Global Warming a Hoax, don't worry you will still pay for it.

[mob201]

We don't even get the Rush Limbaugh show here. So, nope, he didn't tell me that. So the ice freezing in the arctic ocean isn't ice? It's the same principal if you think about it. The amound of displaced water will still be the same if the arctic ice melted.

You're right. I'm not a scientist but my half-assed lay person's understanding is that the melting of arctic ice is not a major threat in terms of sea level rising. The melting of ice caps and glaciers makes the sea level rise, making Greenland and the Antarctic (which has 90% of the world's ice) bigger threats. But it's a catastrophic threat, in the sense that small changes can trigger a tipping point. If an enormous glacier on the Antarctic calves, that could make a very big difference.

But I remember my wife who is smarter than me about these things saying that the reason why the sea level is rising is more attributable to the warming of the oceans, which decreases the density of water - thermal expansion.

At any rate, the ice cube analogy doesn't work. Unless the ice cube is in the tray rather than in a glass of water, and you let it thaw on the kitchen counter. Your shrunken little cube has now become a miniature Atlantic, brimming over the edge of the tray. That's the threat as I understand it. Anyway again I wish it wasn't true but I'm too much of a pessimist not to see major changes ahead. The Northwest passage is now navigable, companies are vying to mine rare minerals in Greenland, where they've been covered with ice for all of recorded history.

 

[MACFLY]

You're right. I'm not a scientist but my half-assed lay person's understanding is that the melting of arctic ice is not a major threat in terms of sea level rising. The melting of ice caps and glaciers makes the sea level rise, making Greenland and the Antarctic (which has 90% of the world's ice) bigger threats. But it's a catastrophic threat, in the sense that small changes can trigger a tipping point. If an enormous glacier on the Antarctic calves, that could make a very big difference.


But I remember my wife who is smarter than me about these things saying that the reason why the sea level is rising is more attributable to the warming of the oceans, which decreases the density of water - thermal expansion.

At any rate, the ice cube analogy doesn't work. Unless the ice cube is in the tray rather than in a glass of water, and you let it thaw on the kitchen counter. Your shrunken little cube has now become a miniature Atlantic, brimming over the edge of the tray. That's the threat as I understand it. Anyway again I wish it wasn't true but I'm too much of a pessimist not to see major changes ahead. The Northwest passage is now navigable, companies are vying to mine rare minerals in Greenland, where they've been covered with ice for all of recorded history.

Recorded history is a pretty small amount of time for earth. I don't doubt the climates are changing but whether we are causing that change or exacerbating that change is another matter and far from settled science.

 

[eddavidson9]

whether we are causing that change or exacerbating that change is another matter and far from settled science.

in that respect, so is evolutionary theory, genetics, physics, epidemiology....

but even if you don't buy it, the biggest concerns (at least to me) aren't whether these are the hottest times in human history and pre-history, or the level to which we are responsible or they are perfectly natural; they are the impacts we can expect to see given our current population, societal structure, settlement patterns, agricultural demands, etc. the science behind the assertions that we are in for "interesting" times is pretty robust.

and let's be clear, "global climate change" was coined not because scientists couldn't make up their mind on whether things were warming or cooling, it was because of the oft assumed implication that "global warming" referred to an average warming at every point on earth, rather than a global average temperature rise. the disingenuous lampooning of the term has really gotten old.

(for the record, i am "pro-fracking"...whatever that means)

 

[Future Fanatic]

the disingenuous lampooning of the term has really gotten old.

Compared to the geological/historical climate age of the world... it's not old at all...

How's THAT for disingenuous lampooning?

 

[CTobias]

At any rate, the ice cube analogy doesn't work. Unless the ice cube is in the tray rather than in a glass of water, and you let it thaw on the kitchen counter. Your shrunken little cube has now become a miniature Atlantic, brimming over the edge of the tray. That's the threat as I understand it.

Like I stated earlier. It's not the ice in the oceans people should be concerned about, it's the ice on the land.

