NOAA the EPA and NASA all say the same thing is going on. Seriously do you still believe the earth is flat and we didn't land on the moon? Oh I guess those were just facts right?
Oh yeah because arguing against a hypothesis is in the same ballpark? Noone knows anything throughoutly at this point, the scientific community is split on this. So don't come here as a layman, and compare scepticism with pants-on-head ignorant cynicism, because that is both insulting and counterproductive.
So please, find me the evidence that you are appearantly swimming in, because I have had a hard time finding it, and believe me, I have been looking.
Oh yeah because arguing against a hypothesis is in the same ballpark? Noone knows anything throughoutly at this point, the scientific community is split on this. So don't come here as a layman, and compare scepticism with pants-on-head ignorant cynicism, because that is both insulting and counterproductive.
So please, find me the evidence that you are appearantly swimming in, because I have had a hard time finding it, and believe me, I have been looking.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899/
This isn't a politically motivated video, its flat out undeniable unbiased observation that the poles are shedding ice faster than they can make it which is a HUGE problem. If its not caused by global warming there's another cause we don't know about then we need to find it and fix it. Global warming is the most likely cause so they're going with that since no one can think of anything else. If you know something they don't you might want to speak up.
Even if the planet is getting warmer we are losing huge amounts of ice off the poles. Ice sheets and glaciers are shedding more ice than they are creating which is what everyone is worried about. So even if global warming is total bunk like you suggest we still have a well documented problem only if you're right we have no way to fix it...
The video is sadly not available in my country, but I read the articles you linked.
I completely agree, that there is no discussion wether the icecaps are receeding, that is a pretty well established fact. The thing is whether or not this is caused by human intervention, or more importantly if it is such a tradgedy?
Because if we look back about a thousand years, we would be looking at a much warmer world, where on the poles, it was a couple of degrees celcius hotter than it is now, which if I may point out is a lot more on the equator. In that period of time, glaciers had receeded drastically, water levels had also risen a couple of feet, but that was not a problem, because land that was earlier impossible to cultivate, were now booming with fertility.
Ores of precious materials had been revealed under the now receeded ice. Vikings explored further from Iceland (that was named in the cool period after the roman warm period, that was even hotter than the one I describe now.) and found a lush, green land, they apropriately named greenland, more of these vikings sailed further, exploring a place now called Newfoundland in English, but was then called "Vinland", or Wineland in English, because of the very crop they could cultivate there.
The result being a worldwide explosion of populace, albeit short lived, as global cooling set in together with the plagues in Europe, and if these people did not die because of the plague, they surely would have perished in great famines, as the temperature drop made successful farmland, once again, infertile and barren.
In other words, much more of the world was comfortably liveable. Hey, even the sands of sahara will become hospitable if it gets much warmer, as the heat reflected from the sand, will drag the monsoon in over it resulting in a rain forest there (again).
That, of course needs way higher temperatures than we have seen the last 4000 years, but it also serves to illustrate that this planet is more versatile, and liveable than most people think.
The point I am getting at, is that these temperatures are not anything new, even in a short perspective. Actually, we are only just moving out of the so-called "Little Ice Age". If the planet gets warmer again, we will most likely be able to cultivate, and live in the once so glorious areas, now unliveable.
Yes we might have to move, but it is not like the sea level will rise by ten feet by tuesday morning, so I think that there is no reason to call for assembly at Mt. Armageddon yet, because we have coped with this temperature rise before, armed with way more primitive technology.
It is the drop in temperature that killed our ancestors buddies, not the rise.
So instead of calling the non-believers idiots, should we not first figure out if we, as a species, has anything to do with this phenomenon instead of crying wolf?
TL;DR: Don't comment on this without reading it through, please..
The world is getting so chaos hungry its sad.
We had weeks of snow here in germany more than in years, should be noteworthy.
Then they started saying THERE WILL BE SNOW CHAOS! last week and it didnt occur.
Now it wasnt a noteworthy winter all of the sudden.
It could it be that wobble of the earth has shifted and the north and south poles are no longer at the coolest points on the axis as we rotate around the sun.
From what I've read, the earth's rotation on it's axis isn't a constant variable.
Many I'm sure know or have heard of the Precession of the Equinox.
A shift of 1 degree every 72 years, which is why we don't see the 'proper' constellation over the sunrise on our birthdays
Our solar orbit around the milky way is always changing as well, as we travel along an oblong path.
Too many variables to say one thing is right.. and one answer is wrong.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the worlds most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans challenge some of the global warming orthodoxys most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
Their predictions based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans challenge some of the global warming orthodoxys most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
Past natural cycles do not account for massive amounts of ice being dumped into the oceans. White ice reflects heat and light, oceans absorb it, meaning warmer oceans, faster melt more water everywhere. It's not a theory its happening we learned about it through practical observation.
It's all well and good to look at past natural cycles we've documented but can we blindly ignore the melting and just stick to the data we gathered which is based on when we had poles? Is it really solid science to ignore a big game changer taking place and not factor that into their theories?
bbob, as for the "we'll just move in off the coast and move north/south to survive".
How about we do something so we don't need to move 1/6th of the population and rebuild most of the major cities of the world?
