Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage - Increase twice the size of Germany

[SUBMAN1]

Imagine that.

http://images.dailytech.com/frontpage/fp__aa_ice.jpg

-S

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9144_nsidc808-807.png
A map of the sea ice increase from the same month last year

Increase twice the size of Germany: "colder weather" to blame.

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions (http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+to+Melt+North+Pole+Ice+Cover+For+Fi rst+Time+in+Recorded+History/article12218.htm) that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.

William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was "definitely colder" than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

Earlier predictions were also wrong because researchers thought thinner ice would melt faster in subsequent years. Instead, according to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/), the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth.

Most concern has focused on the Arctic regions, rather than Antarctica. Recent research (http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-13-antarctic-cooling.htm) has indicated Antarctica is on a long-term cooling trend, for reasons which remain unclear.

Earlier this year, concerns over global warming led the US to officially list (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-polar15-2008may15,0,1220040.story) the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.
http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+in+Ice+Coverage/article12851.htm

[Tchocky]

Well, 2007 was a record low, so...

[SUBMAN1]

Well, 2007 was a record low, so...So?

-S

[Tchocky]

So a major relative gain in the past year is not indicative of a shift in climate. One would need several decades of data to make that kind of judgement. THe headline isn't saying what I imagine you want it to say.

Also, area is not as informative as area plus volume, which the Arctic is losing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7303385.stm

[geetrue]

I saw this first, but then I thought good ole subman will see it next ...

So I let it go :cool:

Wait a minute your not talking about the 1,400 mile galcier that just fell into the ocean are you. I'll go get the article.

This thing is so big ... the glacier itself very very old.

Didn't the whole thing go crashing off at the same time and thats why it's so big?

[Tchocky]

Geetrue makes a good point, an increase in sea ice can be very bad news, as a result of events like this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595441.stm

[SUBMAN1]

So a major relative gain in the past year is not indicative of a shift in climate. One would need several decades of data to make that kind of judgement. THe headline isn't saying what I imagine you want it to say.

Also, area is not as informative as area plus volume, which the Arctic is losing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7303385.stmYou are basing your ideas on the incorrect idea that old ice melts slower - that is wrong. This is a prime example on the idea that researchers have no clue whats going on. To say they know the climate is going to rise in temp by certain degrees over a given time - they have no way of predicting that either, especially when they have a hard time predicting weather next week.

And what of those models that determine volume? Wasn't that last months debate about how they were wrong and needed to be recalculated?

Anyway, regardless, Siberia is to blame for last years record low (Which I think the 1940's was even lower, but no one can prove that yet) for which they have been keeping track for a total of 10 years - lots of data there.

Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

There ya have it.

-S

[Tchocky]

You are basing your ideas on the incorrect idea that old ice melts slower - that is wrong. This is a prime example on the idea that researchers have no clue whats going on.What? No I'm not. Explain.
To say they know the climate is going to rise in temp by certain degrees over a given time - they have no way of predicting that either, especially when they have a hard time predicting weather next week. Climate != Weather

And what of those models that determine volume? Wasn't that last months debate about how they were wrong and needed to be recalculated? Don't know, link?

Anyway, regardless, Siberia is to blame for last years record low (Which I think the 1940's was even lower, but no one can prove that yet) for which they have been keeping track for a total of 10 years - lots of data there. Record low in 2005 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1003_051003_arctic_ice.html), then new record low set last year - http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/index.html

[Sea Demon]

Oh God. Please don't argue this again. I don't know how anybody can still be fooled by this crap.

[STEED]

Oh God. Please don't argue this again. I don't know how anybody can still be fooled by this crap.



SCIENCE HAS BEEN PERVERTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT SO BOTH SIDES CAN KEEP THEMSELVES ON THE GRAVY TRAIN FOR LIFE. :yep:

[geetrue]

Here it is: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012171216

Komfie Manalo - AHN News Writer
Toronto, Canada (AHN) - Scientists on Wednesday said that the breaking of a chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan in Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic is a clear indication of how temperatures are warming the polar frontier.
Arctic ice shelf specialist Derek Mueller of the Trent University in Ontario, Canada said the 19-square-mile shelf is now drifting in the Arctic Ocean after breaking loose in early August. The chunk of ice sheet was part of the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf.
He adds the event underscores how rapid changes are taking place in the Arctic due to global warming.