 

[MACFLY]

in that respect, so is evolutionary theory, genetics, physics, epidemiology....

but even if you don't buy it, the biggest concerns (at least to me) aren't whether these are the hottest times in human history and pre-history, or the level to which we are responsible or they are perfectly natural; they are the impacts we can expect to see given our current population, societal structure, settlement patterns, agricultural demands, etc. the science behind the assertions that we are in for "interesting" times is pretty robust.

and let's be clear, "global climate change" was coined not because scientists couldn't make up their mind on whether things were warming or cooling, it was because of the oft assumed implication that "global warming" referred to an average warming at every point on earth, rather than a global average temperature rise. the disingenuous lampooning of the term has really gotten old.

(for the record, i am "pro-fracking"...whatever that means)

2 things
if its not settled science then it's certainly possible the trend could slow, stop,or reverse.

If it continues then the other side of the debate is there are some positive aspects to consider as well. The public has generally been led to believe its all bad news. Not really the case.

 

[CTobias]

2 things
if its not settled science then it's certainly possible the trend could slow, stop,or reverse.

If it continues then the other side of the debate is there are some positive aspects to consider as well. The public has generally been led to believe its all bad news. Not really the case.

Racist!!!!!

 

[eddavidson9]

2 things
if its not settled science then it's certainly possible the trend could slow, stop,or reverse.

If it continues then the other side of the debate is there are some positive aspects to consider as well. The public has generally been led to believe its all bad news. Not really the case.

anything *can* happen.

i would argue those still debating the scientific consensus (and it is just that; i know some say it isn't, but I think they are confused) that average global temps are rising, are likely rising at least in part due to anthropogenic inputs, and are going to have large impacts to society in both known and unpredictable ways in the not-very-distant future, are in denial.

now, if you want to debate how or whether policy should be informed by the data, that's great. i'm a firm believer that informed decisions are better decisions, and i'd like to see political discourse that actually respects the science, rather than tries to discredit it. it's unfortunate that our political system tends to lead us down this road. I mean, you're welcome to continue debating the data as well, but...this isn't like the FDA relying on cherry-picked observational data to come up with the once-beloved now-maligned food pyramid. there is quite literally a world of data and analysis behind this.

as a scientist and a consultant, i am inherently wary of absolutes. but i would say i have a "high degree of confidence" in the mainstream projections of climate scientists.

 

[CTobias]

but...this isn't like the FDA relying on cherry-picked observational data to come up with the once-beloved now-maligned food pyramid. there is quite literally a world of data and analysis behind this.

The food pyramid was another great scam by the government regarding food costs pertaining to people on food stamps and welfare. But that's another topic for another day.

...as a scientist and a consultant, i am inherently wary of absolutes. but i would say i have a "high degree of confidence" in the mainstream projections of climate scientists.

I don't think people are arguing that "climate change" or "global warming" is not happening. The thing that really concerns me is the government, particularly this administration, using it as an excuse to tax people even more in the form of a "carbon tax". Look who the benefactors would be from a carbon tax (GE is at the top of the list, and so is Al "I invented the internet" Gore).

Is there any data showing that this warming trend is strictly caused by humans? Also, what I want to know is who the f_ck is going to pay for all those emissions that caused the glaciers to melt and create the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes?!!?! Someone needs to be held accountable! Marty needs to fire up the Delorean and take us back in time so we can see who caused this mess.

 

[Trout Nazi]

anything *can* happen.

i would argue those still debating the scientific consensus (and it is just that; i know some say it isn't, but I think they are confused) that average global temps are rising, are likely rising at least in part due to anthropogenic inputs, and are going to have large impacts to society in both known and unpredictable ways in the not-very-distant future, are in denial.

now, if you want to debate how or whether policy should be informed by the data, that's great. i'm a firm believer that informed decisions are better decisions, and i'd like to see political discourse that actually respects the science, rather than tries to discredit it. it's unfortunate that our political system tends to lead us down this road. I mean, you're welcome to continue debating the data as well, but...this isn't like the FDA relying on cherry-picked observational data to come up with the once-beloved now-maligned food pyramid. there is quite literally a world of data and analysis behind this.

as a scientist and a consultant, i am inherently wary of absolutes. but i would say i have a "high degree of confidence" in the mainstream projections of climate scientists.

