another disturbing impact

#61
if you had clicked on the link i posted, it was a discussion of an advancing glacier in AK. however, it also pointed out that even though there are glaciers advancing, albeit it a small number of them, they are ANOMOLIES, as the vast majority of fixed ice, world wide, is running to the sea as melt water. for glaciers in this state to actually post advances for back to back years, back to back decades, would require a reversal in the climate change we are currently experiencing. any minor uptick, and that is what you are actually alluding too, is now going to come out in the wash. those are ANOMOLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and has also been pointed out, this is science in action, that means there will NEVER be total agreement.

and for all of you admitted 'christians', how come you have not adopted the new christian right philosophy of taking care of this planet? it appears that only folks like delay and the neocons are still in denial regarding climate change. of course i know that has nothing to do with 'agendas' and their undying support of gas, oil and coal, now does it???
If you had looked at what wildlander had wrote you would noticed specifically what I was responding to. Like what i said earlier, these things do not mean that the earth is not warming, simply that it is not as dramatic as some say it is. The guy living in antarctica says global warming isn't even real. He has pretty good cred right there.

Anyway I think we are mixing up the issue. I believe that global climate change is non-anthropogenic, you do. Whether or not the glaciers are melting has little to do with proving either side of that debate.

You seem to mention delay a lot, do you have a problem with him? :clown:
So I am christian, though i am not particularly religious and have not gone to church in 10 years, but I would still consider myself a christian. I do care about the environment. I carry a garbage bag when I am fishing to carry out any garbage I see, I volunteer for and donate to various conservation groups when I can. Do I need "agendas" to believe what I believe or do what I do? No.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#62
If you had looked at what wildlander had wrote you would noticed specifically what I was responding to. Like what i said earlier, these things do not mean that the earth is not warming, simply that it is not as dramatic as some say it is. The guy living in antarctica says global warming isn't even real. He has pretty good cred right there.

Anyway I think we are mixing up the issue. I believe that global climate change is non-anthropogenic, you do. Whether or not the glaciers are melting has little to do with proving either side of that debate.

You seem to mention delay a lot, do you have a problem with him? :clown:
So I am christian, though i am not particularly religious and have not gone to church in 10 years, but I would still consider myself a christian. I do care about the environment. I carry a garbage bag when I am fishing to carry out any garbage I see, I volunteer for and donate to various conservation groups when I can. Do I need "agendas" to believe what I believe or do what I do? No.
What would be interesting is to see if the scientist you are talking to can provide some info and background on why he feels the way he does. The majority of information that I can find (even outside of mainstream media), suggests that greenhouse gases from man made sources are a major factor (with a strong confidence interval) for an acceleration of warming global tempratures. The info also does state that they believe that the world is in a bit of a cycle, but the cycle is exasperated by the current use of fossil fuels by man.

Aside from that philisophical point, why not try to curb the use of fossil fuels anyhow? It's bad from many more points than just global warming. Coal emits far more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere than any number of nuke plants ever would. We try to drill for it in the most remote and pristine wilderness. We have constant wars over its availability, etc...

But seriously, if the scientist you work with could provide some citations and info to look at that would be great, as I know there are more than a few guys here who would look at a read the materials.

-- Cheers
-- James
 
#63
What would be interesting is to see if the scientist you are talking to can provide some info and background on why he feels the way he does. The majority of information that I can find (even outside of mainstream media), suggests that greenhouse gases from man made sources are a major factor (with a strong confidence interval) for an acceleration of warming global tempratures. The info also does state that they believe that the world is in a bit of a cycle, but the cycle is exasperated by the current use of fossil fuels by man.

Aside from that philisophical point, why not try to curb the use of fossil fuels anyhow? It's bad from many more points than just global warming. Coal emits far more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere than any number of nuke plants ever would. We try to drill for it in the most remote and pristine wilderness. We have constant wars over its availability, etc...

But seriously, if the scientist you work with could provide some citations and info to look at that would be great, as I know there are more than a few guys here who would look at a read the materials.

-- Cheers
-- James
James -
Nice use of the word "exasperated." I suspect it was a simple and understandable slip. I think most scientists (I could use a much more grand adjective here, since 'most' doesn't quite capture the near consensus among scientists) who study climate change, as well as those scientists who don't but who study other aspects of environmental science where the impact of climate change has effects, are "exasperated" by the steady denial of people who want to believe it is not anthropogenic. However, the anthropogenic effect really 'exacerbates' natural climate cycles by accelerating what may have been a natural warming trend. ;)
Dick
 
#64
http://www.mshinstitute.org/mshi-news/oregonianglaciersabelas.com/

>Mt st. helens institute is noticing the glacier advance too...hmm..