This one was only 19 square miles another one down in the Anarctic was 160 square miles earlier this year.

[Sea Demon]

SCIENCE HAS BEEN PERVERTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT SO BOTH SIDES CAN KEEP THEMSELVES ON THE GRAVY TRAIN FOR LIFE. :yep:

Please. One side has been trying to convince us that the planet's atmosphere is being destroyed and we're all going to be fried due to increased global temperatures because we drive cars and cows fart. And as we increase this tiny amount of CO2 today, temperatures fall. Which indicates their models are flawed. And they've told us the sun has no impacts on any warming, yet sunspot activity has fallen dramatically. At the same time we're seeing temperature decreases. They still see no correllation. And further yet, people are still arguing the same screwy stuff. I've had enough.

[geetrue]

SCIENCE HAS BEEN PERVERTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT SO BOTH SIDES CAN KEEP THEMSELVES ON THE GRAVY TRAIN FOR LIFE. :yep:

Please. One side has been trying to convince us that the planet's atmosphere is being destroyed and we're all going to be fried due to increased global temperatures because we drive cars and cows fart. And as we increase this tiny amount of CO2 today, temperatures fall. Which indicates their models are flawed. And they've told us the sun has no impacts on any warming, yet sunspot activity has fallen dramatically. At the same time we're seeing temperature decreases. They still see no correllation. And further yet, people are still arguing the same screwy stuff. I've had enough.

Did you take your meds today ... :lol:

[STEED]

SCIENCE HAS BEEN PERVERTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT SO BOTH SIDES CAN KEEP THEMSELVES ON THE GRAVY TRAIN FOR LIFE. :yep:

Please. One side has been trying to convince us that the planet's atmosphere is being destroyed and we're all going to be fried due to increased global temperatures because we drive cars and cows fart. And as we increase this tiny amount of CO2 today, temperatures fall. Which indicates their models are flawed. And they've told us the sun has no impacts on any warming, yet sunspot activity has fallen dramatically. At the same time we're seeing temperature decreases. They still see no correllation. And further yet, people are still arguing the same screwy stuff. I've had enough.

Both sides are as bad as each other proving this and that and knocking down each others case for this and that.

My advice to both sides is this.....

GET LAID. :lol:

[Sea Demon]

[
Both sides are as bad as each other proving this and that and knocking down each others case for this and that.

My advice to both sides is this.....

GET LAID. :lol:

Equivocation doesn't work in this case. One side has offered the BS man-made global warming argument using fabricated evidence, the other side has only called it the BS that it is. It will take alot more than getting laid for these people.

[Sea Demon]

Did you take your meds today ... :lol:

Did you get your dose of DailyKos, MichaelMoore.com, and Democratic Underground today??? :roll:

[Digital_Trucker]

My advice to both sides is this.....

GET LAID. :lol:
I'm not on either side and I'll take that advice:rock:

[Tchocky]

Follow STEED's gravy train.

[STEED]

[
Both sides are as bad as each other proving this and that and knocking down each others case for this and that.

My advice to both sides is this.....

GET LAID. :lol:

Equivocation doesn't work in this case. One side has offered the BS man-made global warming argument using fabricated evidence, the other side has only called it the BS that it is. It will take alot more than getting laid for these people.

Are Feck I give up. :damn: :rotfl:

[Sailor Steve]

[
Both sides are as bad as each other proving this and that and knocking down each others case for this and that.

My advice to both sides is this.....

GET LAID. :lol:

Equivocation doesn't work in this case. One side has offered the BS man-made global warming argument using fabricated evidence, the other side has only called it the BS that it is. It will take alot more than getting laid for these people.
I tend to fall on the "They haven't proven that it's man-made, or that it's anything but a natural progression" side, but I agree with Steed on this. It's like most political, or even religious arguments, in that most people supporting one side or the other "know" that they're right, and the other side is full of beans.