I don't see a scientific consensus, and I'm not confused either. I've also looked at some of this data used by both sides, and there is alot of cherry picking and conjecture here, especially around the anthropogenic inputs, with some pretty questionable conclusions drawn. As I scientist myself, I don't see how you can propose this theory, without any way of really proving it in the short-term, and now expect that society to react and impose policy around it. And politically, this is exactly like the FDA cherry picking, alot of folks have gotten rich off of this mania.

 

[eddavidson9]

I don't see a scientific consensus, and I'm not confused either. I've also looked at some of this data used by both sides, and there is alot of cherry picking and conjecture here, especially around the anthropogenic inputs, with some pretty questionable conclusions drawn. As I scientist myself, I don't see how you can propose this theory, without any way of really proving it in the short-term, and now expect that society to react and impose policy around it. And politically, this is exactly like the FDA cherry picking, alot of folks have gotten rich off of this mania.

you're right, you're not confused, you're in denial

anthropogenic is probably the weakest link. a lot of people are getting rich by delaying acceptance of the data as well.

 

[MACFLY]

I'm not a scientist but you don't need to be to look at how the data is formed ( i did stay at a holiday inn express though). when you use terms like " in denial" or climate deniers or mainstream science it's really a way to discredit any opposing view. That's fine but the result is that folks are actually more skeptical about global warming. There is a petition signed by over 31k (mainstream) scientists that disagree with the IPCC. Are they all in denial?

 

[CTobias]

There is a petition signed by over 31k (mainstream) scientists that disagree with the IPCC. Are they all in denial?

No. They're RACISTS!!! Al Gore said so.

Al Gore Compares Climate Change Deniers To Racists And Drunks

 

[Trout Nazi]

I'm not a scientist but you don't need to be to look at how the data is formed ( i did stay at a holiday inn express though). when you use terms like " in denial" or climate deniers or mainstream science it's really a way to discredit any opposing view. That's fine but the result is that folks are actually more skeptical about global warming. There is a petition signed by over 31k (mainstream) scientists that disagree with the IPCC. Are they all in denial?

Some of the folks in that 31k are guys like Freeman Dyson, who must be an idiot.

 

[Trout Nazi]

Also, what I want to know is who the f_ck is going to pay for all those emissions that caused the glaciers to melt and create the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes?!!?! Someone needs to be held accountable! Marty needs to fire up the Delorean and take us back in time so we can see who caused this mess.

While we're firing up the Delorean, let's go back 10000 years to the Gilf Kebir in the Sahara Desert, I'm sure those folks will want to get in on the class action lawsuit for drying up their lakefront property.

 

[eddavidson9]

There is a petition signed by over 31k (mainstream) scientists that disagree with the IPCC. Are they all in denial?

oh please

"Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change."

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
31,000 "Scientists" (Some Dead) Refute Global Warming

 

[Trout Nazi]

oh please

"Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change."

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 31,000 "Scientists" (Some Dead) Refute Global Warming

This is the best thing I've seen yet. A studies that study what other scientists think about a subject. These guys must really be bored.

 

[mob201]

This is the best thing I've seen yet. A studies that study what other scientists think about a subject. These guys must really be bored.

Right. Because, let me guess, your life is such an insane crazy thrill ride that you only have time for a) chasing dangerous blonds; b) engaging in high speed jet ski chases with colombian drug lords, and, c) oh yeah, catching up on your favorite fly fishing forum posts on climate change science.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Right. Because, let me guess, your life is such an insane crazy thrill ride that you only have time for a) chasing dangerous blonds; b) engaging in high speed jet ski chases with colombian drug lords, and, c) oh yeah, catching up on your favorite fly fishing forum posts on climate change science.

Spoken like a man who A) engages in not so obviously useful research; B) delights in reading/citing not so obviously useful research or C) teaches others using not so obviously useful research.

or D) all of the above...

 

[mob201]

Spoken like a man who A) engages in not so obviously useful research; B) delights in reading/citing not so obviously useful research or C) teaches others using not so obviously useful research.

or D) all of the above...

Useless research is my favorite kind. Actually, now that I think about it, "useless research" pretty accurately describes 90% of my time spent fly fishing. So, yeah, guilty as charged.

