement over a 30-year history?

:lol ???

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 02:55 PM

Then there's the ominous last sentence in the article which serves to discount everything just said about the empirical evidence laid out in the paragraph before.

"But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
The implication is, even though this only happens every 150 years, or so, it's expected we'll be seeing more of this -- you know -- due to AGCC ::wink::wink::nudge::nudge::

Well, I do suppose that's better than the Algore-ish proclamation Greenland will be a arid wasteland, void of vegetation, by the year 2020.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 02:56 PM

Straw heaped upon straw. Keep going please.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 02:57 PM

:lol ???
In the context of global climate, I'll bet that satellite saw a lot of "unprecedented" events since it entered geosynchronous orbit thirty years ago.

My point was, why it is significant in the context of a conversation about Greenland's ice sheet melting, particularly when the kind of melting recorded isn't, itself, unprecedented?

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:01 PM

In the context of global climate, I'll bet that satellite saw a lot of "unprecedented" events since it entered geosynchronous orbit thirty years ago.

My point was, why it is significant in the context of a conversation about Greenland's ice sheet melting, particularly when the kind of melting recorded isn't, itself, unprecedented?

:LOL @ at satellites imaging Greenland in geosynchronous orbits.

Keep going.

jack sommerset

07-25-2012, 03:01 PM

In the context of global climate, I'll bet that satellite saw a lot of "unprecedented" events since it entered geosynchronous orbit thirty years ago.

My point was, why it is significant in the context of a conversation about Greenland's ice sheet melting, particularly when the kind of melting recorded isn't, itself, unprecedented?

With the exception of George, they know what you are talking about. They know they can't put the whole global warming, climate control thing over any huge timeline so they crunch the window,move the goal post and that be that. God bless

DarrinS

07-25-2012, 03:03 PM

How this kind of shit gets reported by the media:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2120388,00.html

(WASHINGTON) — Nearly all of Greenland's massive ice sheet suddenly started melting a bit this month, a freak event that surprised scientists. :lol

Even Greenland's coldest and highest place, Summit station, showed melting. Ice core records show that last happened in 1889 and occurs about once every 150 years.

Three satellites show what NASA calls unprecedented melting of the ice sheet that blankets the island, starting on July 8 and lasting four days. Most of the thick ice remains. While some ice usually melts during the summer, what was unusual was that the melting happened in a flash and over a widespread area.

"You literally had this wave of warm air wash over the Greenland ice sheet and melt it," NASA ice scientist Tom Wagner said Tuesday.

The ice melt area went from 40 percent of the ice sheet to 97 percent in four days, according to NASA. Until now, the most extensive melt seen by satellites in the past three decades was about 55 percent.

Wagner said researchers don't know how much of Greenland's ice melted, but it seems to be freezing again.

"When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening?" NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said. It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come."

About the same time, a giant iceberg broke off from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland. And the National Snow and Ice Data Center on Tuesday announced that the area filled with Arctic sea ice continues near a record low.

Wagner and other scientists said because this Greenland-wide melting has happened before they can't yet determine if this is a natural rare event or one triggered by man-made global warming. But they do know that the edges of Greenland's ice sheets have already been thinning because of climate change.

Summer in Greenland has been freakishly warm so far. :lol That's because of frequent high pressure systems that have parked over the island, bringing warm clear weather that melts ice and snow, explained University of Georgia climatologist Thomas Mote.

He and others say it's similar to the high pressure systems that have parked over the American Midwest bringing record-breaking warmth and drought.

Ohio State University ice scientist Jason Box, who returned Tuesday from a three-week visit, said he ditched his cold weather gear for the cotton pants that he normally dons in Nevada.

"It was sunny and warm and all the locals were talking about how sunny it was," Box said after getting off a plane. "Beyond T-shirt weather."

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:08 PM

1. It DID surprise scientists.
2. It has been freakishly warm.

I don't think you guys understand that an event that occurs on average once every 150 years isn't exactly commonplace. Why is it noteworthy? Because whether or not it has occurred before, this is the exact type of event you would expect in a warming climate. Its going to occur again in the near future, and again after that. This little thing called thermodynamics is going to make sure of that.

You guys are rich. Those scientists said all the right things. They didn't attribute the single event to AGW. They maintained that it has occurred before. Yet, its not good enough. They're not trying to scare anyone. They've said that most of the melt on the actual top of the ice sheet likely simply refroze once temps dropped back down but you're all still foaming at the mouth because they pointed out its the first time we've observed this. The only records we have of an event like this are from ice cores and not direct observation. THAT is why it is noteworthy.

jack sommerset

07-25-2012, 03:13 PM

How can it surprise scientist if it happens every 150 years. Didn't scientist determine the earth is over 4 billion years old. With that knowledge I would say its pretty common. God bless

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:14 PM

New York Post

NASA: Greenland's ice sheet melted this summer at an 'unprecedented rate' (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/nasa-greenland-ice-sheet-melted-summer-unprecedented-rate-article-1.1121674)

Climate scientists say they are stunned at how fast and how much of the ice that blankets Greenland has melted this year, and the surprising satellite data leaves them wondering what it all means.
Stunned? Stunned by the confirmation of a 150-year cycle? Okay.

Later in the article...

"When we see melt in places that we haven't seen before, at least in a long period of time, it makes you sit up and ask what's happening?" said NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati. “It's a big signal, the meaning of which we're going to sort out for years to come."
NASA's chief scientist Waleed Abdalati apparently didn't visit with glaciologist, Laura Koenig who pointed out -- again, in the last couple of paragraphs -- that this is a cyclical event evidenced in core samples.

The article is strewn with terms like, "unprecedented," "stunned," "surprising," "wondering," and that's just in the title and whatever they call that teaser sentence, just under the title. In the remainder of the article you'll read:

The ice sheet that blankets Greenland has melted at an unprecedented rate this summer, stunning NASA scientists and leaving many wondering what will happen next.
Perhaps if they went back in the ice core records to, say, 1889, they wouldn't be wondering.

"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?" Nghiem said in NASA's press release.
Not so extraordinary, in geological terms, when it happens just about every 150 years.

"It's dramatic. It's disturbing," University of Delaware professor Andreas Muenchow said. "It's one of the manifestations that Greenland is changing very fast."
As it does every 150 years, or so.

Shall we see if we can find a mainstream media story that doesn't sensationalize and misrepresent the story?

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:14 PM

:lol Obviously you're just smarter than those scientists, Jack. I mean, if only they had your logic.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:16 PM

Oh shit, I guess Yonivore knows more about the geology of ice sheets than the people that study them too. Thanks for correcting them, Yoni.

:lol Geosynchronous observing of Greenland.

jack sommerset

07-25-2012, 03:17 PM

:lol Obviously you're just smarter than those scientists, Jack. I mean, if only they had your logic.

Logic, maybe in this case. I'd say common sense though. God bless

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:18 PM

1. It DID surprise scientists.

That doesn't surprise me at all. They are so full of themselves, they think they know everything.

