Blah, blah, blah,...,same old bullshit, same old bullshit, same old bullshit,..., blah, blah, blah.

For clarification....

...the Nature article cited referred to a study published in another journal. That study monitoring comprehensively the glacial retreat in Swiss glaciers came to the conclusion that the observed glacial retreat may not be solely caused by AGW. Other causes like natural fluctuations in the ocean temperature and other factors may contribute up to 50% of the glacial retreat in Swiss glaciers. The article also clearly stated that the anthropogenic effect through greenhouses gases can and should not be dismissed and can become even more critical in the future....

Here's a different perspective on the issue.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that 90% of the greenhouse gases are emitted naturally and only 10% are emitted by humans. Let's also assume that the planet is able to absorb that 90% naturally, so the natural emissions are more or less in equilibrium with the planet's absorption rate.

In this scenario, the addition of the greenhouse gases casued by humans becomes very important because the total emissions now exceed the planet's ability to absorb the greenhouse gases and the the absorption rate is no longer in equilibrium with the rate of emissions.

The precise percentages above are not known; however the argument holds that the amount of CO2 emissions by humans (30 billion metric tons per year) could have a significant impact on global warming, even if it is just a fraction of the total amount of emissions.

Buz Groshong wrote:Blah, blah, blah,...,same old bullshit, same old bullshit, same old bullshit,..., blah, blah, blah.

+1

Alpinist wrote:Here's a different perspective on the issue.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that 90% of the greenhouse gases are emitted naturally and only 10% are emitted by humans. Let's also assume that the planet is able to absorb that 90% naturally, so the natural emissions are more or less in equilibrium with the planet's absorption rate.

In this scenario, the addition of the greenhouse gases casued by humans becomes very important because the total emissions now exceed the planet's ability to absorb the greenhouse gases and the the absorption rate is no longer in equilibrium with the rate of emissions.

The precise percentages above are not known; however the argument holds that the amount of CO2 emissions by humans (30 billion metric tons per year) could have a significant impact on global warming, even if it is just a fraction of the total amount of emissions.

Alpinist, it's logical thinking like this that lies behind the entire AGW problem. Reasoning helped produce the technology that we all use today. That technology emits the carbon that causes all the problems.

Stop thinking, dammit.

butitsadryheat wrote:

charles wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

charles wrote:Interestingly you´r piece said that 50% was not due to human actions - so that´s 50% is - still looks sort of bad to me. I always thought the main argument about GW was that we are contributing to it.

I thing it makes a great difference whether it is a 100%, or just 50%, (just think if your income fell by 50%!).

For one thing, it means that whatever we do, we cannot change the part that is not due to the greenhouse effect. So even if, at terrible cost, we were able to keep greenhouse gases completely constant, you would still have half the glacial retreat we see now.

Furthermore, it is the first time Nature publishes an article, where someone expressly states "It is a question of scientific honesty to admit that not all the effects of climate change are solely the result of increased greenhouse gases." That would have been unthinkable before the IPCC's less fortunate foray into Himalayan glaciology.

Come on Ejnar, 50% is 50% - for either case, you can´t have one side without the other. Anyway to add another example to your´s, if smoking was responsible for 50% of all deaths and not 100% as was maybe previously thought, would you consider smoking to be ok?
Why would glacial retreat stay the same (or have I missed something?) if we reduce the 50% caused by man?

I think he meant that 50% was once attributed to humans, but now they can't be sure. If the other 50% was natural, and now the other 50% couldn't necessarily be attributed to humans? Along that line? Since the 50% retreat claim has been debunked? Maybe only 25% retreat, based on natural retreat?
I think I'm going in circles, but I think that is what he meant Maybe?

Hey, right, thanks for er, explaining that one sort of

Buz Groshong wrote:Blah, blah, blah,...,same old bullshit, same old bullshit, same old bullshit,..., blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, didn't you know all that Nature publishes is bullshit. Trust only in people who fake data! What idiot would spend years collecting data, when you can astonish the world with fake data you cooked up in five minutes?

But what's the matter, your vocabulary seems to be shrinking all the time. Maybe you should see a doctor, Alzheimer's is a dreadful disease, and after all not unknown at 65!

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

Arthur Digbee wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

Ejnar's retired now.

That hardly makes me a senile idiot, as you may have observed!

Not a senile idiot yet.

As life expectancies continue to increase, more and more of us can look forward to ending up as a senile idiot.

Arthur Digbee wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

Arthur Digbee wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

Ejnar's retired now.

That hardly makes me a senile idiot, as you may have observed!

Not a senile idiot yet.

As life expectancies continue to increase, more and more of us can look forward to ending up as a senile idiot.

Children born in western societies since 2000 are expected to reach 100

charles wrote:

Arthur Digbee wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

Arthur Digbee wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:As a scientist you should never cite only the work that fits your opinion.

Ejnar's retired now.

That hardly makes me a senile idiot, as you may have observed!

Not a senile idiot yet.

As life expectancies continue to increase, more and more of us can look forward to ending up as a senile idiot.

Children born in western societies since 2000 are expected to reach 100

But on the other hand it has been realized for some tine, that senility (dementia) is not a consequence of old age itself, but mainly due to Alzheimer's disease (that sometimes can begin even around forty). People who don't get it may continue to have nearly undiminished mental faculties long after 90, I have known several people of that age who were about as bright as when they were half that old. My mother-in-law read a popular book on cell biology I wrote when she was over 90, and would call me on the phone if there was something she wanted to know more about. The first time she really understood the steps from DNA to protein, she said.

Is this News? Someone that feels Everest is a waste of money?


http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/07/08/10-destinations-not-to-visit/?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl5|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.travel.aol.com%2F2010%2F07%2F08%2F10-destinations-not-to-visit%2F

John Duffield wrote:Is this News? Someone that feels Everest is a waste of money?


http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/07/08/10-destinations-not-to-visit/?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl5|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.travel.aol.com%2F2010%2F07%2F08%2F10-destinations-not-to-visit%2F

Perhaps it would have been better if K2 was the highest!

peladoboton wrote:

Buz Groshong wrote:Blah, blah, blah,...,same old burning bags of poop,..., blah, blah, blah.

(my edit )

Oh, my feelings are so hurt that you don't approve.