Here's me writing something really clever in very small font and throwing in some ellipses just for kicks...

 

[Future Fanatic]

Useless research is my favorite kind. Actually, now that I think about it, "useless research" pretty accurately describes 90% of my time spent fly fishing. So, yeah, guilty as charged.

Here's me writing something really clever in very small font and throwing in some ellipses just for kicks...

D

NAILED it, methinks.

and it doesn't pertain to the fishing...

 

[mob201]

I actually study scientists who study scientists who study scientists. It's very useful.

 

[Future Fanatic]

I actually study scientists who study scientists who study scientists. It's very useful.

Alright, I get it.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to tell us what research you've done or studied or taught about...

 

[mob201]

Alright, I get it.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to tell us what research you've done or studied or taught about...

Actually, yeah, please hold your breath. I'll tell you any minute now...

 

[Future Fanatic]

Actually, yeah, please hold your breath. I'll tell you any minute now...

And why wouldn't you... One should be proud of one's work...

Those ...s are infectious, yes?

 

[Trout Nazi]

And why wouldn't you... One should be proud of one's work...

Those ...s are infectious, yes?

Pretty sure his favorite "research" involves one hand on the mouse, other hand desperately searching for a box of Kleenex (or the ol' stands-on-it's-own sock).

 

[golden beetle]

Pretty sure his favorite "research" involves one hand on the mouse, other hand desperately searching for a box of Kleenex (or the ol' stands-on-it's-own sock).

Not sure how to respond to this...

But upon further review...

It appears your comment was not addressed to me.

 

[MACFLY]

oh please

"Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change."

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
31,000 "Scientists" (Some Dead) Refute Global Warming

Now this is interesting you referenced research (he tries not to laugh) from Naomi oreskes as an example of objective study. I assume you know her background and she is anything it objective. Then you have the study from cook in which a good portion of the survey work done show's many of the respondents have no position on AGW. This is rationalized as normal. Is this the kind of open debate and study you believe has proved overwhelmingly that we are the cause of global warming.

Listen this is a hugely important topic for everyone. Something this important should be debated and discussed in the public eye and not programmed into our kids in public school. Oreskes is hardly objective

 

[thrashers.wheat]

I had the same experience yesterday with fish rising early in the morning, although I was at a TCA in Hunterdon Co. Caught my first, that I can remember, wild rainbow at this particular TCA. Beautiful parr marks quite prevalent along it's 5-6" body. Just after a bald eagle flew overhead.

Now this is interesting you referenced research (he tries not to laugh) from Naomi oreskes as an example of objective study. I assume you know her background and she is anything it objective. Then you have the study from cook in which a good portion of the survey work done show's many of the respondents have no position on AGW. This is rationalized as normal. Is this the kind of open debate and study you believe has proved overwhelmingly that we are the cause of global warming.

Listen this is a hugely important topic for everyone. Something this important should be debated and discussed in the public eye and not programmed into our kids in public school. Oreskes is hardly objective

 

[mob201]

And why wouldn't you... One should be proud of one's work...

Those ...s are infectious, yes?

Sigh. Okay, look. This thread has taken a weirdly personal and also exceptionally boring turn. I'm pretty sure that NEFF'ers don't give a flying fuck what I do for a living and are glazing over at this point.

But I'll humor you. I have a Ph.D. from an ivy league university. I am involved in research, but I obviously consider it useful or I wouldn't do it. None of this has anything to do with my post accusing TN of failing to meet the James Bond standard of interesting lifestyle. My point was: who's more bored, the scientists doing research on other climate change scientists, or the boobs reading about their findings and discussing them online? Pretty basic.

"Proud of one's work?" I am. I'm not however proud of the amount of time and effort I put into this (admittedly awesome) fly fishing forum. And that's why I'm not in any extraordinary rush to go into more detail about where I work and who I work with. I believe that's my prerogative.

Now that we've settled that, what precisely is your deal? Are you still burned about that chart thing? I hope not. Are you burned about something else I posted, some other time? If so, my sincerest apologies. I basically post questions and answers about fishing here. What do you do?