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:19 PM

How can it surprise scientist if it happens every 150 years. Didn't scientist determine the earth is over 4 billion years old. With that knowledge I would say its pretty common. God bless
Because the AGW scientists are taught dogma. Not science.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:24 PM

1. It DID surprise scientists.
The glaciologist, Laura Koenig said the melt was right on time. She wasn't surprised in the least.

2. It has been freakishly warm.
Perhaps it was freakishly warm in 1889 and this is just serving to prove the folly of the AGCC nonsense.

I don't think you guys understand that an event that occurs on average once every 150 years isn't exactly commonplace. Why is it noteworthy? Because whether or not it has occurred before, this is the exact type of event you would expect in a warming climate.
I understand it happens every 150 years and, as such, should have been of no surprise to anyone with any knowledge about climate, geology, or glaciers.

Its going to occur again in the near future, and again after that. This little thing called thermodynamics is going to make sure of that.
When that happens and breaks the 150-year cycle, you've got a story.

You guys are rich. Those scientists said all the right things. They didn't attribute the single event to AGW.
You're right, they let the masses draw that conclusion. Apparently, Laura Koenig, the glaciologist believe that's to what the scientists were attributing the phenomenon...or, the reporter mischaracterized her response (either way, it supports my belief the media is the guilty party here).

Lora Koenig, a glaciologist who analyzed July's satellite data, says it's not time to get up in arms about global warming … yet.

They maintained that it has occurred before. Yet, its not good enough. They're not trying to scare anyone. They've said that most of the melt on the actual top of the ice sheet likely simply refroze once temps dropped back down but you're all still foaming at the mouth because they pointed out its the first time we've observed this. The only records we have of an event like this are from ice cores and not direct observation. THAT is why it is noteworthy.
There's too much breathless amazement for this to be the simple explanation. I believe they wanted the media to draw an alarmist conclusion that -- without the sane counter information of Laura Koenig -- would have hit the presses without that piece of wisdom.

DarrinS

07-25-2012, 03:26 PM

Oh shit, I guess Yonivore knows more about the geology of ice sheets than the people that study them too. Thanks for correcting them, Yoni.

:lol Geosynchronous observing of Greenland.

I think his point was that satellites haven't been around very long.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:26 PM

Because the AGW scientists are taught dogma. Not science.
That's a good point.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:28 PM

:lol Obviously you're just smarter than those scientists, Jack. I mean, if only they had your logic.
Really? That's your defense?

Hell, maybe we are smarter than those scientists. I certainly wouldn't be surprised by the occurrence of a cyclical phenomenon.

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:28 PM

You're right, they let the masses draw that conclusion. Apparently, Laura Koenig, the glaciologist believe that's to what the scientists were attributing the phenomenon...or, the reporter mischaracterized her response (either way, it supports my belief the media is the guilty party here).

There's too much breathless amazement for this to be the simple explanation. I believe they wanted the media to draw an alarmist conclusion that -- without the sane counter information of Laura Koenig -- would have hit the presses without that piece of wisdom.
Absolutely. Why else report it without a proper explanation. The AGW alarmist motion is still in place, and they just let it be carried along.

George Gervin's Afro

07-25-2012, 03:29 PM

How can it surprise scientist if it happens every 150 years. Didn't scientist determine the earth is over 4 billion years old. With that knowledge I would say its pretty common. God bless

lol cracker jack scientist..

jack must have slept at a holiday inn last night

George Gervin's Afro

07-25-2012, 03:30 PM

Because the AGW scientists are taught dogma. Not science.

what do you base this on? or is this one of those times that wc is taking the low road?

George Gervin's Afro

07-25-2012, 03:32 PM

The glaciologist, Laura Koenig said the melt was right on time. She wasn't surprised in the least.

Perhaps it was freakishly warm in 1889 and this is just serving to prove the folly of the AGCC nonsense.

I understand it happens every 150 years and, as such, should have been of no surprise to anyone with any knowledge about climate, geology, or glaciers.

When that happens and breaks the 150-year cycle, you've got a story.

You're right, they let the masses draw that conclusion. Apparently, Laura Koenig, the glaciologist believe that's to what the scientists were attributing the phenomenon...or, the reporter mischaracterized her response (either way, it supports my belief the media is the guilty party here).

There's too much breathless amazement for this to be the simple explanation. I believe they wanted the media to draw an alarmist conclusion that -- without the sane counter information of Laura Koenig -- would have hit the presses without that piece of wisdom.

yoni assigning motives to people he doesn't know...shocking!

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:32 PM

what do you base this on? or is this one of those times that wc is taking the low road?
I see you haven't been reading my past takes on how they are taught, and my usage of U of I (University of Indoctrination.)

jack sommerset

07-25-2012, 03:33 PM

lol cracker jack scientist..

How bout you answer that question, brother? I would be very curious on your thoughts. We already know your feeling on me. Don't be afraid. No one will think any less of you, that I promise. God bless

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:34 PM

what do you base this on? or is this one of those times that wc is taking the low road?
Being surprised by a cyclical event is one strike against them.

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:35 PM

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:35 PM

yoni assigning motives to people he doesn't know...shocking!
Why did the New York post drag global warming into the story?

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:36 PM

Being surprised by a cyclical event is one strike against them.
This isn't the first time. Just the first time I've see so much attention over it.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:36 PM

I think his point was that satellites haven't been around very long.

Yeah thats fine and all but it doesn't change that its still significant.

George Gervin's Afro

07-25-2012, 03:36 PM

I see you haven't been reading my past takes on how they are taught, and my usage of U of I (University of Indoctrination.)

specifically, what are you talking about? it's easy to make statement.. so fill us in.. I am assuming you have reviewed the majority of science departments lesson plans in world.. so educate me.

"Week 4"

Teach shit that is made up

"Week 5"

learn how to confuse the populace of the world and convince them of something the scientific community is making up..

lol

George Gervin's Afro

07-25-2012, 03:37 PM

Why did the New York post drag global warming into the story?

you tell us... you know what they are thinking..

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:37 PM

Really? That's your defense?

Hell, maybe we are smarter than those scientists. I certainly wouldn't be surprised by the occurrence of a cyclical phenomenon.

Thats because you don't understand the context under whch the phenomenon occur because you're not an expert in the field. You act like you understand ANYTHING of what you're talking about. 150 year cycle, 123 years since last event. Right on time. SMH

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:39 PM

Back to the subject of the thread, I'm about to kill the thread sizing in a few with some Landsat comparisons of my own.

George Gervin's Afro

07-25-2012, 03:40 PM

How bout you answer that question, brother? I would be very curious on your thoughts. We already know your feeling on me. Don't be afraid. No one will think any less of you, that I promise. God bless

the earth is warming..
does human activity make it worse?

some say there is evidence that it does..

some say humans do not affect warming in anyway...

some want to curb, what they believe, that is making the problem worse

others say there is a vast conspiracy to [insert blank]

The majority of the scientific community thinks we need to do something to stop it before it gets to late

others believe that there is nothing we can do for it so why bother..

now go back to playing stupid..

hot mess

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:41 PM

Huffington Post adds more nuance (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-nasa_n_1698129.html):

NASA's cryosphere program manager, Tom Wagner, credited the power of satellites for observing the melt and explained to The Huffington Post that, although this specific event may be part of a natural variation, "We have abundant evidence that Greenland is losing ice, probably because of global warming, and it's significantly contributing to sea level rise."

