The Elephant in the Room

[legalskier]

New report based on NASA satellite data:

NASA data shows ice melt, rising seas could threaten Florida, Louisiana
A team of scientists say they have created a new data model to determine the amount of ice melt that may result from increased temperatures related to global warming. Using data from a pair of NASA satellite, the team say they have established a more accurate portrait of just how much ice will melt and how high the seas will rise....“The total amount of ice lost to Earth’s oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about one and one-half feet of water,” said Mr. Wahr....

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/scien...uld-threaten-florida-louisiana/#ixzz1lufhUpJC

When a Scotty post is grammatically correct, you know a thread has gone too far! :lol:

:smile:

 

[steamboat1]

If you fill a water glass with ice cubes & let them melt does the glass overflow?

 

[wa-loaf]

If you fill a water glass with ice cubes & let them melt does the glass overflow?

No, but if you melt a bunch of ice that's not in the glass (glaciers, antarctic ice, any ice above sea level) and pour it into the glass it will.

 

[BenedictGomez]

New report based on NASA satellite data:

NASA data shows ice melt, rising seas could threaten Florida, Louisiana
A team of scientists say they have created a new data model to determine the amount of ice melt that may result from increased temperatures related to global warming. Using data from a pair of NASA satellite, the team say they have established a more accurate portrait of just how much ice will melt and how high the seas will rise....“The total amount of ice lost to Earth’s oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about one and one-half feet of water,” said Mr. Wahr....

That's interesting.

And though I'm not familiar with that periodical you cited, it's a perfect example of the media's glaring bias in coverage of Global Warming.

How do I know?

Because there's absolutely no mention of the fact that by using the exact same "new data model" sourced above:

That:

1) Ice is melting LESS than scientists thought
2) The Himalayas have lost NO ice in the past 10 years (a huge change)
3) Melting ice outside the 2 largest caps (Greenland + Antarctica) is much less than previously estimated

Which are also, all findings of this study.


Nope, none of that, instead they just commented on the most draconian bits of data they could cull to support Global Warming, and completely disregarded the fact that the ice melt data actually isn't quite as bad as previously thought. Remarkable!!!!!!

And this kind of biased reporting to the public on this subject is typical, not atypical.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

 

[Glenn]

If this thread were boilerplate, Dan Egan could still carve on it with 120mm boards...with plastic edges.

 

[mediamogul]

That's interesting.

And though I'm not familiar with that periodical you cited, it's a perfect example of the media's glaring bias in coverage of Global Warming.

How do I know?

Because there's absolutely no mention of the fact that by using the exact same "new data model" sourced above:

That:

1) Ice is melting LESS than scientists thought
2) The Himalayas have lost NO ice in the past 10 years (a huge change)
3) Melting ice outside the 2 largest caps (Greenland + Antarctica) is much less than previously estimated

Which are also, all findings of this study.


Nope, none of that, instead they just commented on the most draconian bits of data they could cull to support Global Warming, and completely disregarded the fact that the ice melt data actually isn't quite as bad as previously thought. Remarkable!!!!!!

And this kind of biased reporting to the public on this subject is typical, not atypical.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

But wait aren't these those self serving scientists furthering a government agenda to propogate global warming why would they say ice is melting less? Shouldn't they be towing the party line and only releasing facts that support the conspiracy? How else will they preserve their jobs and please their government puppetmasters? Especially from a state funded bunch of scientists at NASA.

Haha. Ice is melting less than they thought but it is still melting according to the data provided. They have apparently been able to take a better measurement and provide better data which it is in a scientist's best interest to do. The interesting thing is that it looks like they are closer to establishing a rate at which the worlds oceans are rising. Slow and steady wins the race. Looks like Lousiana will be among the first to have beachfront property.

 

[BenedictGomez]

But wait aren't these those self serving scientists furthering a government agenda to propogate global warming why would they say ice is melting less? Shouldn't they be towing the party line and only releasing facts that support the conspiracy? How else will they preserve their jobs and please their government puppetmasters? Especially from a state funded bunch of scientists at NASA.

