#1
I present to you the story of "Glacier Girl".
THis P-38 Lighting aircraft was part of a WW-2 squadron that was forced to land and was abandoned in a remote part of Greenland. Years later the squadron was located and after a massive effort this aircraft was recovered. From under 268FT of ICE! That's nearly the length of a football field deep, of ice that accumulated since the 1940's.
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-continued.htm
Just something to think about while you're hearing about how the glaciers are melting.
1/2 my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Last edited by EL Conquestidor at Jul 7, 2007,
#2
Quote by EL Conquestidor
Just something to think about while you're hearing about how the glaciers are melting.


What? That glaciermelting sometimes reveal aircrafts? Seems like a good thing to me.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#3
Quote by Kensai
What? That glaciermelting sometimes reveal aircrafts? Seems like a good thing to me.



Or Transformers...


MEGATRON!


I'm such a nerd
UG's Official Stuffed Toy! Because I am so cuddly wuddly


I LOVE KENSAI
#4
Quote by Kensai
What? That glaciermelting sometimes reveal aircrafts? Seems like a good thing to me.

-----------------
This plane wasn't "revealed" by melting ice.
They tunneled in and dug a huge cavern around the plane. Then dismantled it and brought it up piece by piece.
1/2 my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
#6
the whole thing is blown out of proportion -I say, it's a superstition which has taken an almost Religious aspect... Carbon footprints? Bull - I'd just change my shoes if they were that dirty, but what can you do... We live in an age when people are so damn easily led through guilt & been made to feel small for daft reasons (you wash at 40, HOW DARE YOU!!! for example - The person who said to me was crapping tablets for a week & speaking with a rabies-like froth in his mouth ), and I'm fed up of it
The rig:
Gibson SG faded special -> Marshall MG 50/100 (working on a valve amp)
Backup: Vintage AV1
Newcastle United
#7
Quote by RaNdoM-FeLiX
Or Transformers...


MEGATRON!


I'm such a nerd


Its ok. I though the same thing too.
Quote by Alix_D
Never heard of Seinfeld, what kind of music do they play? Assuming they use Kramers, it must be heavy!




*PEYTON*
#8
its perfectly normal for glaciers to melt... its what happens

all these fools obbsessed with making climate change sound worse than it is just use this commonly known fact and exagerate the matter
#9
2007 Hottest Summer in Canada... Go Global warming !!!
█████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
█████████████████
#10
Quote by EL Conquestidor
I present to you the story of "Glacier Girl".
THis P-38 Lighting aircraft was part of a WW-2 squadron that was forced to land and was abandoned in a remote part of Greenland. Years later the squadron was located and after a massive effort this aircraft was recovered. From under 268FT of ICE! That's nearly the length of a football field deep, of ice that accumulated since the 1940's.
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-continued.htm
Just something to think about while you're hearing about how the glaciers are melting.


Anecdotes Vs. Science:
The Big Debate


/sarcasm

You're a fool.
Quote by GlamSpam

I developed a thought experiment to explain why you can't remember anything before you were born:
#12
Quote by AxeMan88uk
its perfectly normal for glaciers to melt... its what happens

all these fools obbsessed with making climate change sound worse than it is just use this commonly known fact and exagerate the matter

Exactly my point, it has been proven that in the past the climate has shifted drastically several times (that is why we have the gulf stream) and humans weren't involved.
#13
Quote by suffer some
Anecdotes Vs. Science:
The Big Debate


/sarcasm

You're a fool.

Yea, it's just a shame that climate change experts are just looking for data which fits their theory, rather than collecting data and building a theory from that, since they quite enthusiastically ignore evidence that doesn't fit with "people bad, nature good".
#14
Climate changed happens. All earth scientists will agree on that. In the cretacious period (dinosaurs etc) there was no permanent ice on the earth. I think we're still techniqually in an ice age since theres permanently ice in the north and south poles.

However, theres no denying (scientifically) that this current climate change is happening very fast in geological time and is induced by humans.
#15
Quote by StonaLemons
Climate changed happens. All earth scientists will agree on that. In the cretacious period (dinosaurs etc) there was no permanent ice on the earth. I think we're still techniqually in an ice age since theres permanently ice in the north and south poles.

However, theres no denying (scientifically) that this current climate change is happening very fast in geological time and is induced by humans.