:lmao

Translation: "We know global warming is melting shit, just not this shit."

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:43 PM

Back to the subject of the thread, I'm about to kill the thread sizing in a few with some Landsat comparisons of my own.
That'll be a nice diversionary thread-killer.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:44 PM

Thats because you don't understand the context under whch the phenomenon occur because you're not an expert in the field. You act like you understand ANYTHING of what you're talking about. 150 year cycle, 123 years since last event. Right on time. SMH
150 years "on average" and glaciologist lady said "right on time." Perhaps she's familiar with the variances that comprise the 150 average and 123 years is within that range.

vy65

07-25-2012, 03:48 PM

Huffington Post adds more nuance (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-nasa_n_1698129.html):

:lmao

Translation: "We know global warming is melting shit, just not this shit."

How could you possibly think this is helpful for your argument? Aren't you one of the ones that think global warming isn't happening?

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:49 PM

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa136/Msalgado80/Landsat/70SAAustin.jpg

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa136/Msalgado80/Landsat/70SA.jpg

This is San Antonio and Austin from 2 different Landsat images from the 70s. One was taken in 73, the other in 79 so you can see the boundary between them if you look closely. The older images don't have all the bands and resolution found on the newer ones, but this will definitely still give you a good idea where the city boundaries where. If you look closely, you can make out certain roads and highways in SA.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 03:49 PM

the earth is warming..
Right now -- or, possibly not, depending on how big of a time sequence you examine to get your trend of warming or cooling.

does human activity make it worse?

some say there is evidence that it does..

some say humans do not affect warming in anyway...
And some say there's no conclusive evidence humans affect global climate.

some want to curb, what they believe, that is making the problem worse

others say there is a vast conspiracy to [insert blank]
Yet, other say, the prescription is worse than the disease. In order to reach the GHG output AGCC proponents say will reverse the warming -- just a little bit -- we'd have to revert to energy consumption levels not seen in about a century, right?

The majority of the scientific community thinks we need to do something to stop it before it gets to late

others believe that there is nothing we can do for it so why bother..
While others believe our time and money would be better spent discovering way to adapt to the climate we're given.

now go back to playing stupid..

hot mess
Go back to oversimplifying the debate.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:50 PM

The image quality kinda sucks. I'll see if I can upload them to a better site. I'm gonna finish on the newest images in a sec.

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:51 PM

I wonder how the gravity changes from planetary alignments. Tidal forces do change play a role in geothermal activity, and Greenland used to be green.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 03:56 PM

I wonder how the gravity changes from planetary alignments. Tidal forces do change play a role in geothermal activity, and Greenland used to be green.

:lol Jesus fucking christ.

Wild Cobra

07-25-2012, 03:58 PM

:lol Jesus fucking christ.
See now, I know this may not be the cause. But for you to flat out laugh at the idea shows you are not scientific material.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:11 PM

How could you possibly think this is helpful for your argument? Aren't you one of the ones that think global warming isn't happening?
Actually, in the next sentence he refers to anthropogenic global warming being responsible for the sea level rise lapping at Greenland but, that was the paragraph I wanted to reference.

I think the globe gets warmer and cooler.

I think, relative to how far back in the climate record you go, we can be said to be warming or cooling, right now.

I think the planet has been warming and cooling for a long time.

I believe the planet has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is right now or than it is likely to be in the foreseeable future.

I believe there is no conclusive evidence mankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

I believe adapting to global climate change is much easier than changing the climate...particularly when the vast majority of emissions AGCC proponents claim are causing the change come from a country that isn't much interested in the circus.

That's what I believe.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:12 PM

The image quality kinda sucks. I'll see if I can upload them to a better site. I'm gonna finish on the newest images in a sec.
How exciting.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 04:13 PM

:lol facts aren't important to yonivore

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 04:13 PM

How exciting.

No one told you to come into a landsat thread if you didn't want to see landsat images.

TeyshaBlue

07-25-2012, 04:17 PM

I wonder how the gravity changes from planetary alignments. Tidal forces do change play a role in geothermal activity, and Greenland used to be green.

smh

vy65

07-25-2012, 04:26 PM

Actually, in the next sentence he refers to anthropogenic global warming being responsible for the sea level rise lapping at Greenland but, that was the paragraph I wanted to reference.

I think the globe gets warmer and cooler.

I think, relative to how far back in the climate record you go, we can be said to be warming or cooling, right now.

I think the planet has been warming and cooling for a long time.

I believe the planet has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is right now or than it is likely to be in the foreseeable future.

I believe there is no conclusive evidence mankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.

I believe adapting to global climate change is much easier than changing the climate...particularly when the vast majority of emissions AGCC proponents claim are causing the change come from a country that isn't much interested in the circus.

That's what I believe.

Do you know what anthropogenic means?

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:37 PM

:lol facts aren't important to yonivore
Does the planet get both warmer and cooler over time? By day? By month? By season? By year? By decade? By Century? By Millennia? By etc...?

If you were to graph a trend of our temperature, would it not trend warmer or cooler, depending on how far back in the temperature record you traveled to set the point from where you establish the trend?

Hasn't the planet been both warming and cooling for just about as long as it's been in existence? How many ice ages have there been? Warming periods between them?

Has the planet been much warmer and much cooler than it is right now and than it is predicted to be in the next 100 years?

As for conclusive evidence of anthropogenic causes of climate change, I rely on scientists that have stated there is none and that there is none because all the evidence advanced by the AGCC crowd is based on a model-based theory that is fundamentally flawed -- and will remain flawed and inadequate -- because it is incapable of modeling all the possible permutations of all the possible variables that occur to affect climate globally.

Finally, we've adapted before, to global climate change. We've never -- to my knowledge -- changed the global climate, especially intentionally and in a way we designed.

What's not factual?

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:39 PM

Do you know what anthropogenic means?
In this context it's been used to describe man-caused climate change. Why?

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 04:40 PM

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa136/Msalgado80/Landsat/2000SA.jpg
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa136/Msalgado80/Landsat/2000SAAus.jpg

There are about 10 years old, but the growth on them is still huge. SA has almost doubled with impervious land cover compared to the 70s. The Northside and West side are filled in. I gotta see if I can find some newer images but that will have to wait for another day.

jack sommerset

07-25-2012, 04:41 PM

the earth is warming..
does human activity make it worse?

some say there is evidence that it does..

some say humans do not affect warming in anyway...

some want to curb, what they believe, that is making the problem worse

others say there is a vast conspiracy to [insert blank]

The majority of the scientific community thinks we need to do something to stop it before it gets to late

others believe that there is nothing we can do for it so why bother..

now go back to playing stupid..

hot mess

Brother, you didn't answer the question. This is a rant followed up by more name calling. God bless

scott

07-25-2012, 04:42 PM

I wonder how the gravity changes from planetary alignments. Tidal forces do change play a role in geothermal activity, and Greenland used to be green.