Did you even read the article?

It STILL supports their research, ultimately, it's just "not as bad".

There's never an instance where anything, ever, at any time, even for a moment, ever refutes any inkling that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis isnt 100% correct. It's perfect.

 

[mediamogul]

Did you even read the article?

It STILL supports their research, ultimately, it's just "not as bad".

There's never an instance where anything, ever, at any time, even for a moment, ever refutes any inkling that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis isnt 100% correct. It's perfect.

I did read the article and that's precisely what im saying. Why would they say that if the agenda is to at all costs further the theory of global warming? Wouldn't it be in their vested interest to not release data that downplays global warming's impact?

 

[riverc0il]

That's interesting.

And though I'm not familiar with that periodical you cited, it's a perfect example of the media's glaring bias in coverage of Global Warming.

Logic issue: by your reasoning that follows, you seem to suggest that every single media article on climate change should discuss every single aspect and every single report for every single related bit of evidence. That is just crazy. Media report on individual studies, they are not writing dissertations.

Also, when media cover reports that debunk man induced climate change, do you also talk about so called bias? Such reports covering opposing articles likely only report on single studies and don't cite all past and current research. That would be bias the other way, no?

Counting the hits, ignoring the misses. Worst logical issue out there. It is only "bias" when the media reports conclusions that you don't agree with.

:roll:

 

[mediamogul]

Logic issue: by your reasoning that follows, you seem to suggest that every single media article on climate change should discuss every single aspect and every single report for every single related bit of evidence. That is just crazy. Media report on individual studies, they are not writing dissertations.

Also, when media cover reports that debunk man induced climate change, do you also talk about so called bias? Such reports covering opposing articles likely only report on single studies and don't cite all past and current research. That would be bias the other way, no?

Counting the hits, ignoring the misses. Worst logical issue out there. It is only "bias" when the media reports conclusions that you don't agree with.

:roll:

Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

Not to mention that this same person refered to NASAs data regarding solar flares as though it were truth and in the same breath is stating that NASAs sattelite data confirming global warming and ice caps melting as part of the self preserving government scientist conspiracy. This is political bias in the flesh.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Logic issue: by your reasoning that follows, you seem to suggest that every single media article on climate change should discuss every single aspect and every single report for every single related bit of evidence. That is just crazy. Media report on individual studies, they are not writing dissertations.

That's a ridiculous inference into what I wrote. This leaves people with the opinion that you didnt read the articles.

The point is, that the article in question which he cited, literally left out what is indisputably the most scientifically noteworthy and significant scientific findings, in favor of the most alarming finding. Gosh, I wonder how that happened?

In any event, if you're familiar with these issues, and you read those articles, it was a positively glaring omission regardless of what side of this issue you tend to side with.

when media cover reports that debunk man induced climate change, do you also talk about so called bias? Such reports covering opposing articles likely only report on single studies and don't cite all past and current research. That would be bias the other way, no?

I 'd love to see some of those! What I can tell you, is that it's a fairly rare event when a legitimate, well-known media source "covers" what you're outlining above. It's like thunder snow, occasionally it happens, but it isnt common. In any event, any individual article would have to be evaluated separately. You infer way too much.

 

[Edd]

My takeaway from nearly all the news reports about climate change in recent years is that there is a net loss of ice that wasn't previously floating in the ocean; therefore the oceans will rise. Regardless of if you believe it's naturally occurring or human-caused, it's a scary problem, to the point where I seriously see myself moving further inland in the next decade.

That may sound stupid but the Japan disaster last year produced the most sobering footage I've seen of what the ocean can do to a heavily industrialized nation. I live right next to a river maybe 6 miles from the ocean and there is a nuclear facility about 15 miles from me. I have gotta move. Not next year but I won't wait forever.