I believe Joseph Joubert was right: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory." Neither side here seems to be interested in getting at the truth, only in proving that the other guy is wrong.

[STEED]

Follow STEED's gravy train.

http://www.britsuperstore.com/acatalog/Bisto_Gravy_Granules.jpg http://www.ukgoods.com/images/bisto-chicken-gravy-granuel.jpg

http://www.ocado.com/catalog/images-full/19840011_L.jpg http://www.ukgoods.com/images/bisto-gravy-powder.jpg

[Tchocky]

:lol:

Dammit, hungry now.

[Sea Demon]

I tend to fall on the "They haven't proven that it's man-made, or that it's anything but a natural progression" side, but I agree with Steed on this. It's like most political, or even religious arguments, in that most people supporting one side or the other "know" that they're right, and the other side is full of beans.

I believe Joseph Joubert was right: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory." Neither side here seems to be interested in getting at the truth, only in proving that the other guy is wrong.

Well, true. But it's they who are trying to prove it is man-made. They're making the charge, they have the burden of proof. And they have not been successful at proving it. It would at least be a start if they would admit the glaring flaws of their modelling. Or at least the correlation of data that doesn't support their initial assessments. But one area I agree with Steed is, I've given up putting much effort into this debate anymore. It's become like abortion.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ Steve-:yep: :yep: :yep:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I've given up putting much effort into this debate anymore. It's become like abortion.

Does that strike anyone else as being funny?

[Wolfehunter]

I'm convince over the the global warming issue. Even if it is exagerated by both parties. Weather is changing. Is it a good thing? Or is it a bad thing? I don't know the out come in the next 20 years. But from my experiance living and seeing the changes, there are things happening. There are freakish weather events happing in the last 5 years getting worse than the past 15 years. 20 years ago many of these weather pattern never happen here where I live. People who are far older than me also added that they never heard or have seen things that are going on reciently.

So things are happing. That can not be denied.

[baggygreen]

I just wanna point out from Tchocky's link that the article made a point that most of this lost ice retreated before cars and CFCs and all were common - "Much of the area was lost during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s."

Personally, i think the global warming by manmade causes claim is false. I know many people think otherwise.

I also think the debate is occurring because people want to be able to feel like they're in control of things. thats human nature. People dont like the idea that things might be changing and feeling they're helpless to stop it.

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh God. Please don't argue this again. I don't know how anybody can still be fooled by this crap.




SCIENCE HAS BEEN PERVERTED BY BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT SO BOTH SIDES CAN KEEP THEMSELVES ON THE GRAVY TRAIN FOR LIFE. :yep:

LOL!:rotfl:

Another conspiracy? This one is even better than the evolution, creation, religion in schools, and evangelical arguments we used to have.:roll:

Where are you getting your facts, because after having to correct you on the issue of off-shore drilling in the last debate, I'm really starting to lose interest in this (same s***, different day).

[Stealth Hunter]

I just wanna point out from Tchocky's link that the article made a point that most of this lost ice retreated before cars and CFCs and all were common - "Much of the area was lost during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s."

Personally, i think the global warming by manmade causes claim is false. I know many people think otherwise.

I also think the debate is occurring because people want to be able to feel like they're in control of things. thats human nature. People dont like the idea that things might be changing and feeling they're helpless to stop it.

Entirely to blame? No. Are we to partially blame? Yes.

Statistically, CFCs and fuel emissions from cars along with the temperature have increased, which seems to point to a relation between the two. In addition, experiments conducted by Oxford University and Berkley University, the pollution emitted by humans has been shown to increase the temperature somewhat, by a degree or two (which is a significant amount). However, Earth has done this before, long before CFCs or cars existed (CFC products, anyway). So, it is also a natural part of how the planet works.

Why many people don't believe in Global Warming is beyond me. Maybe they don't fully understand it. Maybe they're involved or have relatives who are involved with fuel companies and corporations who don't push for a clean environment. Maybe they think they know the drill, but in fact have gotten bad sources or are just arrogant in their thinking manner. I dunno. They'll have to tell me and explain, in detail, their reasoning.:nope:

[Kraut]

I know. It is ignorant to think our actions have absolutely no consequences.