We are back to denial again. I am reminded of the alcoholic that reaches for any one example or excuse to hold to his denial when there are hundreds of examples that refute the one.

"Yes honey, there is only one can of beer left in the fridge, but I did not drink the others. I do not remember drinking the others. So no, I didn't drink the others... Uuurrrppp! And since there is still one can left, one could say we still have a case in the fridge... So what are you complaining about?"

I searched the web for the glacier at Mt St Helens. In nearly all the articles, they state that this glacier is not the norm for the hundreds more in the US - which are receding. THEY being the USGS! And so you grab the one example and use it as an excuse to refute the hundreds of others.

That is not rational thought... nor a rational argument.

This behavior is typical of people in denial.

Again, this gets back to the ethics - we never have 100 percent unanimous agreement in science. There are always exceptions to the rule. And most can be explained (as I will below). But some people will muddy the waters with the one or two examples when clearly hundreds more demonstrate otherwise. And clearly the USGS has stated publicly that nearly all other glaciers in the US are receding.

Let me repeat that - the United States Geological Survey has stated publicly that nearly all glaciers in the US are receding.

Why do you hold to the one or two examples to hold your view? That is a serious question. I would like you to answer it.

All of the glaciers on Mt Saint Helens melted during the eruption. That is not to say that the temperatures from thence forth would always be above freezing. It would be assinine to suggest so. Because we still have winters on top, because global warming has not yet proceeded to preclude such accumulations, there will be some accumulation of snow. Particularly where it had been completely melted off my another previous severe heating event. To suggest that Mt Saint Helens will never have snow on it again simply because it erupted some 30 years ago is assinine. In addition, it takes hundreds even thousands of years for snow to get to the depth where the weight compresses the underlying snow to ice. THAT has not occured yet on Mt Saint Helens or only to a very extreme limited extent. They call it a 'glacier' but in fact it is a glorified snow field - the beginning of a 'potential' glacier. They are witnessing how snow accumulates in the pre-birth of a glacier... not a glacier yet.

We have an isolated event where the snow was entirely melted by a volcanic blast with a new snow field forming today - and you reach for the one example as an excuse to deny the thousands of others?

THAT is denial.

I am not even going to respond to you again PWEB. I am sorry. You argument is clearly irrational and one of denial. And clearly uninformed. Sure there is a glacier up in Alaska that is 'growing' too - and even that can be explained RATIONALLY. What has happened in Alaska is that the temperatures have warmed from -30F to -10F. But -10F is still cold enough for glacial formation. But warming HAS occured at the site of the glacier. With that warming, we have seen a change in weather patterns and an increase in precipitation at the site of the glacier. And so it is accumulating ice even as warming has occured. It is 20 degrees warmer but still damn cold. And I certainly do not want to wait until Alaska is 32F in winter before society agrees to move forward on the issue... because by then, we will be cooking down here.

The fact is there are glaciers that are growing. But they are the one percent (or less) when 99 percent are melting... DRAMATICALLY melting... the clear trend is one of serious accelerated warming. And yet folks in denial will pull the one cat out of the hat as a majical event that global warming is not happening.... and they will cling to it still even after I have demonstrated that the cat and the hat can be explained rationally. The snow field acculuations on Mt Saint Helen only demonstrate that it still snows in the mountains - and that it is still cold enough in winter to accululate snow even though it has warmed (similar to the Alaska situation). What else can I say. There will always be folks who intentionally stick their head in the sand.


Wildlander
 
#65
One Lemming to another

Background Noise: "Ahhhhh...." Splat... "EEEEEEkkkkk....." Thump! "Squeeeeekkk..." Splat! (ad nauseum)

Daddy Lemming: "Sally, just keep running!"

Mommy Lemming: "I can't help but run from our bretheren pushing from behind. EVeryone is so intent on getting ahead, but uncle Joe the wise owl says..."

Daddy Lemming (interrupting): "Just follow the crowd! Don't listen to the owls... what do they know... there is no evidence there is a cliff ahead. Just keep the kids ahead of us so we all stay together..."
 