Technically, it's an interglacial period(glaciers present, but receding), and we've been in it for tens of thousands of years.
Therer's plenty of denying it's induced by humans, Some human activity may well be speeding it up, but considering a little under 2000 years ago, it was warm enough to grow vines in Newcastle, but you wouldn't manage it now.
#16
Quote by MightyAl
Technically, it's an interglacial period(glaciers present, but receding), and we've been in it for tens of thousands of years.
Therer's plenty of denying it's induced by humans, Some human activity may well be speeding it up, but considering a little under 2000 years ago, it was warm enough to grow vines in Newcastle, but you wouldn't manage it now.

Thats why i covered myself with 'i think' :p... but isn't it still an ice age if its glacial or interglacial?

i think theres also another theory that the sun is outputting more solar energy than previously, although i may be getting that confused with the russian blokes astrological theory (earth tilt/orbit around sun changing)

I hadn't heard about vines in newcastle. 2000 years isn't too long time i suppose, though scientists are talking about 1-3 degrees increase in a matter of 100 or 200 years now... thats faster than ever seen before.
#17
Quote by StonaLemons
Thats why i covered myself with 'i think' :p... but isn't it still an ice age if its glacial or interglacial?

i think theres also another theory that the sun is outputting more solar energy than previously, although i may be getting that confused with the russian blokes astrological theory (earth tilt/orbit around sun changing)

I hadn't heard about vines in newcastle. 2000 years isn't too long time i suppose, though scientists are talking about 1-3 degrees increase in a matter of 100 or 200 years now... thats faster than ever seen before.

Actually it's not. There is one instance where they believe the average temperature rose by 10 degrees in that time, although of course, that's not certain.
There are more theories than you can count on climate change. I just don't believe any of them has conclusive evidence.
#18
Quote by MightyAl
Yea, it's just a shame that climate change experts are just looking for data which fits their theory, rather than collecting data and building a theory from that, since they quite enthusiastically ignore evidence that doesn't fit with "people bad, nature good".


What's an example of such data? I mean, you analyse climate change data from around the world and you take your conclusions from that. Are you suggesting that they're biased in collecting the data? I mean, do you think they're just handpicking glacier data from glaciers that are melting, and ignoring glaciers that are growing?

Are you suggesting intellectual dishonesty on the part of a great many distinguished scientists? These people certainly aren't biased by mistake; they're highly trained, highly intelligent people. You must be suggesting they're dishonest.

Quote by MightyAl
Technically, it's an interglacial period(glaciers present, but receding), and we've been in it for tens of thousands of years.
Therer's plenty of denying it's induced by humans, Some human activity may well be speeding it up, but considering a little under 2000 years ago, it was warm enough to grow vines in Newcastle, but you wouldn't manage it now.


1. Vines in Newcastle = anecdotal evidence.

2. Global warming doesn't mean that the whole world heats up a couple of degrees everywhere. The climate is much more complex than that. The average temperature will certainly rise but, for example, if the El Nino phenomenon were to stop (which is a possibility) then the UK would become much much colder on average.

3. Few informed people deny that humans have caused some of the change. Many uniformed people do, on the basis of anecdotal and/or distorted evidence such as that just presented by you.

Quote by shav0r
Exactly my point, it has been proven that in the past the climate has shifted drastically several times (that is why we have the gulf stream) and humans weren't involved.


That doesn't prove that we aren't involved this time. I mean, you must see that your logic here isn't exactly infallible (to say the least).

Quote by MightyAl
Actually it's not. There is one instance where they believe the average temperature rose by 10 degrees in that time, although of course, that's not certain.
There are more theories than you can count on climate change. I just don't believe any of them has conclusive evidence.


What? I've never heard of that. The only similar thing I've heard of is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Are you sure you mean degrees celsius?
Quote by GlamSpam

I developed a thought experiment to explain why you can't remember anything before you were born:
Last edited by suffer some at Jul 7, 2007,
#19
Quote by suffer some
What's an example of such data? I mean, you analyse climate change data from around the world and you take your conclusions from that. Are you suggesting that they're biased in collecting the data? I mean, do you think they're just handpicking glacier data from glaciers that are melting, and ignoring glaciers that are growing?

Are you suggesting intellectual dishonesty on the part of a great many distinguished scientists? These people certainly aren't biased by mistake; they're highly trained, highly intelligent people. You must be suggesting they're dishonest.

Indeed I am, because much of their research funding relies on governments who have a green agenda to push. There in fact exists quite a lot of evidence that is conveniently forgotten to suit the theory that humans are causing climate change.


1. Vines in Newcastle = anecdotal evidence.

Actually, that evidence comes from written sources dated to the period.