How about we do something so we don't lose handfuls of small island nations who have nowhere to go?
How will the day/night cycle of the 'newly inhabitable' areas affect new crop growth?
If they're wrong and its not due to human influence then we go on living like we always have but we happen to not be polluting as much... huh... sounds like a win win.
Will we survive as a species if the poles melt and things keep getting warmer, sure. But why push it to that, why not be preventative instead of reactive? Would it be a bad thing if we figured out how to reduce carbon in the air?
Most of the models they are finding to be wrong, but not toward a cooler more stable environment but toward a hotter more unstable. As in they are discovering new methods that are hastening the melting, methods they hadn't take into account before.
You also have to take into account how this will effect global crops, areas that where once fertile land will change.
Snow packs that are depleted faster than they can be replenished means less river water. Which means we're more dependent on sporadic rainfall for crops and much more susceptible to drought and floods. Rivers that once flowed continuously of a steady trickle of melting snow/ice are now dry for long periods followed by torrential flooding because its no longer snow being stored and slowly released but straight rain water washing down. Happens all the time in California, dry rivers that in a few hours are swollen then in a weeks dry again. These rivers used to flow constantly.
Its hard to capture that kind of water and it often takes massive amounts of topsoil out to sea...
It's also makes hydro electric power unreliable and dangerous as dams would go long periods of having very little water then have no choice but to let the flood surge go or risk a rupture with even more catastrophic problems.
Take a look at Africa its happening there too, lots of drought in once fertile soil we can probably expect that in other areas that are right now our major areas to grow food thanks to snow packs.
So we lose some fresh water, and we have to move 1/6 of the population off the coast lines and we have to find out new ways to grow food and live on less land... who cares, we'll have palm trees in Alaska again, sounds fun, think of the postcards!
This isn't a scenario where it will just fuck up a city or two and some people will need to move. This is going to change everything everywhere. You can't really relay on the staples that we can relay on now because they more than likely will change. Just shrugging and saying we'll deal with it then by adapting is pretty foolish. Might as well take the safe bet and get working on it now.
What if we grind our economy to a halt with CO2 taxes, and it turns out that CO2 has nothing to do with the heat? How about that we as individuals take steps to make less pollution, and stop forcing developing countries to quit developing before we are certain? Pascals wager may be all good and well if it does not inhibit you, but if you stuff it down the throats of those who will be inhibited by it, I think it is no longer valid.
Also, its not that the north or south will become uninhabitable if the temperature rises, we just might have to move a mile or so inland to get away from the water, or build dams. The day and night cycle will continue to be the same, unless CO2 stops the planet from turning, which is safe to say that it don't. How about we under all circumstances put some money in a fund for those people living on those islands, so we can get them safely away, are we not able to stop the weather from fluctuating.
Also, to make it clear, those newly inhabitable areas is highland, such as Scottish mountains, the alps, or generally further up the side of any mountain chain on the planet, which is too cold to cultivate now. We wouldnt have to travel far.
I am all for finding less pollutive ways of doing things, it makes it nicer to be in cities for one thing, it makes transport cheaper as we wont rely on fossil fuels.
But the core of it is that wether global warming in the sense we know it is real or not, the temperature will eventually rise dramatically at some point, melting the poles and so on, even if we stopped driving cars and farting, or god forbid, exhaling at all.
The melting of the poles should not be ignored, especially as it makes life for the antarctic people far more comfortable. Also, as we might see a rise in the sea level, albeit probably not a dramatic one.
The planet will not stop turning because of CO2, nor will the sun turn into a disco light or anything. If the planet turns warmer, we will just have more dramatic weather as the temperature rises, then a golden age while it is mellowing out, and a far more dramatic weather as it declines again. That is at least what you can learn by looking at the last 3000 years of history.
It wasnt easy then, and it wont be easy in the future either, regardless of CO2. But yeah, it could be cool if we could pause this climate, and hold onto it forever. But to be honest, I don't see how we have the power to change it even slightly.
Well I guess it depends on how you look at tackling the change. You can try to beat people and nations into going along (stick), or you can innovate new cleaner cheaper ways and lead by example (carrot).
If we can give developing nations more options and cheaper more sustainable ways to grow their nations then we should. But we shouldn't use the possibility that this isn't caused by humans to keep on doing what we're doing just because we don't like change. We should do what's right and even if the planet isn't getting warmer and the caps aren't melting we should pollute less so everyone can breath easier.
If we find out its not quite so urgent we can dial back our ambitions a bit but just know that there are people that would love nothing more than to keep on with the rape and reap method of doing business. Which is always super profitable but unsustainable and almost always harmful in some horrific way.
If you think its going down like it did 3000 years ago then we've got problems. You can't deny that we have more vehicles polluting more than we did back then. We also have less forest and jungles and way more people. How can you think that won't have an effect some way? What if we get the natural cycle, plus a whole lot more?
I'm also done arguing with ostriches. Feel free to replay but I'm done.
Well I guess it depends on how you look at tackling the change. You can try to beat people and nations into going along (stick), or you can innovate new cleaner cheaper ways and lead by example (carrot).
