Nobel prizes don't prove anything.
The best way to tell if the climate is getting warmer or colder over the long haul is to ask if ice is advancing or retreating on a global scale.
Once you have established which way the ice is going, the next issue is to figure out whether the change is purely a natural cycle or if human activity is contributing to the change.
Not that difficult and not really controversial.
The best way to tell if the climate is getting warmer or colder over the long haul is to ask if ice is advancing or retreating on a global scale.
Correlation is not causation. More than just temperature causes ice to melt, which means it can't be used to determine climate change any more than snow in DC can. If you want to know if the world is warming or cooling over a period of time, just measure the temperature. Other than that, I agree with you.
Ice is a pretty good measure of temperature on Earth.
When it is cold water freezes into ice. When it is warm, ice melts.
As long as the air pressure stays fairly constant, the independent variable is temperature.
Liars can lie and statistics can be quoted by damnable liars, but ice tells an objective tale.
Ice is a pretty good measure of temperature on Earth.
When it is cold water freezes into ice. When it is warm, ice melts.
As long as the air pressure stays fairly constant, the independent variable is temperature.
Liars can lie and statistics can be quoted by damnable liars, but ice tells an objective tale.
Yes, according to your nice Physics 101 equations, temperature is related to pressure and volume. However, in the real world, there are thousands of variables involved, which is why ice is not a good measure of temperature (it is also the difference between laboratory science - where all those variables are controlled - versus real world science).
The ice at the poles you so frequently refer to contains salt, fish turds, dirt, algea, plant matter, and more. All of these affect the amount of ice, the temperature at which it changes state, where stress points exist, and so on. All of these have an impact on what is happening. That's why it requires a degree in science to understand it (and even more, there is a specialization for it). In fact, it is so difficult to understand, even those who have a degree and conduct experiments still frequently get it wrong. Hence the development of peer-reviewed scientific studies. The scientific community only truly begins to admit things are probably true after many studies have been perform, each of which usually takes years. As a community, we are by default skeptics.
You dont agree with the experts either normally.. That would be an issue, yah?
No, I disagree with the politicians. Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he an expert. The only thing that truly exists is a single study that tracks temperature (not ice, Gramps!) over a period of time that determined there was a statistically insignificant change in temperature over that period. That study has now been peer-reviewed and has been discovered to have some flaws at some specific points. It doesn't disprove it (I've said that many times), it just makes it questionable. Therefore, barring proof, skepticism kicks in and says we need more study. That is how science works.
An insignificant change in temperature would not lead to a significant change in ice, unless there was a big change in air pressure.
You see, our measurements may be flawed, and in fact everything we do in science is flawed to some extent (I say this as someone with two degrees in science). Ice is also an imperfect representation of temperature, but it is as accurate as anything we have available to us.
So what is that ice saying (or whispering) to us? It is telling us that the Earth is warming.
No need to listen to politicians, or even scientists.
Follow the ice. It melts in the face of heat.
An insignificant change in temperature would not lead to a significant change in ice, unless there was a big change in air pressure.
Did you not understand what I said earlier? That only holds true in a lab when all the variables are controlled. You are completely ignoring the effects of the life both on and under the ice, the fact that the ice is not just water, and so on.
You see, our measurements may be flawed, and in fact everything we do in science is flawed to some extent (I say this as someone with two degrees in science). Ice is also an imperfect representation of temperature, but it is as accurate as anything we have available to us.
That is complete bullshit. Ice is clearly not as accurate as, oh, you know, thermometers! What the hell kind of scientist are you that claims imperfectly measuring imperfect third party effects and using imperfect math equations is as accurate as imperfectly measuring the component under question?
So what is that ice saying (or whispering) to us? It is telling us that the Earth is warming.
No need to listen to politicians, or even scientists.
Follow the ice. It melts in the face of heat.