Man, if only science had a way of determining this. Like a formula or something.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:42 PM

No one told you to come into a landsat thread if you didn't want to see landsat images.
I don't believe InRareForm identified it as a "landsat thread." I saw it as a thread that happened to use satellite imagery to show how much the planet has changed in 40 years.

Besides, it morphed into a climate change thread.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 04:43 PM

What's not factual?

As for conclusive evidence of anthropogenic causes of climate change, I rely on scientists that have stated there is none and that there is none because all the evidence advanced by the AGCC crowd is based on a model-based theory that is fundamentally flawed -- and will remain flawed and inadequate -- because it is incapable of modeling all the possible permutations of all the possible variables that occur to affect climate globally.

Finally, we've adapted before, to global climate change. We've never -- to my knowledge -- changed the global climate, especially intentionally and in a way we designed.

I can't say the rest isn't factual since most of it is made up of rhetorical questions but I can say the logic is beyond stupid.

Hey, people have died before ergo OJ did not kill Nicole.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 04:44 PM

I don't believe InRareForm identified it as a "landsat thread." I saw it as a thread that happened to use satellite imagery to show how much the planet has changed in 40 years.

Besides, it morphed into a climate change thread.

Oh you mean the OP was all about Landsat imagery? Sounds like a landsat thread to me. Of course it got derailed because you're an idiot but thats nothing new.

MannyIsGod

07-25-2012, 04:47 PM

How would one go about trying to see if CO2 and temperature increase are related (aside from silly radiative physics) since the planet has warmed or cooled before? Oh I don't know, see what the temperature has done since humans started emitting CO2 into the atmosphere? What about other factors (WC astrology not withstanding)? Oh I don't know, study them and measure them as well and use - GASP - math to quantify the warming?

Nah, the planet has been cold and warm ergo it can't be CO2.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:49 PM

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:52 PM

Oh you mean the OP was all about Landsat imagery? Sounds like a landsat thread to me. Of course it got derailed because you're an idiot but thats nothing new.
The opening post contained a link and was titled, "What 40 years has done to change Earth."

Doesn't seem like a landsat thread to me. Seems to me it was about how the Earth has changed in 40 years.

I wasn't the one that changed it to a climate thread, either.

Yonivore

07-25-2012, 04:54 PM

Great link. I love me some remote sensing.
You seemed to believe it was originally about remote sensing.

SnakeBoy

07-25-2012, 05:40 PM

Don't we have more forested area than 200 years ago because we put out natural fires?

I've never heard that fire suppression has led to more forest in the USA. I've only read the opposite, that fire suppresion has hurt our forests. That's why we are doing alot of precribed burns and forest thinnig now. Natural fires are essential to healthy forests because they clear out underbrush allowing new trees to grow as well as reducing the likelihood of the massive fires that we see every summer. Some trees, like the giant sequoia, will not germinate unless there is a fire.

Evil dubya passed the Healthy Forest Initiative which had the goal of undoing the negative effects of our fire suppression policy and increasing our forests. Environmentally friendly Obama has furthered the effort by doing...well nothing.

DarrinS

07-25-2012, 06:13 PM

Screw the Earth. What's sad is what 40 years has done to me.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 05:59 AM

Man, if only science had a way of determining this. Like a formula or something.

The forces themselves can be determined, but the full effect of end result isn't well understood. Geothermal heat comes from these tidal forces and the moon has the greatest effect. It still doesn't mean the more subtle changes of other planetary alignments doesn't have effect. At times, the forces will add together, and other times some will weaken others. The net result becomes complex, and ever changing.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 08:33 AM

:lmao

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 08:50 AM

F= (m1m2 / R^2) G

(this is over the whole earth)

Mass is obviously more important than distance as the distance gets squared so we'll use the example of Jupiter outside of the sun it has the highest mass.

Gravitational Constant = 6.674 * 10^-11
Mass Jupiter = 1.9 * 10 ^27 (rounded up)
Mass of Earth = 5.97 * 10^24

Shortest distance between the two 628,743,036 km

Now, anyone who's not fucking moron can see that when you square that distance, you're going to get a huge number which means your answer is going to be etremely small. Furthermore, the value of G itself is very small which is further going to reduce the force. The amount of energy in the atmosphere from the Sun is so much more than the force applied by other planets (and they will all be much smaller than Jupiter since they all have much smaller masses) that anyone with any type of science background would understand how stupid the shit WC is saying is.

Of course, the common sense approach to this is that you have never felt the affect of Jupiter on you, but walk outside on a Sunny winter day and tell me if you can't feel the effect of sunlight on your skin.
Tell us again how you understand, WC?

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 09:03 AM

The opening post contained a link and was titled, "What 40 years has done to change Earth."

Doesn't seem like a landsat thread to me. Seems to me it was about how the Earth has changed in 40 years.

I wasn't the one that changed it to a climate thread, either.

Ergo, it doesn't have to be CO2 and it certainly doesn't have to be CO2 emitted by man.

That's what you can't prove but, only theorize.

Of course you can prove it. Its not magic. You simply do an accounting of the incoming and outgoing radiation based on radiative physics and observations.

If its not CO2, then something else has to be heating up the earth. We know its not the Sun. The oceans are warming themselves, so basic thermodynamics rules them out. So where is the heat coming from? We now the properties of CO2 that cause it to become a greenhouse gas, CO2 has been rising since the industrial revolution, and we have direct observations of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing the amount of downward infrared and reducing the amount of outgoing radiation.

Scientists didn't pull this shit out of a hat.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 09:04 AM

The opening post contained a link and was titled, "What 40 years has done to change Earth."

Doesn't seem like a landsat thread to me. Seems to me it was about how the Earth has changed in 40 years.

I wasn't the one that changed it to a climate thread, either.

You seemed to believe it was originally about remote sensing.

LANDSAT imagery is remote sensing, moron.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 12:31 PM

So Manny...

Are you a denier of geothermal energy?

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 12:34 PM

So Manny...

Are you a denier of geothermal energy?

Geothermal energy has nothing to do with the gravity of other planets. Maybe the energy from the crystal that Miss Cleo sold you.

johnsmith

07-26-2012, 12:38 PM

Maybe the energy from the crystal that Miss Cleo sold you.

:lol

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 12:39 PM

Geothermal energy has nothing to do with the gravity of other planets. Maybe the energy from the crystal that Miss Cleo sold you.
Look...

I never said that they would. They do play a minor role. I know the numbers are small, but sometimes, it just takes that straw that break the camels back for a change.

Since you wish to completely laugh at the notion, maybe you know the cause of the cycle. If you don't, you're pretty damn stupid to dismiss an idea, even though it's improbable.

Put up or shut up.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 12:41 PM

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 12:42 PM

Gonna be a bad fucking day on Greenland, man. Mars is retrograding and I just met a Taurus.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 12:44 PM

So you have no proper answer, like always.

So be it.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 12:50 PM

:lol

No, I don't have a proper answer for you thinking that the planetary alignments are going to melt the surface of the Greenland ice sheet. Can you tell me my horoscope though?