If we can give developing nations more options and cheaper more sustainable ways to grow their nations then we should. But we shouldn't use the possibility that this isn't caused by humans to keep on doing what we're doing just because we don't like change. We should do what's right and even if the planet isn't getting warmer and the caps aren't melting we should pollute less so everyone can breath easier.
If we find out its not quite so urgent we can dial back our ambitions a bit but just know that there are people that would love nothing more than to keep on with the rape and reap method of doing business. Which is always super profitable but unsustainable and almost always harmful in some horrific way.
If you think its going down like it did 3000 years ago then we've got problems. You can't deny that we have more vehicles polluting more than we did back then. We also have less forest and jungles and way more people. How can you think that won't have an effect some way? What if we get the natural cycle, plus a whole lot more?
I'm also done arguing with ostriches. Feel free to replay but I'm done.
As I said earlier, I am all for polluting less and doing things more organically efficently. I just don't think we should force developing countries to do the same unless we have definate proof that it is destroying the environment.
Also, I am not DENYING anything, I am just sceptic, but very eager to know what the hell is going on.
But yeah, I'll shut up. But please don't call me an ostrich just because I don't agree with you. The point of a discussion should not be to "convince" the other, but to cover the topic thoroughly.
Someone might have posted this already but if not I think this is an important read or even just worth a GLANCE. These are all the hacked emails from the university of east anglia between top man made global warming supporters/schemers/swindlers whatever you want to call them:
Fuck this global warming scam. People need to wake up and open their eyes. Its all just been a huge fear mongering campaign, and really is just a big business.
It's funny because the BS part is the rate of decline not that they are declining. No one is disputing the fact that they are melting faster than they can be replenished. Its well observed and documented by a wide range of unbiased sources. No one and I mean no one is standing up to say the glaciers are holding their own or growing. If you know of anyone saying that I'd like to see the science behind it.
Its just the rate is slower than the alarmists claimed. It's still melting just not as urgent a problem. So we can kick it off down the road until it is. PHEW dodged that bullet...
We should figure out how to take carbon out of the air in case it does cause a problem in other places besides our atmosphere...
not really. Amazingly FOX covered this and presented this quote where their source was the Washington post.
"we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we cant."
this was in reference to their being data by them showing falling temperatures over the last 10 years, not the opposite.
Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
Our system for figuring this out, isn't complete. But even in its fledgling state, the signs still point to global warming. They conveniently leave that out.
But I guess we can stamp it with a catchy name like climategate and get everyone to freak out with snippets and sound bites. Screw giving them all the facts and letting them make up their own mind. It's so much easier when people drink up whatever they pour out.
I'm sure most can't be arsed to go through that list of e-mails. This site bothered to read most of it back in Nov when the story broke. They put together some of the quotes like what EricV mentioned.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
If this stuff didn't have some sort of plausibility to it, then you'd think Copenhagen would've reached some sort of consensus...but instead there was fighting and they couldn't.
If this stuff didn't have some sort of plausibility to it, then you'd think Copenhagen would've reached some sort of consensus...but instead there was fighting and they couldn't.
Things work a lot better when the US just said "do it or else" and everyone went along. The problem this time around was the US said "hey what about india and china!?" and China and India said "well shucks we is just a bunch of country bumkins who farm for a living don't blame us we don't need to change".
We really need to get back to the days when the US just assumed it ran the world instead of working with it, at least things where getting done... After all the US single handily invaded Germany and liberated France, they still owe us!
kidding aside. It's really hard to get anyone to step up and take one in the shorts for the planet. Oil makes the world go around and its going to hurt if we ever have to stop using it, no political figure in their right mind would bring that hurt on their people willingly, its political suicide. There has to be some unstoppable outside force. For a while they had that, but now its been kicked off down the road for the next guy/generation.
We really need to get back to the days when the US just assumed it ran the world instead of working with it, at least things where getting done... After all the US single handily invaded Germany and liberated France, they still owe us!
You sound like Bush wanting to invade the middle east. His way or the highway. That type of arrogance is why other countries are annoyed with the US.
edit: ugghh, this is why I can't reply to you right away...I gotta wait till you are done editing a billion times and adding/changing/deleting... damn you and your sarcasm.
kidding aside. It's really hard to get anyone to step up and take one in the shorts for the planet. Oil makes the world go around and its going to hurt if we ever have to stop using it, no political figure in their right mind would bring that hurt on their people willingly, its political suicide. There has to be some unstoppable outside force. For a while they had that, but now its been kicked off down the road for the next guy/generation.
Drill here drill now. Alaska has 200 years worth. Wyoming, North Dakota are ready to go. Gov't prevents them from moving forward for some strange reason. Then the foreign oil can stop and Tesla and others will have 200 years of time on their hands to get their shit ironed out and make cars available for everyone on the cheap.
i like cold. it was -27 C here a few days ago, and i was out walking. the condensation from my breath was freezing my beard and the sweat was forming icicles from my hair.
but it clears up your mind, and if you dress properly, the cold doesn't affect you.
get a pair of wool underpants, a warm jacket, and take a good long walk. or go skiing.
