Global Warming paradox
- Thread starter ChkitOut
- Start date
I've been a Republican all my life. That doesn't mean I am blind to the fact that Republicans lie. (as do Democrats of course; any politician)
I'm not even saying Global Warming is a fact. I could be wrong. Like most things in life it boils down to a preponderance of the evidence.
You want to read a non-partisan, thoughtful breakdown on the Global Warming debate, try Michael Shermer, who was a Global Warming skeptic (as was I years ago)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-flipping-point
no it didn't. If it did, we wouldn't be having the debate, would we?
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists do accept that global warming is a reality. Linlyons and Dana provide links to reports showing that more than 97% of climate scientists believe this to be the case.
Think about this, who do you want to stand with on this question: Sarah Palin or most of the world's scientists?
I got into this discussion with someone else.
Unless you have data released in the last few months... I believe the data which claimed the ice was thinner was based on a approximation using GPS data.
The accuracy of that data was questioned and they were going to come up with new measurements.
it really does not matter to me but here was one of the articles we were quoting.
from the ut article
"Antarctica was once buried under a deeper and more extensive layer of ice during a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum. Starting about 20,000 years ago, the ice began slowly thinning and retreating. As the ice mass decreases, the bedrock immediately below the ice rises, an uplift known as postglacial rebound.
Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by the GRACE satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica. The new GPS measurements show West Antarctica is rebounding more slowly than once thought. This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously interpreted."
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/10/...ctic_ice_sheet/
So in short the eastern mass is the same or larger.
the ice mass loss in the western mass has to be recalculated. To see if the mass is losing ice faster than typical during the 20,000 year warming trend.
That took about 20 minutes.
That my argument. It's not the global warming to be or not to be question. It is the fact that we simply have not been here long enuf to have enuf empirical data. We could very well be heating up, but are we doing the heating?
Furthermore, sometimes we have bad storms. I can remember in the 70's a line of supercells generated twisters on an epic proportion, one of which destroyed a little town called Xenia Ohio.
Then it was just the reality that sometimes we have monster weather, now if we get monster weather, it is global warming. That's my problem.
They are going to blame the next F5 twister, the next cat5 hurricane and the next mega snowstorm all on global warming. I think the argument is spurious.