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 12:56 PM

:lol

No, I don't have a proper answer for you thinking that the planetary alignments are going to melt the surface of the Greenland ice sheet. Can you tell me my horoscope though?
Of course not. Since you are just going to be a clown, and not serious, I see no reason to continue. You are a denier of proper science, and it appears you deny that tidal forces play a role in geothermal energy.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 01:17 PM

:lmao

I'll let one of the geophysicists that roams the board chime in on this.

clambake

07-26-2012, 01:25 PM

i hear ya, man. the moon turns up in the weirdest places!

clambake

07-26-2012, 01:26 PM

sometimes, i'll look up and there's only half of it!

what happened to the rest?

TeyshaBlue

07-26-2012, 01:27 PM

Of course not. Since you are just going to be a clown, and not serious, I see no reason to continue. You are a denier of proper science, and it appears you deny that tidal forces play a role in geothermal energy.

It appears that you cannot support the asinine position that planetary alignment (lol fucking lol) plays any role in geothermal energy.

TeyshaBlue

07-26-2012, 01:28 PM

sometimes, i'll look up and there's only half of it!

what happened to the rest?

fucking magnets! How do they work?!!!1111:lol

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 01:28 PM

LANDSAT imagery is remote sensing, moron.
You're right, I had no idea Landsat used remote sensing, exclusively, for it's imaging. If that makes me a moron, so be it.

That still doesn't make the story any less about how much the earth has changed in 40 years. Nor does it make the story about remote sensing -- which isn't exclusive to Landsat or even imaging.

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 01:30 PM

There is no "cycle". Melting of the glaciers happens on AVERAGE every 150 years but its not a cycle. It happens because the temperatures rise and then drop again.

The planets gravity plays no role on the climate of Greenland. A butterfly farting would play a bigger role.
Something occurring, on average, every 150 years could be described as cyclical.

You're just being argumentative now.

clambake

07-26-2012, 01:33 PM

i heard of this guy that uses a stick of butter for a thermostat!

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 01:35 PM

:lmao

I'll let one of the geophysicists that roams the board chime in on this.
I agree.

I will ask you this again however. Do you disagree that tidal forces have an effect on geothermal energy?

Please don't tell me you think the moon only effects the ocean level.

Oh...

Do you know what the barycenter is without looking it up?

With an approximate 39 year cycle for it's position around the sun, how do other planets slightly change it's position to amplify the 39, 78, 117, 156..... year, etc positions?

If you don't know, you should STFU.

Do you know where the barycenter of the earth is?

If you don't know, you should STFU.

clambake

07-26-2012, 01:37 PM

barycenter? you talkin about that dc mayor?

clambake

07-26-2012, 01:43 PM

when the moon is in the 7th house, and jupiter aligns with mars.....

work that shit out, bitch!

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 01:50 PM

Wow...

Two consecutive posting from a Peanut gallery member.

Gotta admit, I like you Age of Aquarius one.

Tell me on mighty one. Are we in the age of Aquarius, or the age of Pisces?

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 01:52 PM

N9oq_IskRIg

clambake

07-26-2012, 01:54 PM

Wow...

Two consecutive posting from a Peanut gallery member.

Gotta admit, I like you Age of Aquarius one.

Tell me on mighty one. Are we in the age of Aquarius, or the age of Pisces?

you got me worried. we gotta blow up these planets. they're deliberately trying to kill us!

look, you know where all the nukes are........i'll work out the trajectory!

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 01:54 PM

It appears that you cannot support the asinine position that planetary alignment (lol fucking lol) plays any role in geothermal energy.
I'm not supporting it.

Read my remarks carefully. I offered it as an unlikely possibility.

I am not a "denier" in that I am not denying anything. Manny is acting as if there is no possible correlation. I'm pointing out that he is the denier.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 01:56 PM

Something occurring, on average, every 150 years could be described as cyclical.

You're just being argumentative now.

If I pick a card at random from a deck of 52 cards I'll get an ace on average 1 out of every 13 times. That does not mean there is a cycle. A cycle is something that occurs through a mechanism over and over again on a repeated time frame. IE, the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet during the glacial interglacial periods is a cycle. The occurrence of period of melt absent of any large cyclical mechanism is NOT a cycle.

Its not about being argumentative its about the ignorance you display when discussing these systems and how you somehow expect to use your poor logic to disprove arguments you do not understand.

Drachen

07-26-2012, 01:59 PM

sometimes, i'll look up and there's only half of it!

what happened to the rest?

A full account is detailed Here (http://www.theonion.com/video/kim-jong-il-announces-plan-to-bring-moon-to-north,14305/)

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 01:59 PM

I'm not supporting it.

Read my remarks carefully. I offered it as an unlikely possibility.

I am not a "denier" in that I am not denying anything. Manny is acting as if there is no possible correlation. I'm pointing out that he is the denier.

I shut it down as a complete impossibility. I gave you the equation and figures. Thinking that somehow the force that Jupiter exerts is meaningful is so god damn stupid.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:00 PM

If I pick a card at random from a deck of 52 cards I'll get an ace on average 1 out of every 13 times. That does not mean there is a cycle. A cycle is something that occurs through a mechanism over and over again on a repeated time frame. IE, the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet during the glacial interglacial periods is a cycle. The occurrence of period of melt absent of any large cyclical mechanism is NOT a cycle.

Its not about being argumentative its about the ignorance you display when discussing these systems and how you somehow expect to use your poor logic to disprove arguments you do not understand.
LOL...

Relegated down to a definition of cycle. Is that the best you have?

It does not change the fact that these instances occur of a semi-regular basis. Unless you have a good theory for it, I suggest you stop denying hypotheses, no matter how implausible they are. Arbitrarily eliminate possibilities in science like a statistician does with statistical outliers, and you are no longer a scientist.

TeyshaBlue

07-26-2012, 02:01 PM

I'm not supporting it.

Read my remarks carefully. I offered it as an unlikely possibility.

I am not a "denier" in that I am not denying anything. Manny is acting as if there is no possible correlation. I'm pointing out that he is the denier.

A living, breathing, Elvis Presley could likely cause some kind of effect as well. I'm not stupid enough to posit it tho.

and lol fucking lol at possible correlation from an unlikely possiblitly. smdh.:rolleyes

and I read your fucking remarks carefully. PEBKC Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:01 PM

I shut it down as a complete impossibility. I gave you the equation and figures. Thinking that somehow the force that Jupiter exerts is meaningful is so god damn stupid.
My God.

You really are a dolt.

clambake

07-26-2012, 02:04 PM

A full account is detailed Here (http://www.theonion.com/video/kim-jong-il-announces-plan-to-bring-moon-to-north,14305/)

:lol

Drachen

07-26-2012, 02:06 PM

:lol

What are you laughing at?

I'm not supporting it.

Read my remarks carefully. I offered it as an unlikely possibility.

I am not a "denier" in that I am not denying anything. Clambake is acting as if there is no possible correlation. I'm pointing out that he is the denier

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:06 PM

LOL...

Relegated down to a definition of cycle. Is that the best you have?

It does not change the fact that these instances occur of a semi-regular basis. Unless you have a good theory for it, I suggest you stop denying hypotheses, no matter how implausible they are. Arbitrarily eliminate possibilities in science like a statistician does with statistical outliers, and you are no longer a scientist.