#66
and for all of you admitted 'christians', how come you have not adopted the new christian right philosophy of taking care of this planet? it appears that only folks like delay and the neocons are still in denial regarding climate change. of course i know that has nothing to do with 'agendas' and their undying support of gas, oil and coal, now does it???
I can answer that. When I worked as a seasonal ecologist for the US Forest Service in the 80's I was approached by the Recreational Assistent to the District Ranger (both permanent employees). I knew the RA went to Church and I asked him about the logging that we were doing on the forest... the unethical part... some internal decisions that were made. His response was "Jesus said the earth would fail. Heaven and Earth would pass away. And so we can't save it. So just go with the flow."

Just go with the flow???

It was that day I chose never to go to church again. Imagine the Lord saying "Well, most will not be saved, so why even try saving them??? I am just going to go with the flow..."

Regardless of who you think he was, Jesus Christ tried against all odds. He NEVER gave up. Even unto his death. That is the model Christians were to follow. And CLEARLY, the story of Noah and Ark where the Lord asked that two of every kind of creature be saved....

THAT was the first recorded act of conservation.

God gave a covenant at the end of the story of Noah and the Ark - never again to destroy the earth.

But He never said he would protect us from destroying ourselves... global warming, nuclear war, or whatever combinination of events by which we achieve that end. But still I try to stop it.

In ecology, everywhere we look, when a species overpopulates, it is followed by a collapse.

There are those here who thing we are above that. Above the facts of life. The worst kind of denial in the things we face today.

Christians, by the example of God, were meant to be environmentalists and to act sustainably in the resources that were provided for us. Instead we log the land and sell it off as housing developments to be paved over. This is, in every true use of the term, a cancer. Humans are only one small part of a larger ecosystem... one small part that has become a cancer - exceedingly overpopulating and consuming all of that ecosystem upon even they depend. This is what cancer does. It kills the life that sustains it. You only have to look and compare an aerial photo from 50 years ago to one of today - too see the trend in the loss of our natural areas. The cities like growing ameboas spreading out and consuming... the city nothing more than a species that has become malignant to its own base of resources. I look at the beaches in Puget Sound where I used to dig clams in the 60's and 70's. Half are polluted today. I look at the creeks I used to fish... some of which do not even exist anymore and now nothing but pavement and parking lots. The streams themselves entirely gone. And to suggest the cancer has stopped today, that the consumption has stopped, is not rationale.

And so I speak out when we finally see the ultimate response to our destructive consumptive behavior. I speak out on global warming and promote a rapid move to sustainable living. As an educated ecologist. As a scientist. As one who believes in God.

Wildlander
The Environmental Christian
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#67
James -
Nice use of the word "exasperated." I suspect it was a simple and understandable slip. I think most scientists (I could use a much more grand adjective here, since 'most' doesn't quite capture the near consensus among scientists) who study climate change, as well as those scientists who don't but who study other aspects of environmental science where the impact of climate change has effects, are "exasperated" by the steady denial of people who want to believe it is not anthropogenic. However, the anthropogenic effect really 'exacerbates' natural climate cycles by accelerating what may have been a natural warming trend. ;)
Dick
Subtle no doubt, and completely unintentional... But it does accurately portray the state of my mind.
 

FT

Active Member
#68
Gee, we had had airplanes for a little more than 100 years and airports for around 75 years. And now we are being told that because temperatures recorded at airports (which at the maximum are 75 years old) have increased a bit since the '70's that we are to take it as proof that temps are higher now than ever before? Hmmmm.... what about the several hundred year long warm period in the middle ages when most of Greenland was indeed green and not covered with glaciers?

Now based upon a very short time span of temperature records and about 35 years worth of satellite weather info, it has been determined that the warming noticed now is different than that several hundred year warm spell in the middle ages. And we are to take the glacier melting in Greenland noticed now as evidence of man-made global climate change, but the extended warm period in the middle ages when most of Greenland was not under glaciers goes unmentioned. Hmmmmmmm.... Interesting, very interesting.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#69
Gee, we had had airplanes for a little more than 100 years and airports for around 75 years. And now we are being told that because temperatures recorded at airports (which at the maximum are 75 years old) have increased a bit since the '70's that we are to take it as proof that temps are higher now than ever before? Hmmmm.... what about the several hundred year long warm period in the middle ages when most of Greenland was indeed green and not covered with glaciers?