Thats your opinion. In my opinion there is a lot of misinformation out there and blatant lying when it says that there is a consensus that global warming is man made. Now there are 2 sides.... really all it comes down to is who do you believe. Either side can and are being called liars. With words like experts, authorities and leaders being thrown around like candy its easy to believe a source and call it reliable. I can see how it can be very easy to trust a source and claim it to be reputable. Big names and titles are attatched to all sorts of people and its near impossible for the average person to track all of this down in their spare time and verify the credibility of each and every source.
Just saying the signs point to global warming doesnt necessarily make it true. Both sides 'drink' (or buy) what is being sold to them and it goes both ways, not just in whichever way suits your argument.
I don't know if the earth is getting warmer or if carbon emissions are behind it. I've read a lot of stuff from a lot of different sources but they could be wrong that humans are the cause. It doesn't really matter who is to blame it doesn't change that we have some real big problems we need to solve.
Its very very well documented (not a belief) with very practical observation by many different sources, that ice all over the planet is melting faster than it can be replenished and this is changing the world in many ways. This is observation that you yourself could do if you choose to do it, no degree required just the balls to go and watch.
I do know that tail pipe emissions are not safe to breath and that smog causes all kinds of health issues.
We being a short sighted people have built in places that are still in flux, earthquake faults, land slide zones, too close to shifting rivers and coastlines. If the ice melt is natural we need to figure out a way to adapt so we can keep on in some capacity. If we can be long sighted on the issue maybe we can break the short sighted trends that have governed us as a race since recorded history...
We need to figure out why the ice is melting and how to stabilize it, especially the south pole, or we need to come up with a plan to work around it, ie move 1/6th of the world's population off the old coastlines.
Simply saying it's not happening won't make it stop.
We need to figure out how to sustain glaciers and snow packs, so we have stable water supplies for the future.
We will be better off with less smog and pollution.
Drill here drill now. Alaska has 200 years worth. Wyoming, North Dakota are ready to go. Gov't prevents them from moving forward for some strange reason. Then the foreign oil can stop and Tesla and others will have 200 years of time on their hands to get their shit ironed out and make cars available for everyone on the cheap.
Foreign oil problem solved.
Strictly from a tactical and selfish standpoint which is how the US operates. We should hold off on tapping those supplies for as long as possible. Drain all other sources then tap our last supply.
We don't need to dig into our oil supplies and drink it all down now leaving nothing for the future before we decide to change. We use oil for so much more than gas. We'll need it even in a world that doesn't use it as a main source of energy.
The longer we take to start the process of changing, the harder and more jarring it will to change.
I don't know if the earth is getting warmer or if carbon emissions are behind it. I've read a lot of stuff from a lot of different sources but they could be wrong that humans are the cause. It doesn't really matter who is to blame it doesn't change that we have some real big problems we need to solve.
Its very very well documented (not a belief) with very practical observation by many different sources, that ice all over the planet is melting faster than it can be replenished and this is changing the world in many ways. This is observation that you yourself could do if you choose to do it, no degree required just the balls to go and watch.
I do know that tail pipe emissions are not safe to breath and that smog causes all kinds of health issues.
We being a short sighted people have built in places that are still in flux, earthquake faults, land slide zones, too close to shifting rivers and coastlines. If the ice melt is natural we need to figure out a way to adapt so we can keep on in some capacity. If we can be long sighted on the issue maybe we can break the short sighted trends that have governed us as a race since recorded history...
We need to figure out why the ice is melting and how to stabilize it, especially the south pole, or we need to come up with a plan to work around it, ie move 1/6th of the world's population off the old coastlines.
Simply saying it's not happening won't make it stop.
We need to figure out how to sustain glaciers and snow packs, so we have stable water supplies for the future.
We will be better off with less smog and pollution.
I wont dispute that the ice is melting, I have to do more reading on that myself. But what I do believe is that it is not a direct cause of our activities. I watched video clips and read quotes from scientists saying that it is natural and that the earths temperature is basically driven by the sun. Which makes a lot of sense. These guys say that the chart that Al Gore famously championed in his film was false and they proved it, as a result he cant use it anymore at any of his lectures on climate change. The graph in question showed that Co2 levels match temp almost exactly and he implied or said that co2 drives climate. That was proven false as some scientists have said that although there is a connection between temperature and co2, that it is co2 that is dependent on temperature, not the other way around. This was proved because there was a time gap, a lag of almost 800 hundred years showing the temperature going up and down and then the co2 levels following. What then they wondered was the cause for temperature if not co2 levels? When comparing temp levels with solar Activity (the sun) they saw a direct correlation between solar activity and the sun. Which makes perfect sense really. Where else do we get our energy and heat from? It sure as hell doesnt come from the moon or some other source.
I also heard and read a lot that we only make up a small amount of all the co2 that is put in the air. Far more co2 (and you can check this out) comes from active volcanoes. It also comes from plants trees, dying leaves and the oceans believe it or not.
Im not doubting that the stuff that comes out of your tailpipe is bad to breathe in at close range. Its even a popular method of suicide I hear! But carbon dioxide makes up just 1 one of the components of car exhaust and other types of exhaust. What Im hearing and reading a lot is that co2 is a naturally occuring gas. One of many. And that co2 has been around long before humans! Tonnes of it in fact. We even create some when we exhale! Again you or anybody can check out what the major sources of co2 are and will see what they are.
