Search results

I'm not. I don't need to show anyone pictures of bears on icebergs to discuss climate change. In fact if you read what I said, you'd see that I didn't even suggest that the polar bears are facing extinction, like many others do.

Ok. Another image of the same thing: Animation of the yearly changes in ice age: Ice thickness measured from the ICESat satellite: from this study: Thinning and volume loss of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover: 2003–2008 Arctic yearly minimum ice extent By all measures, Arctic ice is...

Quebec has their own plan, BC has their carbon tax, I think Ontario has something as well. But it's Canada who signed the treaty, not BC, not Quebec, and not Ontario. Those provinces are represented at the COP-15 in Copenhagen, as they represent 75% of the Canadian population, and they want...

It hasn't translated to any progress Ron. That would be the nothing part. There are technologies now that can make progress, but we've ignored that, ignored large-scale efficiency measures, ignored opportunities in favour of projects that even if they are successful, are many years out in the...

Everyone talks about coal plants. The advocate scientist Jim Hansen who has testified before Congress on multiple occasions, has called coal the enemy of the human race. People don't say too much about Europe, because they actually met their Kyoto obligations. Yes, that's right, it's actually...

The thing about polar bears is really uncertain. The multi-year ice is disappearing fast, but it's not the ice that the bears hunt on, because the seals can't build dens in that thick ice. The polar bears hunt on the one-year ice that folds up with shifting winds and currents, and catches snow...

I do my best to contain the ignorance. Walter's not going to change. Random internet traffic might include those looking for answers, and they should know these things aren't up to the whims of an editorializing/opinionated journalist. :smile:

What is definitive? I didn't see any attribution there at all. Pointing at graphs is a good way to show relationships, but it's not very informative for attributing the spikes, dips, and plateaus to particular causes or interactions. The evidence gathered doesn't point to a transient climate...

Carbon dioxide is not the limiting nutrient. These assertions are not grounded in reality.

Some people took their commitments seriously. The EU makes it's goals without any off-sets. Including off-sets it's a larger reduction.

The thinking goes Ron, that the Annex I countries can most afford to make changes first of all. The keen observer will note that the Annex I countries contributions will not meet the global requirement. Cuts will have to come in the developing countries as well. But the technologies initially...

The scientists inform the policy makers. What the policy makers do or do not do is out of the hands of the scientists.

No, that's the world political community who give them that status, not the climate change community. :roll:

Yeah, but I don't know if it's worth much, what I said... Thanks, but again you'd probably be better asking Nif or Dex, or Durka. :smile: My fix is to smack the machine into submission. :lol:

Anna, Dexter, of Niflmir. I can only speculate. I'm not very strong when it comes to particle physics...I think if there was no change in the field strength only the orientation, that there wouldn't be much of an effect, except perhaps where the cosmogenic isotopes are entering the atmosphere...

Anybody happen to know what happens when you put plants in a greenhouse with higher temperature, and higher carbon dioxide, without giving them additional water and other nutrients? They don't exhibit better growth, except for very specific species. Carbon dioxide is not the limiting nutrient...

They will. See my thread here. Congratulations are in order Walt! When do you get your official conspiracy theorist membership card? DarkBeaver can help you out with the list of reference websites, though I know you visit quite a few already.

Blah blah blah. How does charge influence absorption and emission? How do you use charge to derive the influence of specific forms of matter in the atmosphere on specific wavelengths? How do you reconcile your claims regarding charge to spectroscopic measurements? Show me, don't tell me...

You said our climate is totally a product of the sun. Not true. Without an optically thick atmosphere the temperature change daily would be hundreds of degrees from sunlight to darkness, and the average temperature on Earth would be close to zero.

The science is settled says the beaver. He can't point it out to us if asked, but so sayeth the dark rodent so we must accept his decrees. You've been chewing on bad wood beaver. The methanol is affecting your faculties.