Now based upon a very short time span of temperature records and about 35 years worth of satellite weather info, it has been determined that the warming noticed now is different than that several hundred year warm spell in the middle ages. And we are to take the glacier melting in Greenland noticed now as evidence of man-made global climate change, but the extended warm period in the middle ages when most of Greenland was not under glaciers goes unmentioned. Hmmmmmmm.... Interesting, very interesting.
It's the rate that this is occuring that's the alarming part. Based on various sources, the temp change of these events can be studied and compared to current patterns. From the literature that's out there, it's significantly faster than should be expected.

If the information were purely based on the airport temps, I'd be like you. But it's not, the record is coming from all sorts of sources (biological, geological, etc...).....
 
#70
FT -
During the middle ages, Greenland was covered by an ice sheet pretty much as it is today. It may have been a little warmer and greener around the southern coastal edges and there may have been less sea ice, but greenland has had an ice sheet covering it for a long time. That's why climate change scientists are so interested in the record obtained from cores drilled down through the ice sheet there.
D
 
#71
I love theology lessons. Especially on flyfishing websites. Onward Christian Soldier, onward! :rolleyes: Hopefully right on to another site.
PS There is a high IQ level represented here. You keep up your half assed merged interpretation of creation and evolution and you're going to get schooled. Remember not too long ago, we were told that the 7 days was a literal thing. Some religions still do. And then with modern dating techniques not to mention shitloads of artifacts being dug up religion has been backpedaling for the last 25 years trying to re-interpret and re-teach their original message and merge it with scientific fact. I've been laughing my ass off watching the tapdance. I have nothing against you or any other religion. I believe in what I believe. I've just found that in my short lifetime, the people who are the most vocal about it are usually the ones living a lie. But your form of Christianity is the "one" right? :rolleyes: Wow!
 
#72
Gee, we had had airplanes for a little more than 100 years and airports for around 75 years. And now we are being told that because temperatures recorded at airports (which at the maximum are 75 years old) have increased a bit since the '70's... Hmmmmmmm.... Interesting, very interesting.
A bit??? From 30 below zero to 5 above as our lowest temps in winter. This warming occuring in 30 years. This is not significant in your view? What if it continues? Our summers have went from low 90s as a max to nearly 110. What if it continues? That is the real issue here. It is clear it is getting hotter faster, so say another 20 degrees in the next 20 years. Say 130F in the Yakima Canyon?

This is not significant to you?
 
#73
Einstein. Who thought much as I do - that there was a God but that He was not active in the world (not interceeding in our freewill).

So I find myself in good company... which precludes certain other individuals.

I could also bring up Newton and many others - the greatest of 'scientists' that are largely responsible for what we have today.

You are free to chose the company you keep Duff. I will not be one of them.

THANK God!
 
#74
I have said all I can here. My comments are recorded in previous posts for others to read. Look at the behaviour of those contesting the science on the issue. Your answers will be found not by their words but by their works. We have people here pretending to be scientists. A coach of what? Where is the scientific validity of these people.

It is all opinion.

As for me, I am an ecologist. Religion aside, I have given facts from the NOAA, USGS and the Arbor Day Foundation. A religious man pointing out your OWN science. Things that any of you can confirm. And I would suggest that an ethical person look up that data for themselves and ask why? Why they, non-scientists, are so adamant in refusing the scientific message. They do not listen to religion but more importantly, they do not listen to their OWN science.

Denial.

So there is only one comment I have left on this issue...

May God have mercy on our souls. I will pray for you.
 
#75
That's my favorite one of all. I will pray for you. As in I have more spirtual clout than the next guy because MY God is the one and only God and I'm going to "heaven" and you're not. The last time I checked Jesus was homeless and hung out with non-believers, hookers, thieves and the diseased and dying. By your comments that you wish not to befriend me, you have passed judgement (like most vocal Holy Rollers) and have already strayed away from the basic message in the New Testament. Your beliefs are weak in facts like most organized religions but heavy in faith, which is a good thing, but tends to lead to emotional pissing contests when your faith is questioned and there is nothing concrete to fight back with. I have a feeling you get backed into this corner often. So you let us all know we are going to hell. Fished for Steelhead in the last couple of years? :D By the way, I only consider the Bible a book, but a great book and worth reading (which I have more than once front to back). It has some great messages worth digesting. That New Testament message was not one of exclusion or exclusiveness, but of acceptance and love for our fellow man no matter what their make-up or beliefs. Now go pray for all of us, and while you're at it, throw in a special prayer for all of the steelheaders so we can land a 20 pounder this season. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.