I think what has happened here is that co2 and pollution have been presented as being one in the same when really they mean 2 different things. When people talk about pollution, that I completely agree with them on. Things like oil spils in the ocean or dumping of toxic materials in swamps....that kind of thing. I think that is the image in a lot of peoples minds as well, and thru this whole man made global warming campaign this one gas, co2, has been targetted and made out to be this nasty pollutant.
I dont think there even is a way to stabalize the ice and save it. In my belief and opinion I think it is all dependent on the suns activity and all this shit is just a natural cycle. If the oceans rise as a result so be it. If there is or was a way to stop it and stop flooding then I'd be all for it. But I dont believe that invlolves us cutting down on how much co2 we produce and release into the atmosphere and then taxing people for how much they use of it. People are going to continue to drive to work and drive there cars...how is charging them more to drive or more for their heating bill going to stop co2 levels if the same amount of people do it anyways? Because thats exactly whats going to happen.
Yea you really can't trust much of what Al Gore says and does as science. He's about as fair and balanced as FoxNews. They are both so politically tainted you just can't trust either of them.
I also heard and read a lot that we only make up a small amount of all the co2 that is put in the air. Far more co2 (and you can check this out) comes from active volcanoes. It also comes from plants trees, dying leaves and the oceans believe it or not.
The carbon released from plants and orangic matter was actually captured from the air. It's why they are considering large swaths of forests and jungles to be "carbon banks" the only problem with this is what if the banks all of a sudden die off burn or become unprotected and release a bunch of stored carbon? Its a bit like storing old TnT in with nuclear waste... a really unstable and dumb idea.
Again you or anybody can check out what the major sources of co2 are and will see what they are.
Even one car or one coal plant is more than what naturally occurs. Arsenic is a natural substance as is mercury and lead but you don't see me painting playground equipment with them.
We're happy with emitting because the wind and rain sweep most of it away to some far off place we don't have to look at. What do we do when that breaks down or we've put enough in the air or the sea that what goes around comes around? Are we going to wait until that smoggy cloud just won't go away? LA, Mexico City, Beijing, it's already there...
Not all of it ends up in the atmosphere, some of it ends up in the ocean. Which makes sense, a lot of it settles on the ground, on pavement and concrete then washes out to sea when it rains. This added co2 raises the PH (articles I linked to earlier in the thread) which has all kinds of effects.
We can put carbon and all kinds of crap in the air, its a good idea to figure out how to take it out.
We need to get to the bottom of ice melt and figure out what we're going to do about it or how we're going to work around it. The more we know and the more time we have the better off we are. The longer we deny there is a problem the less time we have. Which is what I see the a lot of people doing. My basement isn't flooded so who cares...
It's almost as if you two are discussing two different and ultimately compatible things (man made climate change is FALSE, vs In the event of climate change, regardless of cause, we should investigate and evaluate our options) and thinking, inbetween a lot of chest thumping, that you are having some kind of heated debate.
Replies
Oh yeah because arguing against a hypothesis is in the same ballpark? Noone knows anything throughoutly at this point, the scientific community is split on this. So don't come here as a layman, and compare scepticism with pants-on-head ignorant cynicism, because that is both insulting and counterproductive.
So please, find me the evidence that you are appearantly swimming in, because I have had a hard time finding it, and believe me, I have been looking.
This isn't a politically motivated video, its flat out undeniable unbiased observation that the poles are shedding ice faster than they can make it which is a HUGE problem. If its not caused by global warming there's another cause we don't know about then we need to find it and fix it. Global warming is the most likely cause so they're going with that since no one can think of anything else. If you know something they don't you might want to speak up.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/
Even if the planet is getting warmer we are losing huge amounts of ice off the poles. Ice sheets and glaciers are shedding more ice than they are creating which is what everyone is worried about. So even if global warming is total bunk like you suggest we still have a well documented problem only if you're right we have no way to fix it...
I completely agree, that there is no discussion wether the icecaps are receeding, that is a pretty well established fact. The thing is whether or not this is caused by human intervention, or more importantly if it is such a tradgedy?
Because if we look back about a thousand years, we would be looking at a much warmer world, where on the poles, it was a couple of degrees celcius hotter than it is now, which if I may point out is a lot more on the equator. In that period of time, glaciers had receeded drastically, water levels had also risen a couple of feet, but that was not a problem, because land that was earlier impossible to cultivate, were now booming with fertility.
Ores of precious materials had been revealed under the now receeded ice. Vikings explored further from Iceland (that was named in the cool period after the roman warm period, that was even hotter than the one I describe now.) and found a lush, green land, they apropriately named greenland, more of these vikings sailed further, exploring a place now called Newfoundland in English, but was then called "Vinland", or Wineland in English, because of the very crop they could cultivate there.
The result being a worldwide explosion of populace, albeit short lived, as global cooling set in together with the plagues in Europe, and if these people did not die because of the plague, they surely would have perished in great famines, as the temperature drop made successful farmland, once again, infertile and barren.
