Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
My point is the article very clearly states manmade warming is causing this ice to melt. The study you cited talks about the decadal oscillation, which is NOT manmade, but rather than say that's a natural effect maybe the ice melt is too, they simply used a model to forecast the future, saw the oscilllation increase in the prediction, and then backtracked to say warming is causing the current that's melting the ice.
They might be right but they're using a forecast of the future to determine a cause in the present that started in the past. It's right out of Terminator.
It's very circular reasoning IMHO.
Russ, a prediction by definition means there is no evidence for it.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
And what do you propose we do about the current? Get a bunch of people out in the ocean with giant spoons?
About the same as I usually do
Encouraging conservation would be a good start. Helps on multiple fronts.
Funding research on alternatives to oil would be another [both large and small scale]
Oh course sarcasm is a good way of avoiding the issue. Funnily enough ideas that help with global warming [if you believe it] often help with reducing pollution and our dependency on foreign oil.
One wonders why conservatives are all over this give its national security implications.
Encouraging conservation would be a good start. Helps on multiple fronts.
Funding research on alternatives to oil would be another [both large and small scale]
Oh course sarcasm is a good way of avoiding the issue. Funnily enough ideas that help with global warming [if you believe it] often help with reducing pollution and our dependency on foreign oil.
One wonders why conservatives are all over this give its national security implications.
Pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and global warming are all things I would like to see go away.
And yes I believe in Global Warming, I also believe that it is far from 100% man made. In fact I think it is beyond arrogant to think we as humans are the direct cause. We might be helping it move along faster and ways to curb our emissions seem like a sound idea.
Trying to say that SUV's are causing the ocean currents to change like they did for millions of years on this cycle is arrogant and niave.
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
And what do you propose we do about the current? Get a bunch of people out in the ocean with giant spoons?
I saw something on tv last night that was almost like that. They were talking about tapping the currents off Florida with some machines that would convert the moving water into electricity. The guy said if they can harness it they could serve half of Florida with electricity.
Maybe if they did that they could reverse the current in the Arctic.
Russ, a prediction by definition means there is no evidence for it.
So then how can Borensteil write this?
"It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming."
He didn't even suggest it was a theory, he stated it as fact in an article about global warming causing arctic sea ice to melt.
That's my objection here it's clear from the rest of the study that they're well aware of the oscillation thing but rather than acknowledge that is what is melting the ice and it may in fact be natural, they completely ignore it and state it's manmade.
All it takes to start a dialog is dumping the rhetoric.
All your SUV comment achieves is to piss people of. You are saying their opinions are as pathetic as this.
Drop that and we mostly agree. There is an honest debate on the scale of the human influence.
However none of that really changes the point, that being .... It really wouldn't be a bad idea to do something.
That's not the point of this article though this article very clearly stated the ice is melting in the arctic due to manmade global warming, and the only evidence cited was a computer generated model of the future.
I saw something on tv last night that was almost like that. They were talking about tapping the currents off Florida with some machines that would convert the moving water into electricity. The guy said if they can harness it they could serve half of Florida with electricity.
Maybe if they did that they could reverse the current in the Arctic.
That is a scary thought. Not harnessing electricity from currents but changing their natural cycles.
:shudder:
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
"It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming."
He didn't even suggest it was a theory, he stated it as fact in an article about global warming causing arctic sea ice to melt.
That IS a fact, or a direct observation. Do you really not know that burning those fuels release those gasses? Those gasses warm, that's also a direct observation. To the extent that those gasses are present due to human activity, that's "man made". Now, he did NOT say ALL warming is due to human activity! Sheesh!
That's my objection here it's clear from the rest of the study that they're well aware of the oscillation thing but rather than acknowledge that is what is melting the ice and it may in fact be natural, they completely ignore it and state it's manmade.
That has nothing to do with you deriding a prediction as having "no
evidence". You were just off base with that shot.
Obviously, these scientists accept the most commonly held view on warming. Even the scientists who did the oscillation study, were careful to NOT eliminate the human angle, telling me they accept the data as well. They were just reporting their data indicated a natural cycle in play as well.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
T.H. Huxley
Last edited by ajcardfan; December 12th, 2007 at 02:43 PM.
"It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming."
I think Russ is referring to the second part of the quote.
I think Russ is referring to the second part of the quote.
I addressed that as well.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
That IS a fact, or a direct observation. Do you really not know that burning those fuels release those gasses? Those gasses warm, that's also a direct observation. To the extent that those gasses are present due to human activity, that's "man made". Now, he did NOT say ALL warming is due to human activity! Sheesh!
EDIT: Ah yes, someone called me. I take it back.
Linear Mode