[Stealth Hunter]

And too many do...

It's like my grandfather always used to say, "When you pull a single thread from a shirt, you will cause the whole thing to unravel."

[SS107.9MHz]

I can't grasp the main driving force behind believing or not in global warming/or is it man made, etc, being the fact that it is convenient to any of the political sides in debate. The driving force behind any investigation can't be the need to justify or not some a priori position. That's the first step to a biased conclusion, even with the same data. Politics can't come before science. Politics should deal with the facts, not try and make them, unfortunetely that isn't happening... It's been that way for a long time mind you, galileu had th same kind of problem...

But to make a point, the question of global warming (witch is happening, and it's not just the average temp rising, besides that we can see an increase in seasoned relative air humidity in the equatorial line, with an extension of the dry/tropical areas towards the poles, variations in the salinity of diferent areas in the sea, etc) is going on for decades... first signs of accelerated global warming can be traced back to the mids of industrial revolution, (coal is a lot more CO2 rich than petroleum) so thats a pointer, but of course the human factor isn't the only. I've never heard any serious cientist not taking into account the variations in solar atmosphere, has was told above by someone, that's probably, in conection with geothermal activity, one pof the great variables in play, always were.
But it really pisses me of when people try to deny or exagerate facts just because it's convenient to them:damn:
I'd rather start working on real facts than with beliefs and hopes and similar shaits...

[antikristuseke]

SS107.9Mhz it's quite simple. It is far easyer to hide ones head in the sand and pretend there is no problem than to take partial responsibility and to look for a solution.

[Konovalov]

I believe Joseph Joubert was right: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory." Neither side here seems to be interested in getting at the truth, only in proving that the other guy is wrong.
Best thing that I have read all week here. :yep:

[Skybird]

Why assuming human responsibility is a reasonable thing?

1. It cannot hurt to stop doing things that may cause harm, even if it turns out that they do not. The other way around, it can hurt a damn lot.

2. Known micro- and macro-cycles of climate developement do not explain the frightening speed at which thinngs are changing. Never before in Earth history things have changed so fast, and so fundamentally. some of the confused attempts to explain why human presence can not be the factor, are simply hair-raising. Acceleration of global change is happening currently at factors reaching into the four digit range. Some processes described run a thousand times faster than ever before in earth hiostory.

3. One pattern I observe time and again in sceptic's argumentation: if not telling the untruth, so at least not telling the truth in nfull, and hide vital data, leaving unwanted perspectoives and views out. Leaving out decisive data. Leaving out explanatory context. Argue inside so ridiculously small time frames that their views are supported on basis of these little time frames only. the comparison between two years following each other suddenpy are a model to explain the climate over a period of a thousand years. This is irresponsible and pseudo-scientific methodology. Honest scientists are tearing their hairs out over this, because it is so successful in populism to impress the masses. Half-truths and not telling all facts and hiding the vital one, or rip them apart, doers so much more dmaage than just telling lies, and it is so much more difficult for the public to recognize it.

4. but the most decisive factor for me is correlation. Agreed, correlations are no causal links in htemselves. But they make a statement about links being existent, saying that it is not by random chasnce that the two variables you observe coincide in quality and/or time. and when I look at so many things, from atmosphere change and killing forest over warming of the ocean, specie'S extinction and other species changing their global spreading drastically to jellyfish taking over dominance of life in the oceans and reef dying, and compare all this to the timing of the beginning of human industrial activity and the developement of the conseqeunces of it, then these links are not recommending themselves to be taken serious, but they shout and yell and shoot firework to be taken into account, that obvious it is.