In other words, much more of the world was comfortably liveable. Hey, even the sands of sahara will become hospitable if it gets much warmer, as the heat reflected from the sand, will drag the monsoon in over it resulting in a rain forest there (again).
That, of course needs way higher temperatures than we have seen the last 4000 years, but it also serves to illustrate that this planet is more versatile, and liveable than most people think.
The point I am getting at, is that these temperatures are not anything new, even in a short perspective. Actually, we are only just moving out of the so-called "Little Ice Age". If the planet gets warmer again, we will most likely be able to cultivate, and live in the once so glorious areas, now unliveable.
Yes we might have to move, but it is not like the sea level will rise by ten feet by tuesday morning, so I think that there is no reason to call for assembly at Mt. Armageddon yet, because we have coped with this temperature rise before, armed with way more primitive technology.
It is the drop in temperature that killed our ancestors buddies, not the rise.
So instead of calling the non-believers idiots, should we not first figure out if we, as a species, has anything to do with this phenomenon instead of crying wolf?
TL;DR: Don't comment on this without reading it through, please..
We had weeks of snow here in germany more than in years, should be noteworthy.
Then they started saying THERE WILL BE SNOW CHAOS! last week and it didnt occur.
Now it wasnt a noteworthy winter all of the sudden.
Pffft, Google Earth proves that the North Pole doesn't even exist:
(Or rather, it does exist, but there's no ice in a surrounding 700km radius. Those are sattellite photos!)
It could it be that wobble of the earth has shifted and the north and south poles are no longer at the coolest points on the axis as we rotate around the sun.
From what I've read, the earth's rotation on it's axis isn't a constant variable.
Many I'm sure know or have heard of the Precession of the Equinox.
A shift of 1 degree every 72 years, which is why we don't see the 'proper' constellation over the sunrise on our birthdays
Our solar orbit around the milky way is always changing as well, as we travel along an oblong path.
Too many variables to say one thing is right.. and one answer is wrong.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
No Santa? :poly122:
It's all well and good to look at past natural cycles we've documented but can we blindly ignore the melting and just stick to the data we gathered which is based on when we had poles? Is it really solid science to ignore a big game changer taking place and not factor that into their theories?
bbob, as for the "we'll just move in off the coast and move north/south to survive".
How about we do something so we don't need to move 1/6th of the population and rebuild most of the major cities of the world?
How about we do something so we don't lose handfuls of small island nations who have nowhere to go?
How will the day/night cycle of the 'newly inhabitable' areas affect new crop growth?
If they're wrong and its not due to human influence then we go on living like we always have but we happen to not be polluting as much... huh... sounds like a win win.
Will we survive as a species if the poles melt and things keep getting warmer, sure. But why push it to that, why not be preventative instead of reactive? Would it be a bad thing if we figured out how to reduce carbon in the air?
Most of the models they are finding to be wrong, but not toward a cooler more stable environment but toward a hotter more unstable. As in they are discovering new methods that are hastening the melting, methods they hadn't take into account before.
You also have to take into account how this will effect global crops, areas that where once fertile land will change.
Snow packs that are depleted faster than they can be replenished means less river water. Which means we're more dependent on sporadic rainfall for crops and much more susceptible to drought and floods. Rivers that once flowed continuously of a steady trickle of melting snow/ice are now dry for long periods followed by torrential flooding because its no longer snow being stored and slowly released but straight rain water washing down. Happens all the time in California, dry rivers that in a few hours are swollen then in a weeks dry again. These rivers used to flow constantly.
Its hard to capture that kind of water and it often takes massive amounts of topsoil out to sea...
It's also makes hydro electric power unreliable and dangerous as dams would go long periods of having very little water then have no choice but to let the flood surge go or risk a rupture with even more catastrophic problems.
http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/website%20pictures/Less%20Snow%20Less%20Water.pdf
Take a look at Africa its happening there too, lots of drought in once fertile soil we can probably expect that in other areas that are right now our major areas to grow food thanks to snow packs.
So we lose some fresh water, and we have to move 1/6 of the population off the coast lines and we have to find out new ways to grow food and live on less land... who cares, we'll have palm trees in Alaska again, sounds fun, think of the postcards!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
This isn't a scenario where it will just fuck up a city or two and some people will need to move. This is going to change everything everywhere. You can't really relay on the staples that we can relay on now because they more than likely will change. Just shrugging and saying we'll deal with it then by adapting is pretty foolish. Might as well take the safe bet and get working on it now.
Also, its not that the north or south will become uninhabitable if the temperature rises, we just might have to move a mile or so inland to get away from the water, or build dams. The day and night cycle will continue to be the same, unless CO2 stops the planet from turning, which is safe to say that it don't. How about we under all circumstances put some money in a fund for those people living on those islands, so we can get them safely away, are we not able to stop the weather from fluctuating.
Also, to make it clear, those newly inhabitable areas is highland, such as Scottish mountains, the alps, or generally further up the side of any mountain chain on the planet, which is too cold to cultivate now. We wouldnt have to travel far.
I am all for finding less pollutive ways of doing things, it makes it nicer to be in cities for one thing, it makes transport cheaper as we wont rely on fossil fuels.