2. Global warming doesn't mean that the whole world heats up a couple of degrees everywhere. The climate is much more complex than that. The average temperature will certainly rise but, for example, if the El Nino phenomenon were to stop (which is a possibility) then the UK would become much much colder on average.
Global warming means the average temperature of the world(ie the global part) rises(as in warming). Hence the name.

3. Few informed people deny that humans have caused some of the change. Many uniformed people do, on the basis of anecdotal and/or distorted evidence such as that just presented by you.
I'm not denying it, I am asserting that there is not conclusive proof, because accurate temperature measurements go back at most 150 years. Anything before that is an estimate, based on the theory that atmospheric CO2 levels are directly related to temperature. Since all we can accurately measure are CO2 levels from air frozen within glaciers, there is no proof of a cause/effect relationship.


That doesn't prove that we aren't involved this time. I mean, you must see that your logic here isn't exactly infallible (to say the least).
I never said it didn't. it merely disproves the claim that climate change may not be natural.
#20
Quote by MightyAl
Indeed I am, because much of their research funding relies on governments who have a green agenda to push. There in fact exists quite a lot of evidence that is conveniently forgotten to suit the theory that humans are causing climate change.


That's total bull****. For several reasons:

1. Many of the scientists who agree with antropogenic climate change are tenured scientists in American unversities. They don't get paid depending on how much research money they get, and they can't be fired for not bringing in enough money either. Further, tenured scientists are generally the most distinguished in their profession. So you're arguing that the cream of American academia will lie for pretty much no reason (since their jobs don't depend on it).

2. I would rofl every time I hear that there are some big hidden interests in pushing global warming science, if it wasn't so sad. Look at this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The only real dissenting organisation is the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists". Because the fact is that there are much bigger business interests in denying global warming than there are in admitting it.

3. See the above link for the scientific consensus.

Quote by MightyAl
Actually, that evidence comes from written sources dated to the period.


.... which means it's anecdotal evidence. Check your definition.

Quote by MightyAl
Global warming means the average temperature of the world(ie the global part) rises(as in warming). Hence the name.


My point was that vines growing in Newcastle because it used to be warmer there don't prove anything, because global warming doesn't mean that everywhere gets hotter. Because if some places get very much hotter and others get a bit cooler, you can still have the average increase that constitutes global warming (obviously). Some places will get/are getting colder.

Quote by MightyAl
I'm not denying it, I am asserting that there is not conclusive proof, because accurate temperature measurements go back at most 150 years. Anything before that is an estimate, based on the theory that atmospheric CO2 levels are directly related to temperature. Since all we can accurately measure are CO2 levels from air frozen within glaciers, there is no proof of a cause/effect relationship.


I admit there's some uncertainty about it. But, given the balance of risks, there remains EASILY enough evidence supporting it to justify immediate and drastic action.

Conclusive proof would be:

You have two earths with exactly the same history until the beginning of human expansionism. One of them then has human activity releasing greenhouse gasses, the other does not. Look at what the climate does.

This is an impractical experiment, to say the least. Conclusive proof will never be found. But the fact that we have observations of climate change coupled with a solid theory means that it's pretty silly to seriously deny it.

Also, we can measure temperatures from thousands of years ago better than you think. Whilst one study alone may not be that accurate, the many that have been done, when taken together, don't have a great variation in estimated temperatures.
Quote by GlamSpam

I developed a thought experiment to explain why you can't remember anything before you were born:
#21
Quote by suffer some
That's total bull****. For several reasons:

1. Many of the scientists who agree with antropogenic climate change are tenured scientists in American unversities. They don't get paid depending on how much research money they get, and they can't be fired for not bringing in enough money either. Further, tenured scientists are generally the most distinguished in their profession. So you're arguing that the cream of American academia will lie for pretty much no reason (since their jobs don't depend on it).
Many doesn't mean all. And just because they are currently 'the cream of American academia' does not mean they are right. But the reason they would lie is quite simple. Noone pays any attention to a scientist who says 'it's all going to be fine' or 'it's not our fault'. The world currently seems to enjoy wallowing in guilt and self pity over this, so endorsing anthropogenic climate change gets their research published in prominant journals and their names in the public conciousness. Scientists, especially good ones, are prone to ego massage as well.

2. I would rofl every time I hear that there are some big hidden interests in pushing global warming science, if it wasn't so sad. Look at this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The only real dissenting organisation is the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists". Because the fact is that there are much bigger business interests in denying global warming than there are in admitting it.
Given that there is a finite supple of crude oil left in the world, it is in their interests to lead the field in developing its replacement, or they will be ruined when it does run out.