5. Until some time ago, I worked as meditation teacher, and many people often asked questions about relgion, spirituality, and gods. One thing I realised time and again: most people did not wish to learn any truth about "reality" by themselves, or take any efforts that were considered "difficult" to win experiences that alolow them to form an educated view of things all by themselves. What most of them wanted is to be reassured in their personal interpretation of reality that they had arranged in ways that it allowed them most comfort and did not stand in their way - so they thought. they wanted not any experiences or new truths - they wanted to be told that they have no reason to change their views at all, and nevertheless would win "heaven".
With climate sceptics it is often the same. They do not want to learn any truth (and the payed once making it a job to deny it anyway even will make it their profession to spread doubt and half-truths). They want a model that allows them to say that man is not repsonsible, that nothing must be chnaged, that all is running by itself, and that nothing must be done, so that the old ways of living and habits can be sticked to and nobody must change a damn in his way of life. In other words it is about delaying chnage for industy's shortterm profit, it is about laziness and comfort of the ordinary man as well. It is about a desired outcome that allows not to move. Truth or reality have nothing to do with it. Such people are running by the same intention, like their equivalents in the camp of golobal wearming believers, who do not care for a discriminatory precise view at things, but wants their already decided measure being implememnted for principal and sometimes ideologicial reasons. what green parties implement once they became ordinary parties and share government often is driven by this, it looks green, but sometimes is not any green at all, and may even increase the damage to the "green casue". but all in all, sceptics are doing by far the reater damage. and why calling them sceptics in general? Only some are honestly sceptical, but most are no sceptics at all - they are prejudiced. Scpetics do not actively try to deny obvious facts, and do not intentionally close their eyes before unwanted realities.

In other words, it is about phlegmatism. the excuse that first ojne wishes to see the ultimate, the undeniable, the unignorrable final evidence and proof is cheap in the fasce of so overwhelmingly striong and plentiful correlations between global symptoms and human activity. when you got shot by surprise and the bullet is in your body and causes you pain and you loose blood, you do not demand a crime examination first, before allowing to be brought into hospital - you hope they bring you to a doctor first who does the needed surgery as soon as possible and saves your life.

In the end you all jujst need to open your eyes to see how the world is changing, and lots of it are dying. the signs are there to see for everybody who is willing to open his eyes. From the mountains and glaciers to the ocean, from the deserts to the rain forest, from the drastically chnaging spread patterns of species to the disappearing of other ones. It is all so very, very obvious. - And some of you guys still insist on wanting to use a microscope to check wether the dot above the "i" really is round, or not. that way, you sure can acchieve that the rescue boats are not even considered to be brought to water before the whole ship already is below the water surface. It is, according to you, enough to have a vague idea of where they are. Will we all die a fast, sudden death soon? No. but it is our civilisation at risk, our cities, and hundreds of millions of people are directly affected from death by desasters, floodings, diseases, with the rich nations affected by shortage of ressoucres, wars, and social unrest. And over the passing of decades, they will die by the hundreds of millions from these factors. Take my word for that.

That are the real smashing consequences of global warming and irresponsible demand for ever-growing industrialisation and no birth control, gentlemen.

[UnderseaLcpl]

As one of our remaining points of contention, I will make a brief stand here if you don't mind, sky.


Why assuming human responsibility is a reasonable thing?

1. It cannot hurt to stop doing things that may cause harm, even if it turns out that they do not. The other way around, it can hurt a damn lot.

Actually the economic consequences can be quite harmful. In. the U.S. the EPA has wasted tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and even bulldozed entire communities in the name of environmentalism. Their policies impair the growth of commerce and industry and often have dubious benefits.

While I would agree that some regulation concerning pollution is certainly in order, I think that it needs to be limited. The government has done a poor job of managing it thus far, generating a lot of economic damage for relatively little gain.

2. Known micro- and macro-cycles of climate developement do not explain the frightening speed at which thinngs are changing. Never before in Earth history things have changed so fast, and so fundamentally. some of the confused attempts to explain why human presence can not be the factor, are simply hair-raising. Acceleration of global change is happening currently at factors reaching into the four digit range. Some processes described run a thousand times faster than ever before in earth hiostory.


http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp14/lcplmaryott/globaltemp.jpg


Oh rly?:D


And as for the rest of the argument, your logic can be applied in reverse. And often is. Just look at Greenpeace. Giving environmentalists everywhere a bad name with their whacked-out theories and questionable methods.

Something needs to be done, but the debate is not over, and the wrong course of action, whatever it may be, could have far-reaching consequences.