:lmao

Ice occasionally melts on Greenland because it occasionally gets warmer there.

Holy shit that a ground breaking theory I just came up with!

clambake

07-26-2012, 02:06 PM

What are you laughing at?

I'm not supporting it.

Read my remarks carefully. I offered it as an unlikely possibility.

I am not a "denier" in that I am not denying anything. Clambake is acting as if there is no possible correlation. I'm pointing out that he is the denier

:lmao :lmao :lmao

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:07 PM

My God.

You really are a dolt.

I'll have to consult my astrologer on the best course of action to take now that you've called me an idiot. I'll get back to you once I've been guided by the stars.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:07 PM

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:07 PM

A living, breathing, Elvis Presley could likely cause some kind of effect as well. I'm not stupid enough to posit it tho.

and lol fucking lol at possible correlation from an unlikely possiblitly. smdh.:rolleyes

and I read your fucking remarks carefully. PEBKC Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair.

:lol Awesome!

clambake

07-26-2012, 02:08 PM

i think its possible that these changes are the result of detroit not making cars with fins anymore.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:10 PM

I shut it down as a complete impossibility.
Theme song anyone....

Wierd Science....

Impossible... Really now? You call that science?

What a fucking joke.

I agree it is improbable that the other planets gravity do this. Still, the whole of the solar system does cause barycenter variations at a cycle time of about 39 years. The magnitude of these changes are not constant, because there is no synchronous locking between the planets. Therefore, such forces are weaker curing some cycles and stronger during others.

Same with the earths barycenter. It may only take subtle differences to reach a "tipping point."

Now unless you deniers can show proof of a reason to deny this possibility, then what you say is completely laughable.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:10 PM

Its a complete impossibility. I gave you proof when I told you the forces involved.

TeyshaBlue

07-26-2012, 02:11 PM

A full account is detailed Here (http://www.theonion.com/video/kim-jong-il-announces-plan-to-bring-moon-to-north,14305/)

*wipes Dr. Pepper off of monitor*

Thanks, fuckstick.:ihit

:p:

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:11 PM

I'll have to consult my astrologer on the best course of action to take now that you've called me an idiot. I'll get back to you once I've been guided by the stars.
I would normally ask if you meant to use blue, but in this case, I believe you.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:12 PM

i think its possible that these changes are the result of detroit not making cars with fins anymore.
Rather than the butterfly effect?

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:13 PM

Other complete impossibilities:

WC ever being considered smart
WC ever being correct on a science issue
WC ever not taking an opportunity to make himself look dumber

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:15 PM

Other complete impossibilities:

WC ever being considered smart
WC ever being correct on a science issue
WC ever not taking an opportunity to make himself look dumber
You still haven't answered my question.

Do tidal forces have an effect of geothermal heat, or not?

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 02:15 PM

If I pick a card at random from a deck of 52 cards I'll get an ace on average 1 out of every 13 times. That does not mean there is a cycle. A cycle is something that occurs through a mechanism over and over again on a repeated time frame. IE, the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet during the glacial interglacial periods is a cycle. The occurrence of period of melt absent of any large cyclical mechanism is NOT a cycle.

Its not about being argumentative its about the ignorance you display when discussing these systems and how you somehow expect to use your poor logic to disprove arguments you do not understand.
The tendency to personalize the invective in here is why there are few of us left and this has become a vat of trolls and polarized individuals who can never seem to agree on anything.

Is this what you would say to the glaciologist, quoted in the article, who said this event happens approximately every 150 years and that it's right on time? I think she's describing a cycle -- or, at the very least, something cyclical.

Look, I wasn't making the claim, I was relying on the same article posted earlier in the thread which quoted an EXPERT in glaciers as saying this was a cyclical event.

I'm not bothered by your name-calling; it just doesn't lend much authority to your statements or your claims of superior knowledge.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:16 PM

The tendency to personalize the invective in here is why there are few of us left and this has become a vat of trolls and polarized individuals who can never seem to agree on anything.

Is this what you would say to the glaciologist, quoted in the article, who said this event happens approximately every 150 years and that it's right on time? I think she's describing a cycle -- or, at the very least, something cyclical.

Look, I wasn't making the claim, I was relying on the same article posted earlier in the thread which quoted an EXPERT in glaciers as saying this was a cyclical event.

I'm not bothered by your name-calling; it just doesn't lend much authority to your statements or your claims of superior knowledge.
Ditto.

Too many people are more happy to make fun of others instead of an honest debate.

I wonder how pathetic their lives must be to have to feel better by making others look bad...

clambake

07-26-2012, 02:17 PM

Ditto.

Too many people are more happy to make fun of others instead of an honest debate.

I wonder how pathetic their lives must be to have to feel better by making others look bad...

its not "others" that are making you look bad.

vy65

07-26-2012, 02:19 PM

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 02:19 PM

Ditto.

Too many people are more happy to make fun of others instead of an honest debate.

I wonder how pathetic their lives must be to have to feel better by making others look bad...
Seriously, shut the fuck up; you can't judge their lives any more or less pathetic by witnessing their participation in an internet forum in which you and I are also participants? We've all done it.

You just did it by calling them pathetic.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:20 PM

its not "others" that are making you look bad.
I don't look bad. People who think I do should really start thinking outside the box they live in. It's in their mind. Not reality.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:24 PM

Yonivore you've said its impossible to convince you of anything on the subject, so what makes you think I have any authority on the subject with you at all? You don't listen to anything regardless of how many times you're proven wrong.

Furthermore, the declaration of ignorance wasn't even meant as an insult. Its the flat out truth. You've demonstrated little to no understanding of the science behind these discussions. You have little to no understanding on the subject and yet you walk into every discussion acting very sure in your positions that are contrary to most atmospheric scientists around. You use their words completely out of context in order to make arguments they would never put forth.

As an example, the excellent blog you put forth run by the Texas State Climatologist. You recommended his post because you thought it would support your arguments. However, you failed to look over the rest of his posts and see that he regularly goes after people who try and say AGW is not (edit - left out quite the important word here) real. You're doing it now with the glacialogist.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Those are her words. Where is the word cycle?

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:26 PM

It's not that tidal forces have any geothermal effect ... it's the idea that jupiter's alignment affects the earth's tidal forces that makes us think your daddy fucked retard into your skull at an early age.
Then maybe you should look at how strong the total planetary effects are on the solar system's barycenter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Solar_system_barycenter.svg/500px-Solar_system_barycenter.svg.png

Do you really think that will have no effect on the earth?

vy65

07-26-2012, 02:27 PM

Yes, I think that Jupiter's gravitational pull does not cause global warming.

Do you have a chart proving it does?

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:27 PM

Seriously, shut the fuck up; you can't judge their lives any more or less pathetic by witnessing their participation in an internet forum in which you and I are also participants? We've all done it.

You just did it by calling them pathetic.
LOL...

Yes, I do retaliate in kind.

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:28 PM

Yes, I think that Jupiter's gravitational pull does not cause global warming.

Do you have a chart proving it does?
There is you problem.