3. See the above link for the scientific consensus.
It's wikipedia ffs. if it told me grass is green, i'd go outside and check.


.... which means it's anecdotal evidence. Check your definition.
The written evidence is fairly conclusive. If it's fake, it's a very, very thourough fake.



My point was that vines growing in Newcastle because it used to be warmer there don't prove anything, because global warming doesn't mean that everywhere gets hotter. Because if some places get very much hotter and others get a bit cooler, you can still have the average increase that constitutes global warming (obviously). Some places will get/are getting colder.
It's why i prefer the term climate change. Although when this is used, many people take that to mean that the climate has only just started changing, rather than being in a constant state of change(even if it does go through cyclical phases).


I admit there's some uncertainty about it. But, given the balance of risks, there remains EASILY enough evidence supporting it to justify immediate and drastic action.
Perhaps. And, as i mentioned earlier, it is at least in the interest of petrochemical firms to be in on this now, while there's still enough oil to keep them rich.

Conclusive proof would be:

You have two earths with exactly the same history until the beginning of human expansionism. One of them then has human activity releasing greenhouse gasses, the other does not. Look at what the climate does.

This is an impractical experiment, to say the least. Conclusive proof will never be found. But the fact that we have observations of climate change coupled with a solid theory means that it's pretty silly to seriously deny it.

Also, we can measure temperatures from thousands of years ago better than you think. Whilst one study alone may not be that accurate, the many that have been done, when taken together, don't have a great variation in estimated temperatures.

I agree, that's an impossible experiment. However, i simply don't believe that the processes behind climate change(even climate change without the possible effects of industrial society) are well enough understood quite yet.
And also I hate wind turbines, and smug cyclists.
#22
what does that show about global warming or melting glaciers?

its talking about people digging a plane out of a couple hundred feet of snow and ice.

am i missing something really obvious here?
#23
For what it's worth, in the days of the Roman Empire, they were comfortably able to grow olives & wine grapes in the north of England ( Newcastle, Carlisle, etc.)... If you tried that nowadays, you wouldn't get very far. Why? Because it's too bloody cold for 'em. Also, the first ice age - Sometimes, the earth's orbit just moves further away and closer to the sun by small amounts, but it makes a helluva difference. Okay, so maybe we have created a hole in the O-zone layer to the point where it could do with a giant toupe' to cover the blading patch. BUT the whole things' been blown WAY out of proportion. and besides, try telling us in Britain & others spots that things getting Warmer would be a bad thing... We don;t get white christmases anyways, so what's there to lose?
The rig:
Gibson SG faded special -> Marshall MG 50/100 (working on a valve amp)
Backup: Vintage AV1
Newcastle United
#24
you know what ill solve this whole problem. if its cold put on a ****ing coat. if its hot wear some damn shorts. and **** all the global warming ****. dress for the weather and **** global warming.
Quote by fallenangel20

And thanks MotleyCrueSATD, that was pretty awesome.


Quote by hemi-san
the truth he speaks well, harken unto his word.
#25
Quote by MightyAl
Many doesn't mean all. And just because they are currently 'the cream of American academia' does not mean they are right. But the reason they would lie is quite simple. Noone pays any attention to a scientist who says 'it's all going to be fine' or 'it's not our fault'. The world currently seems to enjoy wallowing in guilt and self pity over this, so endorsing anthropogenic climate change gets their research published in prominant journals and their names in the public conciousness. Scientists, especially good ones, are prone to ego massage as well.
Given that there is a finite supple of crude oil left in the world, it is in their interests to lead the field in developing its replacement, or they will be ruined when it does run out.


That's just flat out wrong. Sorry. There is scientific consensus. You're presenting an extremely weak argument based on generalisations about human psychology e.g. "noone pays any attention to a scientist who says 'it's all going to be fine'.", "Especially good scientists are prone to ego massage".

Really, I've had this argument before, and it's just absurd that there is a conspiracy of this magnitude. Let me state the same point about tenured scientists in a slightly different way: almost all scientists with tenure (i.e. the best scientists) broadly concurr with the scientific consensus. And many of these people obtained tenure well before there was the weight of evidence behind global warming that there is now, so they didn't obtain their positions on the basis of not being radical.

And your argument about the oil companies is plain daft. Just daft. For an example of why, just look at what RCA did when they invented FM radio.

Quote by MightyAl
It's wikipedia ffs. if it told me grass is green, i'd go outside and check.


So check. It's not hard. That's a well-sourced, easily confirmed article.