[Skybird]

Assuming for a moment that graph is correct - I did not check it - you see that it lists eons of earth history, and the according chnages in the grapüh take place over tens and hundreds of thousands of years therefore. I never said that past climate has not seen drastic changes - I referred to the acceleration of speed at which they take place currently. chnages that befoe took place over thousnads and thousands of years - now running hundreds or a thousand times faster. and that is new, as far as our science can tell us. And the beginning of this acceleration, like the beginning of many other problematic botanic, zoological, atmosherical, oceanographical changes, by random chance coincides with the emergence of man, and sees it'S spiking accentuations at the time the heavy industry popped up. Just decades - in geological time scales, 50 years is less than an eye's blink, so if two events or processes fall together within half a century, that probably has a message to tell. at least that is a more reasonable an assumption than just thinking it is random chance.

Regarding damage to the eco0nomy, the IPCC study as well as many other studies before calöculated that if we do not react to climate chnage by adjusting our industial procedures and business routines now, in the long run the financial falout from needing to repair the damages caused by that lacking action wilkl be at least ten times as high. I also would like to remind of that old Indian proverb used by Greenpeace that when he last riover is poisened and the last tree is cut, you eventually may find out that you cannot eat money. Currently, economic interests are profits are given priroity about everything else. And that is a suicidal mistake. The interests of industry does not overrule the interests of the community, or the realties set by nature on planet earth. Therefore, the theory of "unlimited economical growth" will cause us just more damage, for it increases the trend by which we damage ourselve, and the biosphere. It will not help us to lower these tendencies. If you want to stop your car, there is no use in pushing the gas pedal - at least you need to let go the gas pedal, if not even applying brakes.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm not going to press this too much, because as I have said before, I doubt we can come to a consensus on this issue.

Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument. It's not even a strong argument, but there are many like it and they show that other possibilities are out there.

That's all I'm asking, consider the other possibilities.

Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities.
and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable
http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/16/nobel-prize-winner-asks-ipcc-to-admit-climate-change-errors/

admittedly, this article (letter, whatever) is biased in favor of my viewpoint. But these people have some good points.

So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.



Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.
On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now.


I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.
Should we not, then, question their findings?

Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise?

At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return.


Thoughts?

[Skybird]

Firstly, the rate of climate change can roughly be discerned from this graph. It is not a be-all end-all argument.

the argument that atmospheric changes and temperature changes take place insanely fast currently, stands nevertheless.


Secondly, I would like to point out that the IPCC is a) not composed entirely of scientists. Activists have joined their ranks and some scientists have withdrawn from the panel in protest of its' activities.
and b) the IPCC is not uncontested in its' findings and some of their research methods are questionable
http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/16/nobel-prize-winner-asks-ipcc-to-admit-climate-change-errors/ (http://constitutionallyright.com/2008/04/16/nobel-prize-winner-asks-ipcc-to-admit-climate-change-errors/)

I am aware of the weaknesses of the IPCC report, and the main critici9sm of it that was voiced by it's former head himself: that it assumed too optimistic assumptions mabout human energy behavior, and thus in it'S predictions even is not brtual enough. It paints a rosy picture basing energy demands already being reduced right now, instead of climbing in the future.


So, all I ask is that you would genuinely consider the opposing view. I would offer to do the same but I spent all of my teenage years believing that global climate change was man-made, already.

I do, but I have difficulty to take many of the sceptic's argument serious when I see them ignoring obvious and often-made obervations.



Climate change, even if man made, will take quite some time to profoundly affect the Earth. Even if it is only a few decades, that is precious time.

It WILL not, but already DOES affect us.



On the other hand, economic harms are almost immediate. And there are even some environmental harms in things like biofuel as the article I provided states. An argument I had not thought to investigate until now.

I was against biofuels from the beginning on, yes. There mis no altermntaive to reducing our energy demands, by being more energy-proficient, and not wasting it by increasing our dependency on energy-heavy applications. You do not need an electric lemon squezzer, if it makes already no real difference to do it by hand, to give a very simply example. the comfort of such stupid applictions do not justify their consequences. And if the damage affects the higher wellbeing of the community, and nature, than it is the point where imo the right of the individual to claim freedom to choose using such things nevertehless come to an end. I do not believe in the unlimited freedom of people, and consumers.


