Climategate

[Wiscoman]

Yes I agree the arctic ice is receding. The ice I was talking about was the antarctic.

I misread it... Not that I can figure out what difference it makes. Running the search again...

Still not a fact.

As for the other points, I'd like to referred to specific documents. Societies even Scientific ones tend to play politics with a lot of the political statements. There is an awful lot of situations where the evidence isn't enough to conclude something yet and they claim the conclusion anyways, which happens far less in actual papers.

I call foul on that one. You're dismissing evidence you don't like based on your ability to read their collective mind.

As for there being no evidence at all of us being in a temperature cycle, that is false. The fact is there is evidence that the earth is constantly in a cycle with trend, the problem is we don't have enough information to conclusively state what that trend is, because there is a lot of noise in the data, and we only have a very small time period to look at.

Knowing there's a cycle isn't the same as proving we're in a certain point in that cycle. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence the increase in atmospheric CO2 mirrors the increase in temperatures over the years. I'm sorry, but thinking this is coincidental seems a little unreasonable to me.

Again, temperature change happens on massive scales, so 10-20 years of data is basically on the level of a blip and isn't really something to take all that seriously, especially when it has notable exceptions.

It's over century's worth of data.

[denuseri]

There are also scientists saying that the increase in Co2 is cuased by the increasing temperatures and that the true scource of any temperature increases has as yet to be identified; though my bet is on the relationship between the sun and our planets geo-thermal action. Its quite possible a spurious coorelation has been drawn between Co2 and temperature fluctuations.


Outside of that, we have reams of data collected about what the climate did in the past on this planet. Its preserved quite nicely for those wishing to go find it, especially in fosseil records and geological substrates.

Can we as humans influence the enviroment?

We allready have in a multitude of ways, just look at the vast changes in fauna (I use fauna in the definition of biologists in that it includes animals and plants) and terrain features as well as water distribution that took place in North America from our presence.

Have we directly changed the overall atmospheric composition to date as a species on a significant level?

I think science is still colating data, were as those with political agendas are using scare tactics to influence the general populace for their own advantage. (unfortunately it appears as if some scientists in general are not as ethical as they would like us to believe and quite capable of allowing their personal political views to influence their data) As we so recently found out to be true in a few cases. Funny how the politicians instead of crying foul to the scientists in question and holding them up to public scrutiny are instead crying foul on the whistler blower who uncovered their transgressions.

But as Lion mentioned, there is still no reason whatsoever that we shouldnt take our responsiblity for the planet as its dominant species very very seriously.

After all its not like we are in a position to get up just yet and row row our boat to a different island.

[Thorne]

There are also scientists saying that the increase in Co2 is cuased by the increasing temperatures and that the true scource of any temperature increases has as yet to be identified; though my bet is on the relationship between the sun and our planets geo-thermal action.

Sorry, that's just wrong. The link between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming is solid. In fact, there is little evidence that there is any link between the sun and geo-thermal action. Aside from electromagnetic radiation from the sun, only tidal effects are felt on Earth, and the moon has a larger effect than the sun. And while tidal effects cause friction, which causes heat, these factors are relatively constant and cannot be causing current global warming.

Outside of that, we have reams of data collected about what the climate did in the past on this planet. Its preserved quite nicely for those wishing to go find it, especially in fosseil records and geological substrates.

Exactly! And the data shows that the average global temperature and the average CO2 content of the atmosphere are rising at a higher rate than ever before.

Have we directly changed the overall atmospheric composition to date as a species on a significant level?

Yes, we have. Think smog. Think acid rain. Think nuclear fallout, from Alamogordo to Chernobyl.

I think science is still colating data, were as those with political agendas are using scare tactics to influence the general populace for their own advantage.

This is also true. Science will ALWAYS be collating data. That's what scientists do! That doesn't mean there isn't enough data now to define a trend. But political scare tactics are being used, as well as pressure on those who MAY have evidence which contradicts SOME of the science.

Funny how the politicians instead of crying foul to the scientists in question and holding them up to public scrutiny are instead crying foul on the whistler blower who uncovered their transgressions.

This was not a whistle-blower, this was a hacker. He illegally stole e-documents which did not belong to him. He should be arrested and prosecuted as a criminal. And the "transgressions" are a few phrases which have been taken out of context and blown up into a vast conspiracy. It's a tempest in a teapot.