But the core of it is that wether global warming in the sense we know it is real or not, the temperature will eventually rise dramatically at some point, melting the poles and so on, even if we stopped driving cars and farting, or god forbid, exhaling at all.
The melting of the poles should not be ignored, especially as it makes life for the antarctic people far more comfortable. Also, as we might see a rise in the sea level, albeit probably not a dramatic one.
The planet will not stop turning because of CO2, nor will the sun turn into a disco light or anything. If the planet turns warmer, we will just have more dramatic weather as the temperature rises, then a golden age while it is mellowing out, and a far more dramatic weather as it declines again. That is at least what you can learn by looking at the last 3000 years of history.
It wasnt easy then, and it wont be easy in the future either, regardless of CO2. But yeah, it could be cool if we could pause this climate, and hold onto it forever. But to be honest, I don't see how we have the power to change it even slightly.
If we can give developing nations more options and cheaper more sustainable ways to grow their nations then we should. But we shouldn't use the possibility that this isn't caused by humans to keep on doing what we're doing just because we don't like change. We should do what's right and even if the planet isn't getting warmer and the caps aren't melting we should pollute less so everyone can breath easier.
If we find out its not quite so urgent we can dial back our ambitions a bit but just know that there are people that would love nothing more than to keep on with the rape and reap method of doing business. Which is always super profitable but unsustainable and almost always harmful in some horrific way.
If you think its going down like it did 3000 years ago then we've got problems. You can't deny that we have more vehicles polluting more than we did back then. We also have less forest and jungles and way more people. How can you think that won't have an effect some way? What if we get the natural cycle, plus a whole lot more?
I'm also done arguing with ostriches. Feel free to replay but I'm done.
Weird stuff
As I said earlier, I am all for polluting less and doing things more organically efficently. I just don't think we should force developing countries to do the same unless we have definate proof that it is destroying the environment.
Also, I am not DENYING anything, I am just sceptic, but very eager to know what the hell is going on.
But yeah, I'll shut up. But please don't call me an ostrich just because I don't agree with you. The point of a discussion should not be to "convince" the other, but to cover the topic thoroughly.
Almost makes it worth it... Almost.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Fuck this global warming scam. People need to wake up and open their eyes. Its all just been a huge fear mongering campaign, and really is just a big business.
Got some freezing rain yesterday, some cool pix etc
I'll post it again
Oh right sorry not supposed to read them or attempt to fact check, just be awed by the massive wall of text..
Its just the rate is slower than the alarmists claimed. It's still melting just not as urgent a problem. So we can kick it off down the road until it is. PHEW dodged that bullet...
We should figure out how to take carbon out of the air in case it does cause a problem in other places besides our atmosphere...
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/14/co2-increase-in-our-oceans-may-stifle-phytoplankton.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/ocean-acidification-epoca
http://www.america.gov/st/energy-english/2009/April/20090401153733lcnirellep0.5630152.html
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=21758&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-05/ocean-ph-and-fate-food-chain
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111807469
Our system for figuring this out, isn't complete. But even in its fledgling state, the signs still point to global warming. They conveniently leave that out.
But I guess we can stamp it with a catchy name like climategate and get everyone to freak out with snippets and sound bites. Screw giving them all the facts and letting them make up their own mind. It's so much easier when people drink up whatever they pour out.
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
If this stuff didn't have some sort of plausibility to it, then you'd think Copenhagen would've reached some sort of consensus...but instead there was fighting and they couldn't.
We really need to get back to the days when the US just assumed it ran the world instead of working with it, at least things where getting done... After all the US single handily invaded Germany and liberated France, they still owe us!
kidding aside. It's really hard to get anyone to step up and take one in the shorts for the planet. Oil makes the world go around and its going to hurt if we ever have to stop using it, no political figure in their right mind would bring that hurt on their people willingly, its political suicide. There has to be some unstoppable outside force. For a while they had that, but now its been kicked off down the road for the next guy/generation.
It is so damn cold in the Bay that it was sleeting.
You sound like Bush wanting to invade the middle east. His way or the highway. That type of arrogance is why other countries are annoyed with the US.
edit: ugghh, this is why I can't reply to you right away...I gotta wait till you are done editing a billion times and adding/changing/deleting... damn you and your sarcasm.
Drill here drill now. Alaska has 200 years worth. Wyoming, North Dakota are ready to go. Gov't prevents them from moving forward for some strange reason. Then the foreign oil can stop and Tesla and others will have 200 years of time on their hands to get their shit ironed out and make cars available for everyone on the cheap.
Foreign oil problem solved.
but it clears up your mind, and if you dress properly, the cold doesn't affect you.
get a pair of wool underpants, a warm jacket, and take a good long walk. or go skiing.
I don't know if the earth is getting warmer or if carbon emissions are behind it. I've read a lot of stuff from a lot of different sources but they could be wrong that humans are the cause. It doesn't really matter who is to blame it doesn't change that we have some real big problems we need to solve.
Its very very well documented (not a belief) with very practical observation by many different sources, that ice all over the planet is melting faster than it can be replenished and this is changing the world in many ways. This is observation that you yourself could do if you choose to do it, no degree required just the balls to go and watch.