You are assuming something I don't believe.

I never said or implied such a thing.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:29 PM

If you want me to not insult you, Yonivore, then I can try to do that. Thats a fair request. However, when I say you're ignorant on the subject thats not meant as an insult and if you take it as such I can't help that.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:29 PM

I never said or implied such a thing.

:lol

vy65

07-26-2012, 02:29 PM

No I'm assuming something proven by math/physics. You know what those are right?

TeyshaBlue

07-26-2012, 02:30 PM

Ditto.

Too many people are more happy to make fun of others instead of an honest debate.

I wonder how pathetic their lives must be to have to feel better by making others look bad...

:facepalm

TeyshaBlue

07-26-2012, 02:31 PM

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:32 PM

Then maybe you should look at how strong the total planetary effects are on the solar system's barycenter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Solar_system_barycenter.svg/500px-Solar_system_barycenter.svg.png

Do you really think that will have no effect on the earth?

It has an affect on the earth. They orbit around a shared point. THAT is the effect.

Shocking the sun doesn't explode when the planets line up just right, huh?

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 02:32 PM

Yonivore you've said its impossible to convince you of anything on the subject, so what makes you think I have any authority on the subject with you at all? You don't listen to anything regardless of how many times you're proven wrong.
Sure I listen and you've not proven me wrong on anything. I just happen to believe there are experts that don't share your belief in anthropogenic global climate change and that have persuaded me their position are both reasonable and plausible.

I continue to rely on those experts who, by the way, disagree with you.

Furthermore, the declaration of ignorance wasn't even meant as an insult. Its the flat out truth. You've demonstrated little to no understanding of the science behind these discussions. You have little to no understanding on the subject and yet you walk into every discussion acting very sure in your positions that are contrary to most atmospheric scientists around. You use their words completely out of context in order to make arguments they would never put forth.
Not that it makes a difference, but being called a moron and being called ignorant are entirely different.

As an example, the excellent blog you put forth run by the Texas State Climatologist. You recommended his post because you thought it would support your arguments. However, you failed to look over the rest of his posts and see that he regularly goes after people who try and say AGW is real. You're doing it now with the glacialogist.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
Those are her words. Where is the word cycle?
Right there in the second underlined and bolded part of her quote. Ms. Koenig's declaration of the event being "right on time" suggest a cycle that can be predicted to recur on a cyclical time-frame. I'd bet, if you asked her, she would say, This will occur again in about 150 years.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:33 PM

The requests to avoid insults are fair. I'll try my best.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:34 PM

I'll still calling WC a dumbshit though. :lmao

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:34 PM

Yes, I resort to name calling as well. However, when is the last time it wasn't me responding in kind? It is a weakness of mine, that I have a hard time to just let bullies rule.

TeyshaBlue

07-26-2012, 02:34 PM

I'll still calling WC a dumbshit though. :lmao

fucking monkey-faced bully!

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:35 PM

I'll still calling WC a dumbshit though. :lmao
But sometimes I'm a smartass...

Probably more often than you realize!

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 02:40 PM

It has an affect on the earth. They orbit around a shared point. THAT is the effect.

I was pointing out that the larger planets do have an effect. As far as they are form the sun, they change gravitational center, in and out of the sun.

Now the Earth-Moon relationship is always inside the earth, but the other planets will alter its effect somewhat as well.

Shocking the sun doesn't explode when the planets line up just right, huh?

If you say so. I never gave it such a thought.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:42 PM

Someone did actually talk to her

2:10 p.m. | Updated | Lora Koenig of NASA just sent this note providing the reference underlying her comment about past summer melting episodes at the summit (the spot on the giant ice sheet least vulnerable to melting):

The study I am citing is Alley and Anandakrishnan, 1995, “Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: implications for Holocene summer temperatures in central Greenland” published in the Annals of Glaciology for establishing the long-term frequency of melt events at Summit , Greenland. And Clausen et al., 1988 Glaciological Investigations in the Crete area, Central Greenland: A search for a new deep-drilling site also published in Annals of Glaciology for an early reference to the 1889 melt event though as mentioned in the press release Kaitlin Keegan and her advisor Mary Albert at Dartmouth University have more recent research on this event and please contact them for additional specific information.

My comment shows that melt events have occurred at Summit in the past and I have quoted the longest-term average frequency of ~150 years (exactly 153 from the paper) over the past 10,000. Since this is an ice core record that frequency is for the location of Summit only. The frequency ranges from ~80 to 250 years over different sections of the GISP2 ice core, please see the paper for specifics.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unprecedented-greenland-surface-melt-every-150-years/

If the events frequency of occurrence are larger than the 150 its going to be hard to make a point thats a 150 year cycle.

The best way I can put it to you is to say that San Antonio receives measureable snowfall once ever ~5 years (this is from memory - it may be different). The frequency of a measurable snowfall in San Antonio would then be 5 years. However, there is no cycle that leads to San Antonio snowfall. The weather conditions that allow this to happen simply occur every so often.

Its the same with Greenland. Every so often, melt happens. So when this melt event happened, they were very quick to point out that we have records that show it has occurred in the past and that this event was not (ALONE - I'd argue that when considered with other factors of what is happening near that NP the case is much stronger. Kind of how you can't convict someone of murder based on the fact that they have a gun but if you all of a sudden find a bullet that was fired from that gun lodged in a skull you have a better case and its simply one piece of evidence.) indicative of AGW. However, the melt is a rare event. If it occurs again in the coming years, then it becomes a lot clearer that it is not simply natural variability.

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 02:51 PM

Someone did actually talk to her

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unprecedented-greenland-surface-melt-every-150-years/

If the events frequency of occurrence are larger than the 150 its going to be hard to make a point thats a 150 year cycle.

The best way I can put it to you is to say that San Antonio receives measureable snowfall once ever ~5 years (this is from memory - it may be different). The frequency of a measurable snowfall in San Antonio would then be 5 years. However, there is no cycle that leads to San Antonio snowfall. The weather conditions that allow this to happen simply occur every so often.

Its the same with Greenland. Every so often, melt happens. So when this melt event happened, they were very quick to point out that we have records that show it has occurred in the past and that this event was not (ALONE - I'd argue that when considered with other factors of what is happening near that NP the case is much stronger. Kind of how you can't convict someone of murder based on the fact that they have a gun but if you all of a sudden find a bullet that was fired from that gun lodged in a skull you have a better case and its simply one piece of evidence.) indicative of AGW. However, the melt is a rare event. If it occurs again in the coming years, then it becomes a lot clearer that it is not simply natural variability.
Which leads me back to the original argument, before we got side-tracked on the definition of cycle; the media is alarmist and misleading over NASA's report and have sensationalized an event, (with the intent of conflating it with AGCC), that may have absolutely nothing to do with AGCC.

That was my point.

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 02:52 PM

The requests to avoid insults are fair. I'll try my best.
For the record, I didn't ask to you avoid it. I merely pointed out the practice doesn't help you get a point across.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 02:53 PM

Which leads me back to the original argument, before we got side-tracked on the definition of cycle; the media is alarmist and misleading over NASA's report and have sensationalized an event, (with the intent of conflating it with AGCC), that may have absolutely nothing to do with AGCC.