[DuncanONeil]

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
The counter arguments can not be "just wrong" when there is data to support them!

But the question is is CO2 leading temperature or is temperature leading CO2?

Sorry, that's just wrong. The link between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming is solid. In fact, there is little evidence that there is any link between the sun and geo-thermal action. Aside from electromagnetic radiation from the sun, only tidal effects are felt on Earth, and the moon has a larger effect than the sun. And while tidal effects cause friction, which causes heat, these factors are relatively constant and cannot be causing current global warming.


Exactly! And the data shows that the average global temperature and the average CO2 content of the atmosphere are rising at a higher rate than ever before.


Yes, we have. Think smog. Think acid rain. Think nuclear fallout, from Alamogordo to Chernobyl.


This is also true. Science will ALWAYS be collating data. That's what scientists do! That doesn't mean there isn't enough data now to define a trend. But political scare tactics are being used, as well as pressure on those who MAY have evidence which contradicts SOME of the science.


This was not a whistle-blower, this was a hacker. He illegally stole e-documents which did not belong to him. He should be arrested and prosecuted as a criminal. And the "transgressions" are a few phrases which have been taken out of context and blown up into a vast conspiracy. It's a tempest in a teapot.

[DuncanONeil]

The South polar regions are creating more ice!
"# Ice cover doubles the area of Antarctica each year -- extending the continent to approximately 30 million square miles." (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a...snow-ice.shtml)

I misread it... Not that I can figure out what difference it makes. Running the search again...

Still not a fact.



I call foul on that one. You're dismissing evidence you don't like based on your ability to read their collective mind.



Knowing there's a cycle isn't the same as proving we're in a certain point in that cycle. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence the increase in atmospheric CO2 mirrors the increase in temperatures over the years. I'm sorry, but thinking this is coincidental seems a little unreasonable to me.



It's over century's worth of data.

[Thorne]

The South polar regions are creating more ice!
"# Ice cover doubles the area of Antarctica each year -- extending the continent to approximately 30 million square miles." (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a...snow-ice.shtml)

Misleading! Yes, every year the sea freezes around Antarctica, increasing the apparant size. Just as every year the ice reforms in the Arctic. But each year it also melts again. And the rate of melting is increasing. Overall, the amount of ice on the continent has been decreasing. There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. This is due to variations in WEATHER. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.

[steelish]

There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

[Wiscoman]

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

No. Glaciers are actually expanding in places like Mt. St. Helens, where volcanic activity melted it. Now that the event has ended, the ice comes back. But it won't be as large as it was before the eruption and then it will begin to recede again.

Think of it in terms of profit and loss. Just because a store sells a gallon of milk, it doesn't mean the store is profitable. If the losses are greater than the sales, you're still screwed. Likewise, if the loss of ice is greater than the gains, it's a net loss.

[DuncanONeil]

And there are reports of an increase in volcanic activity. Perhaps that is the planet changing the atmosphere. If that is the case, and we futz with the atmosphere, perhaps we would be making it too cool

No. Glaciers are actually expanding in places like Mt. St. Helens, where volcanic activity melted it. Now that the event has ended, the ice comes back. But it won't be as large as it was before the eruption and then it will begin to recede again.

Think of it in terms of profit and loss. Just because a store sells a gallon of milk, it doesn't mean the store is profitable. If the losses are greater than the sales, you're still screwed. Likewise, if the loss of ice is greater than the gains, it's a net loss.

[Thorne]

Huh? Didn't you just contradict yourself?

I don't think so. The ice gets thicker in some places, due to localized weather conditions, and thinner in other places. Overall, though, the warming is having an effect.

[DuncanONeil]

That was a quote I could find. But you show what I keep saying. The fact that the area doubles each year is simply dismissed as not being a bit important since it affects the AGW mantra.
For what you say to be true, the area has to double each year and that much and more must melt, each year.
Also reports have been both heard and seen that the depth of the ice cover on the continet is increasing as well. I could not find a quote in the time alloted to produce responses.

Misleading! Yes, every year the sea freezes around Antarctica, increasing the apparant size. Just as every year the ice reforms in the Arctic. But each year it also melts again. And the rate of melting is increasing. Overall, the amount of ice on the continent has been decreasing. There are some areas where the ice is growing, just as elsewhere around the globe. This is due to variations in WEATHER. But overall, the total amount of ice is dropping.