INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Discouraging news on arctic ice melt: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/arctic-ice-idINL1E8KJB5F20120919
And Antarctic Ice caps are at record highs, while the evidence of anthropoenic global warming continues to collapse in the face of scrutiny and the falacy of "fossil fuel" subsidies iw repeated by the "kool aid" gang.
More chicken little speculation of what might happen that has been proven wrong again and again.
Well, anon @7:01 p.m., the Arctic Ice sheet melt this summer is said to be unprecedented, and the American Meteorological Society says the Antarctic Cap has lost "significant amounts of ice" and that "most of the world's glaciers are in retreat."
Perhaps you could share your sources that contradict these findings?
Sure - reported today
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-set...
PNAS:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112697118/glaciers-changes-antarctica-091912/
Hopefully sources that are not originating in oil company funding.
Kurt, I have a direct view of a retreating glacier from my living room window. Send some of these oil company apologists up here for a while to watch some reality, instead of reality TV.
Anon @ 7:32 p.m., here's a story that rebuts your two climate-change skeptics by going right to the National Snow and Ice Data Center for an explanation of why the Arctic melt is ahead of the Antarctic melt....
http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-do...
More excuses and "models" that have proven to be extremely inaccurate. That climate changes, noone disputes. That man causes it or can reverse it is in dispute and the supportive "evidence" is dwindling every day.
It's amazing how often these conversations devolve into this kind of discourse. In the end, it marks the position of those who are not putting forth scientific arguments, but instead enacting an ideological war on science itself as a legitimate discipline of knowing.
Hmm, Anon at 7:23 am, is the evidence dwindling as fast as the Arctic sea ice?
Faster
BTW - Kudos to NPT for allowing these very important discussions to continue even though they may at times stray off the direct topic of the national parks.
Funny how we can actually see the ice dwindling but not the evidence dwindling.
One can also look at this article that explains the omissions made by those who claim Antarctica is gaining ice: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Not to mention the work on Antarctic ice published this week by the National Academy of Sciences.
And yet the evidence is somehow dwindling everyday? Maybe scientific literacy is dwindling.
From the article
"One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:"
So are "most accepted recent explanations" science? Or more inaccurate predictions and models?
And of course, once again, noone is arguing that climate doesn't change. The question is whether man causes or can alter it. The evidence for that is rapidly dwindling.
There is overwheliming consensus within the scientific community that human activity is indeed driving climate change, specifically atmospheric warming. Here's a timeline that documents when organizations came to that conclusion. It appears to be the exact opposite of "dwindling."
2001 IPCC
2001 Royal Society of New Zealand
2001 National Reserach Council (U.S.)
2004 International Arctic Science Committee
2005 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
2005 National Acadmies of G8 Nations
2005 European Geosciences Union
2006 Geological Society of America
2006 World Meterological Oranization
2006 American Association for the Adavcencement of Science
2006 Network of African Science Academies
2007 Polish Academy of Sciences
2007 InterAcademy Council
2007 European Acadmy of Sciences and Arts
2007 International Council of Acadmies of Engineering and technological Sciences
2007 American Geophysical Union
2007 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
2007 Royal Meterological Society (UK)
2008 European Federation of Geologists
2009 U.S. Global Change Research Program
2009 National Assoication of Geosciecne Teachers
2009 Canadian Meterological and Oceanographic Society
2009 American Institute of Professional Geologists
2010 Royal Society of the United Kingdom
2010 Geological Society of London
2011 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
2012 American Meterological Society
2012 Australian Meterological and Oceanographic Society
2012 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
No. If you (or anyone who follows the link to the article) read the explanations, they are clearly based on measurements of temperature, rainwater, glacial run-off, ozone levels. You're making my point about dwindling scientific literacy : )
"The question is whether man causes or can alter it. The evidence for that is rapidly dwindling."
You Are Assuming that Earth's atmosphere without Humans functions the same, that is, there is No
Difference, as an Earth with 7,000,000,000-plus Humans many of whom are burning fossil fuels and
polluting water resources.
Sorry, the C02 atmospheric data from Hawaii's isolated Observatory shows increasing CO2 levels
over the past 140 years (from both measured & proxy data sources)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/index.html
The NPT ANTI-SCIENCE commentary shows the effectiveness of the FOSSIL-FUELED
GOP's Rush Limbaugh (ditto...ditto Rush since I have no brain) & others using the publics' air
radio waves to Dumb-Down Americans and of course, the lack of effective, quality Science Education
in Public Schools also plays its dumbing-down role; Why, Think..It's too hard..let Rush tell Us ...duh..duh
Yes CO2 has increased but is still a miniscule percent of the atomosphere. Evidence that higher CO2 increased temperatures is flaky at best. In fact, evidence has suggested that CO2 increases have trailed temperature rises rather than led them. Also the most recent BEST study showed no increase in temp despite large increases in CO2 places any link in question.
This is a grab bag of uninformed science. A good site for you (or anyone reading this exchange) to check out is http://www.skepticalscience.com/. The site does a nice job of debunking the pop culture myths you've repeated above. It does this by walking folks through the basic science as well as providing links to research published by the National Academy of Sciences and others.
Grab bag ofh uninformed science? Thats why you couldnt actually address any of the issues presented? Instead you point to a website that its self has no science.
Tell me what percent of the atmosphere is CO2
Tell me, if CO2 causes warming, why did the temperatures (according to the BEST study) not go up the last decade when CO2 did rise materially.
Below is a good place to start at that particular site, mainly because on that page it addresses the three or four myths (among others) you've listed above. Next to each myth, the site gives a basic lesson in science (as well as links to scholarship). But again, the myths you've listed are easily and extensively debunked; this site just provides a convenient introduction to the basic science of climate change, which can be especially useful for those who get their science from political/popular discourse.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Once again you won't answer the questions. Instead you send me to a site that is itself full of myths. Like 97% of scientists believe in human casued global warming.
Do you know where that number comes from? A graduate student's thesis. He hand selected 75 surveys from several thousand responses to generate that number and his work - at the time - was severely challenged by many that had been asked to participate. Despite this clearly bogus study, your site claims as fact that "97% of scientists" believe in human caused global warming. Unfortunately, it is this kind of "science" that permeates the global warming community.
Well, anon, I can't translate the scientific explanations or read the scientific references for you. Fortunately, anyone following this discussion can access the site and see for him- or herself.
I followed the link to the site, clicked on the consensus link, and then the intermediate tab. Here's what it brings one to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Plenty of documentation about the consensus percentage.
The spam filter caught another valid comment yesterday. Here it is, from Roger Siglin:
The comments on this issue emphasize the problem with reaching a concensus. If we cannot do it in the U.S. imagine what it will be like when we try to tell the Chinese, Indians, and others that they must reduce their per capita greenhouse gases to protect the atmosphere. Add to that the uproar if Americans are told they must reduce their per capita contribution to match that of the poorer people of the world. And experts say that even if the world lowered it's greenhouse contribution imediately the impacts will go on for several decades. Whatever the ratio between human and naturally caused global warming we might as will get used to it because the world will never cooperate enough to deal with the problem. And that doesn't even address the destruction of the oceans with plastic and other trash.