That was my point.

Your initial point was that NASA was sensationalist when they were anything but. I couldn't care less about the media.

DarrinS

07-26-2012, 02:58 PM

Which leads me back to the original argument, before we got side-tracked on the definition of cycle; the media is alarmist and misleading over NASA's report and have sensationalized an event, (with the intent of conflating it with AGCC), that may have absolutely nothing to do with AGCC.

That was my point.

Wrong. What's important is the strict definition of "unprecedented" (in the satellite record, that is) and "cyclical". :lol

Wild Cobra

07-26-2012, 03:00 PM

Forget the blue Darrin?

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 03:08 PM

Wrong. What's important is the strict definition of "unprecedented" (in the satellite record, that is) and "cyclical". :lol

Apparently it mattered quite a bit since its what caused you both to get up in arms. NASA clearly stated that melt had occurred before but because they used that word in the headline of their press release you both got very upset.

So I find this post rather ironic.

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 03:17 PM

Your initial point was that NASA was sensationalist when they were anything but. I couldn't care less about the media.
I think the construct of the NASA paper was a bit misleading and sensational in that it didn't address that this event has occurred before -- many times -- on roughly the same time table -- for 10,000 years -- at the beginning of the article.

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 03:19 PM

Your initial point was that NASA was sensationalist when they were anything but. I couldn't care less about the media.
Being "stunned" and "wondering" is a bit out of character for scientific reporting of an event that could have certainly been predicted, based on a history running back 10,000 years.

That was my point.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 03:30 PM

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24jul_greenland/

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

Original press release from NASA does address that.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 03:34 PM

Being "stunned" and "wondering" is a bit out of character for scientific reporting of an event that could have certainly been predicted, based on a history running back 10,000 years.

That was my point.

The event couldn't be predicted. They're stunned because they've never seen this before and were not expecting it. You think that because it occurred before this is an unremarkable event which is not the case. Its very rare (once in 150 years on average is not common - events we freak out about on a regular basis are orders of magnitudes more common than this).

We also didn't know how quickly the melt would start and end. We can see that the ice has melt lines in the past through ice cores, but nothing more. They tell us nothing up the months/days prior to the melt events because the spatial resolution of an ice core is on the order of years. So I have no doubts that these scientists were very surprised when they viewed this event and watched in unfold for the first time.

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 03:47 PM

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24jul_greenland/

Original press release from NASA does address that.
I know you don't consume your climate news from the mainstream media but, the vast majority of us do.

And, I just refer you to the ThinkProgress.com article posted earlier in this thread which, by the way, claims to be reporting an ABC News report.

We can't all be climate geeks -- most of us don't want to be -- so, here's what I draw from my experience in this thread;

1) NASA reported an event in Greenland that occurs, on average, every 150 years. It was significant enough to report because it was the first time the event was recorded by satellite technology -- NOT because it had anything to do with anthropogenic global climate change.

2) The media turned full Chicken Little and conflated the report with some cataclysmic event that surprised scientists and portends some future horrors yet revealed.

ABC News On Stunning Greenland Ice Melt: ‘Scientists Say They’ve Never Seen Anything Like This Before’ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/580371/abc-news-on-stunning-greenland-ice-melt-scientists-say-theyve-never-seen-anything-like-this-before/)

But, I completely agree, the original NASA report isn't alarmist. But, again, people don't consume their climate news from NASA.com. Just saying.

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 03:48 PM

The event couldn't be predicted. They're stunned because they've never seen this before and were not expecting it. You think that because it occurred before this is an unremarkable event which is not the case. Its very rare (once in 150 years on average is not common - events we freak out about on a regular basis are orders of magnitudes more common than this).

We also didn't know how quickly the melt would start and end. We can see that the ice has melt lines in the past through ice cores, but nothing more. They tell us nothing up the months/days prior to the melt events because the spatial resolution of an ice core is on the order of years. So I have no doubts that these scientists were very surprised when they viewed this event and watched in unfold for the first time.
Fair enough. My gripe is principally with how such news gets filtered to the masses.

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 03:57 PM

Well with that I don't have an issue with your gripe. I bitched about the Rolling Stone climate article posted here last week. The Media is sensationalist with pretty much every subject available.

xrayzebra

07-26-2012, 09:45 PM

Just a little fuel for the fire....ice....whatever.

Bad news, global warming enthusiasts. The world was actually warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now. In fact, the world has been on a cooling trend for the past 2,000 years, according to new research.

The study says that tree-rings hold the secret to understanding the history of climate change, and that the rings of fossilized trees show that the earth actually used to be much warmer than it is today, and has even been slowly cooling down. “Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun,” notes the Daily Mail.

http://www.inquisitr.com/274215/bad-news-global-warming-some-scientists-say-earth-has-actually-been-cooling-off-for-2000-years-now-study/

Or if you prefer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html

MannyIsGod

07-26-2012, 11:44 PM

This shit again?

Yonivore

07-26-2012, 11:46 PM

This shit again?
I blame the media.

Wild Cobra

07-27-2012, 02:32 AM

This shit again?
Yes.

People like you need to be reminded of such facts.

xrayzebra

07-27-2012, 08:51 AM

This shit again?
'
Manny I cant help it if most what you post is shit. Keep trying one of
these days you may get the hang of it.

:lol

mouse

07-27-2012, 09:14 AM

The man in the photo below had many believing he was acually a captain of a ship. I knew better even at a young age. Can you spot Chris Duel?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Chris-on-Gus.jpg

mouse

07-27-2012, 09:15 AM

1000s of years............can you really imagine millions years?

well"Science" wants you to imagine "billions" of years.

how much can you lower the ignorant bar?

MannyIsGod

07-27-2012, 06:02 PM

So the paper's conclusions are sound then, WC? Since you call them facts?

Wild Cobra

07-27-2012, 06:14 PM

So the paper's conclusions are sound then, WC? Since you call them facts?
I didn't read the paper. I will assume for the time being that it is sound. I simply love the fact that there is a scientifically acknowledged periodic effect you cannot dismiss.

What if...

Now I say what if...

What if all most of the warming we see is due to the same natural forcing that is causing this melting?

What if you and your fellow Climatologist believing we are the cause of all this are wrong?

MannyIsGod

07-27-2012, 08:21 PM

MannyIsGod

07-27-2012, 08:36 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-ward/the-worlds-most-visited-n_b_1667338.html

Actual quotes form one of the study's authors.

Wild Cobra

07-27-2012, 10:14 PM

:lmao

THAT paper says that anthropogenic warming is a much stronger forcing than any of the natural forcings.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

What if you weren't so god dam stupid? THAT is the only what if I care about now. What if you read something before opening you trap? So good.
Sorry, you are the stupid one here. I started by saying I didn't read it, and based by words on what the discussion at hand was about.

Trap...

Really now? Do you really think such a lame setup is a trap?

THAT paper says that anthropogenic warming is a much stronger forcing than any of the natural forcings.
LOL really...

Is that your stupid wording or theirs?

If it wasn't for natural forcing, the earth would be so much colder.