Quote by MightyAl
The written evidence is fairly conclusive. If it's fake, it's a very, very thourough fake.


... ummm.

... you still don't understand what "anecdotal evidence" means. It doesn't mean "fake".
Quote by GlamSpam

I developed a thought experiment to explain why you can't remember anything before you were born:
#26
Quote by suffer some
That's just flat out wrong. Sorry. There is scientific consensus. You're presenting an extremely weak argument based on generalisations about human psychology e.g. "noone pays any attention to a scientist who says 'it's all going to be fine'.", "Especially good scientists are prone to ego massage".
Well, considering the most concieted people I have ever met are research scientists, your assertion that that's wrong cuts no ice with me.

Really, I've had this argument before, and it's just absurd that there is a conspiracy of this magnitude. Let me state the same point about tenured scientists in a slightly different way: almost all scientists with tenure (i.e. the best scientists) broadly concurr with the scientific consensus. And many of these people obtained tenure well before there was the weight of evidence behind global warming that there is now, so they didn't obtain their positions on the basis of not being radical.
Tenure is very often obtained by those who do not rock the boat. In science terms, 'best' is often counted as whoever gets their name on the most published works, and the methods by which many scientists with tenure boost these counts are distinctly unethical.

And your argument about the oil companies is plain daft. Just daft. For an example of why, just look at what RCA did when they invented FM radio.
This sin't a legal argument. Precedent doesn't make or break things.


So check. It's not hard. That's a well-sourced, easily confirmed article.
And? Consensus was once that all illnesses derived from an imbalance in the 4 humours.


... ummm.

... you still don't understand what "anecdotal evidence" means. It doesn't mean "fake".

I understand what it is. It may be anecdotal, but the amount of evidence(and lack of any evidence to the contrary) points towards it being true.
#27
Quote by MightyAl
Well, considering the most concieted people I have ever met are research scientists, your assertion that that's wrong cuts no ice with me.
Tenure is very often obtained by those who do not rock the boat. In science terms, 'best' is often counted as whoever gets their name on the most published works, and the methods by which many scientists with tenure boost these counts are distinctly unethical.


Again, anecdotal evidence cuts no ice. I don't care about research scientists you've met, I care about the balance of incentives/economics of research science in general.

You're just babbling now. 'Best' isn't ever ever ever counted as whoever gets their name on the most published works. And, as I've stated, tenured scientists have no incentive other than ego to boost these counts, and it's actually totally stupid for them to do it by publishing falsifiable conclusions.

And your argument still rests on the absurd concept of a global scientific conspiracy. That, or on an equally ubsurd idea about the economics of scientific research that would mean that there were trends of "fashion" in science, with tenured scientists agreeing with their underlings (non-tenured scientists) just to be in vogue.

Quote by MightyAl

This sin't a legal argument. Precedent doesn't make or break things.


I was giving an example of another case when a company/industry had little economic incentive to revolutionise. It's difficult to give examples from the future, so I was left to give an example from the past. Oh no!

The fact is that the economic incentives for petroleum companies to get involved in green technologies are, at this stage, totally limited to the good publicity they can receive by getting involved. I can't be bothered arguing in more detail, but it's obvious to me that they make their money from oil, and that the longer it is before consumers turn to green technologies properly, the longer they can keep making money out of something they have a lot of money and technology invested in. Simple, I think.

In short: saying oil companies have an incentive to get involved with green technologies is like saying that oil companies have an incentive to get involved in organic farming, or fashion retail, or anything else for that matter. They will eventually need to change to survive, but they have absolutely no incentive to make that change come about before oil becomes more expensive to extract, or before governments bring in carbon taxes that make selling oil too expensive.

Quote by MightyAl
And? Consensus was once that all illnesses derived from an imbalance in the 4 humours.


Scientific consensus. Totally different thing, and you know it.

Quote by MightyAl
I understand what it is. It may be anecdotal, but the amount of evidence(and lack of any evidence to the contrary) points towards it being true.


yet again... ummm...one last time, ok: I completely accept that at one time you may have been able to grown vines in Newcastle. I completely accepted that somebody might have written about it, and that you read it and taken it as fact. That's fine. But you're missing the point. The trouble with anecdotal evidence isn't that it's false, it's that it has no scientific relevance to the case in point i.e. whether global warming is real. You were presenting it as evidence of why global warming science should be doubted, when it is nothing of the sort.
Quote by GlamSpam

I developed a thought experiment to explain why you can't remember anything before you were born:
Last edited by suffer some at Jul 7, 2007,