|
Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/15/2015 7:50:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Wow, gotto love cherry picked articles. The first one, which has a clear anti AGW bias, should be ignored for obvious reasons as it has 0 credibility in the field of science. As to the second, I love how you miss this little nugget:
quote:
Knowledge of the heat distribution beneath Thwaites Glacier is crucial information that enables ice sheet modelers to more accurately predict the response of the glacier to the presence of a warming ocean.
This research in no way refutes that the ocean or climate is warming, it simply adds to the already established understanding of a warming ocean and atmosphere to better understand the melting process of the Antarctic ice sheets. Got any more cherry picked science you'd like to provide?
And I love how you don't even understand that the two articles are linked by the term "natural causes" in the first article nor do you apparently understand that the two articles are about the same findings by the same group at the same university.
Hmmmmm...do you suppose your outlook might have anything to do with the fact that the first article (same subject material as the second article) came from Breitbart? I'll bet it does.
I think you missed this little tidbit, no matter how minor it is. "But according to a new report from the Institute For Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt may not, after all, be the direct result of man’s selfishness, greed, and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle. Rather, it seems, it is the result of natural causes.
Lol, I didn't miss it at all, I do know that it's about the same exact article. But your quote isn't something the researchers said, it was what the author himself from Breitbart stated. It wasn't written as a quote, it was his own personal opinion as a journalist, not a researcher. If you're going to quote someone, quote the researchers themselves, or at the very least quote a source more renowned for their legitimacy when it comes to science. Cherry pick away, because you just keep missing the big picture.
Also it wasn't the exact same content as the second, because first off, there is no where in the second article the term "alarmist" which is indicative of deniers such as the author of the first link. No where in the second article do they even claim that this negates what is known about climate change. Seriously, did you even read either of them?
Then difference between the first article and the second article is the first one imposes the author's bias and opinion on the research, while the second merely states the findings, what the research means and where it could lead in future endeavours to further understand the antarctic. If you can't see that then you really need to figure out the difference between opinions and science.
Oh, I get it...you might want to practice a bit of it yourself. You might want to look again...I never said it was the same content. Nor did I make a claim that they do any denial of global warming. As a matter of fact, while they note the effect of the sea water on the ice and the heat from below, they never mention a word about the effect of CO2 on the ice.
"The combination of variable subglacial geothermal heat flow and the interacting subglacial water system could threaten the stability of Thwaites Glacier in ways that we never before imagined," Schroeder said.
...seriously? They never mention a word on the effect of CO2 on the ice, BECAUSE the gas CO2 doesn't directly affect the ice. Your entire argument is based on ignorance regarding the properties of CO2, nice job, way to swing the argument in your favour. Here's a little elementary climate science: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that it traps and re-radiates infrared radiation which was originally meant to escape back out into space after being reflected off the earth's surface. This warms the atmosphere and by extension, the land, ocean, and yes, even ice such as glaciers and the antarctic ice sheets. This is called the greenhouse effect, which is what keeps our world within a range of temperatures suitable for life, and is maintained through a variety of natural, non human affected methods such as weathering and volcanic eruptions, just to name a couple. CO2 itself has no effect on ice, the only issue regarding the gas is that it traps heat and this extra energy results in a variety of climatic changes beyond simple warming (hence the reason why we call it climate change instead of global warming these days, since it's more accurate to what's happening.)
This is high school science dude, if you can't get that right, then what reason do you have to refute the science of 97% of the industry's professionals?
Edit to add:
In the case I mistook your statement about them not mentioning CO2's impact on the ice (which I now assume you meant to say they didn't mention a warmer ocean & atmosphere's impact on the ice), the reason they never mentioned it was because they weren't looking at how a warming ocean and atmosphere affected the ice. They were looking at what other contributions to the decreasing ice might exist, and by not mentioning a warming climate's impacts does not mean that a warming climate has NO impacts on the melting ice or that there is no warming climate so to speak. Climate change is established science, each and every scientific article doesn't need to reiterate something as established and well understood as climate change, and even if they dont it's not an omission that climate change isn't happening. I mean, I dont think Harry Potter or any of the other characters in the story mentioned the bible or jesus christ, does that mean Harry and all his friends were satanists? Seriously, if that's the logic you're thinking with then it's pretty backward when you think it through.
|
|
|
|