I do know that tail pipe emissions are not safe to breath and that smog causes all kinds of health issues.
We being a short sighted people have built in places that are still in flux, earthquake faults, land slide zones, too close to shifting rivers and coastlines. If the ice melt is natural we need to figure out a way to adapt so we can keep on in some capacity. If we can be long sighted on the issue maybe we can break the short sighted trends that have governed us as a race since recorded history...
We need to figure out why the ice is melting and how to stabilize it, especially the south pole, or we need to come up with a plan to work around it, ie move 1/6th of the world's population off the old coastlines.
Simply saying it's not happening won't make it stop.
We need to figure out how to sustain glaciers and snow packs, so we have stable water supplies for the future.
We will be better off with less smog and pollution.
We don't need to dig into our oil supplies and drink it all down now leaving nothing for the future before we decide to change. We use oil for so much more than gas. We'll need it even in a world that doesn't use it as a main source of energy.
The longer we take to start the process of changing, the harder and more jarring it will to change.
I wont dispute that the ice is melting, I have to do more reading on that myself. But what I do believe is that it is not a direct cause of our activities. I watched video clips and read quotes from scientists saying that it is natural and that the earths temperature is basically driven by the sun. Which makes a lot of sense. These guys say that the chart that Al Gore famously championed in his film was false and they proved it, as a result he cant use it anymore at any of his lectures on climate change. The graph in question showed that Co2 levels match temp almost exactly and he implied or said that co2 drives climate. That was proven false as some scientists have said that although there is a connection between temperature and co2, that it is co2 that is dependent on temperature, not the other way around. This was proved because there was a time gap, a lag of almost 800 hundred years showing the temperature going up and down and then the co2 levels following. What then they wondered was the cause for temperature if not co2 levels? When comparing temp levels with solar Activity (the sun) they saw a direct correlation between solar activity and the sun. Which makes perfect sense really. Where else do we get our energy and heat from? It sure as hell doesnt come from the moon or some other source.
I also heard and read a lot that we only make up a small amount of all the co2 that is put in the air. Far more co2 (and you can check this out) comes from active volcanoes. It also comes from plants trees, dying leaves and the oceans believe it or not.
Im not doubting that the stuff that comes out of your tailpipe is bad to breathe in at close range. Its even a popular method of suicide I hear! But carbon dioxide makes up just 1 one of the components of car exhaust and other types of exhaust. What Im hearing and reading a lot is that co2 is a naturally occuring gas. One of many. And that co2 has been around long before humans! Tonnes of it in fact. We even create some when we exhale! Again you or anybody can check out what the major sources of co2 are and will see what they are.
I think what has happened here is that co2 and pollution have been presented as being one in the same when really they mean 2 different things. When people talk about pollution, that I completely agree with them on. Things like oil spils in the ocean or dumping of toxic materials in swamps....that kind of thing. I think that is the image in a lot of peoples minds as well, and thru this whole man made global warming campaign this one gas, co2, has been targetted and made out to be this nasty pollutant.
I dont think there even is a way to stabalize the ice and save it. In my belief and opinion I think it is all dependent on the suns activity and all this shit is just a natural cycle. If the oceans rise as a result so be it. If there is or was a way to stop it and stop flooding then I'd be all for it. But I dont believe that invlolves us cutting down on how much co2 we produce and release into the atmosphere and then taxing people for how much they use of it. People are going to continue to drive to work and drive there cars...how is charging them more to drive or more for their heating bill going to stop co2 levels if the same amount of people do it anyways? Because thats exactly whats going to happen.
Alright now, what's cooler than being cool?
Yea you really can't trust much of what Al Gore says and does as science. He's about as fair and balanced as FoxNews. They are both so politically tainted you just can't trust either of them.
The carbon released from plants and orangic matter was actually captured from the air. It's why they are considering large swaths of forests and jungles to be "carbon banks" the only problem with this is what if the banks all of a sudden die off burn or become unprotected and release a bunch of stored carbon? Its a bit like storing old TnT in with nuclear waste... a really unstable and dumb idea.
Even one car or one coal plant is more than what naturally occurs. Arsenic is a natural substance as is mercury and lead but you don't see me painting playground equipment with them.
We're happy with emitting because the wind and rain sweep most of it away to some far off place we don't have to look at. What do we do when that breaks down or we've put enough in the air or the sea that what goes around comes around? Are we going to wait until that smoggy cloud just won't go away? LA, Mexico City, Beijing, it's already there...
Not all of it ends up in the atmosphere, some of it ends up in the ocean. Which makes sense, a lot of it settles on the ground, on pavement and concrete then washes out to sea when it rains. This added co2 raises the PH (articles I linked to earlier in the thread) which has all kinds of effects.
We can put carbon and all kinds of crap in the air, its a good idea to figure out how to take it out.
We need to get to the bottom of ice melt and figure out what we're going to do about it or how we're going to work around it. The more we know and the more time we have the better off we are. The longer we deny there is a problem the less time we have. Which is what I see the a lot of people doing. My basement isn't flooded so who cares...