 

[Morwax]

I guess Im just not shocked at the fact that the ice sheets may be melting. Wasnt NYC under a mile of ice at one point :idea:
P.S. Bears do $hit in the woods!

 

[deadheadskier]

My takeaway from nearly all the news reports about climate change in recent years is that there is a net loss of ice that wasn't previously floating in the ocean; therefore the oceans will rise. Regardless of if you believe it's naturally occurring or human-caused, it's a scary problem, to the point where I seriously see myself moving further inland in the next decade.

That may sound stupid but the Japan disaster last year produced the most sobering footage I've seen of what the ocean can do to a heavily industrialized nation. I live right next to a river maybe 6 miles from the ocean and there is a nuclear facility about 15 miles from me. I have gotta move. Not next year but I won't wait forever.

you don't like the sounding of the nuclear alarm every Saturday at 12:30pm? It's a nice back up alarm clock if I've been out late on Friday nights. :lol:

 

[Edd]

you don't like the sounding of the nuclear alarm every Saturday at 12:30pm? It's a nice back up alarm clock if I've been out late on Friday nights. :lol:

You know I rarely hear that thing. I'm usually sleeping at that time; couldn't even tell you what it sounds like.

 

[mediamogul]

That's a ridiculous inference into what I wrote. This leaves people with the opinion that you didnt read the articles.

The point is, that the article in question which he cited, literally left out what is indisputably the most scientifically noteworthy and significant scientific findings, in favor of the most alarming finding. Gosh, I wonder how that happened?

In any event, if you're familiar with these issues, and you read those articles, it was a positively glaring omission regardless of what side of this issue you tend to side with.



I 'd love to see some of those! What I can tell you, is that it's a fairly rare event when a legitimate, well-known media source "covers" what you're outlining above. It's like thunder snow, occasionally it happens, but it isnt common. In any event, any individual article would have to be evaluated separately. You infer way too much.

Here are just a few:

http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warming/2012/02/02/fact-earth-s-temperature-hasn-t-warmed-15-years

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/data-cooling-on-global-warming/

http://nation.foxnews.com/global-wa...activists-seek-purge-unfriendly-tv-weathermen

There you go. Unless you want to argue that Fox News is not, unfortunately, a mainstream media outlet. Both sides get coverage in the media. Once again the arguments against are the most highly politicized ones focusing on the "extremists" who believe in global warming despite their claim that the "mainstream media" has made it their official stance. So its both mainstream and extremist? Well I guess its whichever one you need it to be at the moment.

I would like to hear someone come right out and say it, then maybe it will sound as ridiculuous as it is: "Emissions from cars, aerosol, and fossil fuels have no effect on the environment. Emissions don't need to be regulated. Industrial waste causes no climate change."

Of course they do.

 

[Tooth]

you don't like the sounding of the nuclear alarm every Saturday at 12:30pm? It's a nice back up alarm clock if I've been out late on Friday nights. :lol:

Come to Maine.

 

[deadheadskier]

Come to Maine.

lived in Portland for 3 years.

prefer the NH seacoast

 

[kingslug]

http://devour.com/video/14-years-of-weather/

 

[AdironRider]

My takeaway from nearly all the news reports about climate change in recent years is that there is a net loss of ice that wasn't previously floating in the ocean; therefore the oceans will rise. Regardless of if you believe it's naturally occurring or human-caused, it's a scary problem, to the point where I seriously see myself moving further inland in the next decade.

That may sound stupid but the Japan disaster last year produced the most sobering footage I've seen of what the ocean can do to a heavily industrialized nation. I live right next to a river maybe 6 miles from the ocean and there is a nuclear facility about 15 miles from me. I have gotta move. Not next year but I won't wait forever.

Are you seriously worried about the Oyster River? You realize theres a gigantic estuary (Great Bay) sitting between you and impending doom right?

Not to mention Seabrook is one of the safest nuke plants in the US.

Might want to stock up in tinfoil hat stock, cause with conspiracy theories like that the impending bubble is just around the corner.