Really? Then why hasn't any actual scientist been issues studies that show the earth is warming because of ice? Why did the IPCC waste all their time tracking temperature with thermometers all over the world than simple tracking ice? Because the thermometers aren't subject to third-party effects!
I understand what you said, but I disagree. Thermometers are accurate measuring devices but they have only existed for a short time, geologically speaking. Even so, there have been mistakes made by human error in reading and recording temperatures. These errors have been a source of material for climate change deniers who use these errors as 'evidence' that climate change is a myth. Those deniers cannot as easily dismiss the erosion of glaciers and other ice on a global basis, which is why I put more stock in ice coverage than any human generated statistics. The ice doesn't lie.
There are also mistakes made in measuring the ice, which are human generated statistics, the physics equations you have to put them through to convert them to temperature are also imperfect and subject to rounding errors, and so on. Real world scientists minimize sources of imperfection by measuring the effects as close to the source as possible. In this case, thermometers, not ice.
Also, thermometers have exist for quite some time. According to the Wikipedia article, they exists in the eleventh century, with the basic underpinnings known of around the birth of Christ! Obviously they have gotten more accurate as time has gone by, but to argue that measuring melting ice is a more accurate measure of global warming than temperature is pure insanity, especially given the IPCC studies you use to promote global warming were made using thermometers and not melting ice. I can easily dismiss erosion of glaciers as animal migrations, wind, or rain (and this took ten seconds to come up with).
you can go to nearly any glacier on Earth and compare it to photographs taken 25, 50, 75, or more years ago and you will see, for the vast majority of them, that they have shrunken drastically in that time.
A very easy, and non mathematical way to convince yourself that the climate is warming.
Easy, simple, accurate, convincing. No need for politicians or scientists.
Do you not understand the concept of anecdotal evidence?
BZZT sorry. Or at least potentially sorry. There was a paper published recently about geological formations in undersea caves.
So far, based o the geological record in said caves, the sea level rising and falling did not match with the current stated temperature record.
If you accept the premise that glacial melting and freezing is what raises and lowers sea level, there's some issues with them syncing up.
Do I think this is because Ice doesn't melt when it warms up? No. Is it yet one more reason to suspect people are really not playing honest when normalizing temperature data? Probably.
Actually, I'll posit this counter theory.
Lets call the year 1895. Populations are increasing. We burn lots of wood and coal for heat and steam power. LOTS of it. The skies are frikin black. We've also just come off of Krakatoa blowing up and screwing up the temperature until less than a decade before (note the Krakatoa thing, it's important).
Basically we put a lot of opaque shit in the air.
You know how you can see ice melting on a day below freezing? Might have something to do with solar luminance and clearer skies.
It also can have something to do with geothermal activity. (waves at greenland and many other large installations of surface ice).
Well that would at least get the energy industry off the hook, so there is that.
Look, critics of climate change are always looking for an ulterior motive for what they see as alarmists, but they fail to look for it in their own point of view.
That is unfortunate, since there is an obvious corporate benefit to climate change denial, and that is what the denial point of view is really all about.
No matter what anyone says, the burning of fossil fuels is absolutely not the cause of anything bad. That in a nutshell is the climate change denial point of view, and it isn't hard to imagine where that point of view comes from. (see also who has covertly funded much of the denial material)
Right, because heat does not cause melting, or at least hasn't been proved to!
Now you are the one making a strawman argument. I never said heat didn't cause melting, and it clearly has been proved to. So quit putting words in my mouth. 
These lies and liars come from the world's most reputable institutions. They all promote the same "global warming" hoax and it seems they will stop at nothing to try and mislead the masses.
So has critical thinking now swept over those who promote "climate change" hysterics? Obviously not. Their biggest cheerleader and the smartest man in the world, Barack Obama, doesn't pause for even a moment as he attempts to recalibrate American society around new government mandates and energy restrictions.
He is just another leftist who is peddling yet another falsehood in order to take more control over our lives.
SoR_AWC
talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.
points not needed...smash them in the face.