I'm sure we can both agree that the government generally makes a mess of things and is ineffecient. The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel.
Should we not, then, question their findings?

Sure, but the IPCC in the main is something like a metastudy, so tpo speak. the basic groundwork for it's conclusions has not been done by bureaucrats, but scitiensts. And most of them not being lobbyists, I would say.


Although we (and our respective camps) may not ever agree on this issue until economic or climatalogical consequences have manifested themselves, would it not be best to at least attempt to reach some sort of compromise?

Depends on the defintion of such a compromise. If wife and husband are fighting over saturday nights's TV program, him wanting to see football and her wanting to see the music show, and the compromise is considered to be watching the music show, then the term is loosing it's meaning, doesn't it.

At the last I will say that the economic harms of action to stop climate change have already begun and they are quite noticeable. The use of ethanol has raised fuel and food prices, and renewable energy projects and research (particularly wind farms) have cost hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly from the taxpayers' coffers, for a marginal return.

Harm from headless environmental pollution and excessively exoploiting natural ressources, both regarding sea and air, also continues. The damage to oceans, reefs and fishes is already very huge. Some fishes that are on our tables are down to 10% of there populations just 20 years ago. I just have read about jellyfish taking over the oceans, and biologists mean it like that: taking it over. It is a very frigthening perspective. Fish populations are massively driven back not only by human fishing, but jellyfish as well. Add to that: algas, and a decrease in plancton.


Thoughts?

No, I am distracted. My new camera just arrived :D Nice low budget solution, the Canon Powershot A590IS, very many options, features and pic quality, just a bit noisy at high ISO. It replaces my old A75 which just had broken down.

[asanovic7]

Just some merry thoughts..

Biofuel is a brilliant design of how to make stupid little countries dependant on geneticly modified food(although Brasil huh). You have to invest more energy to gain very little with that s..t. And that's about that.
"We still have some decades, precious time" ??

Imagine Earth is a breeding organism with 6 billion little insects rowing and chewing.. :rotfl: Viruses..
You can say we accelerated the normal process of heating the Earth very much. If I am not mistaken, Earth is heating up normally, right? Regardless of that, to say that we are not affected allready is very nice, because that is what leads to things like reducing wastes to a point that was in 1990 which is much is like saying to a man that has a cancer to smoke only one and a half pack of cigarettes a day. We are covered with garbage, allready..
Algies and planctons are what makes this world breathe, other than plants.. Not only that, they are food for some very nice creatures..
Almost every single "not home" animal is in danger.
Every day a very good number of species dissappears..
There is no compromise at the cost of making a profit..

So you can say we all can just lay back, hope for the worse and enjoy while we can..
:rock:
We still have tv shows from Atternborough :rotfl: , right?

All you can do is lay back, enjoy the view and hope for the worse.. And maybe do a little lovin'.. :arrgh!:


OOOPS forgot, if the ice melts only certain parts of Earth will freeze, like England, right? Before the end of this century, right?

[UnderseaLcpl]

:rotfl: I underestimated you, sky. I really thought that we could at least begin to compromise on this, but it would appear that your convictions are unshakeable.

Since you will not come to my camp, I shall go to yours. Please outline a solution for global warming that doesn't destroy nations' economies in the process. I promise to genuinely consider it and observe its' merits and failures as objectively as possible.

A link is also acceptable as I'm sure you've been over this with others in the past. Make it good and I may inch in your direction.

Fair?

[asanovic7]

Yep, now it's definite..

I hate even that darn word..

Economy..

There is no solution, undersea man.. With anglo saxon ruthless capitalism, with boots flying all over, there is no way on earth to reduce the effects of our development. There is no way.
Here are some modern terms..
Sustainable development is a bs made by bs men. It only means you burn your fuel more effectively.. :rotfl: Nice, but maybe more profit like, not enviroment..
Alternative sources of energy are imagination. They will never replace 100% everything. And who wants fields filled with solar panels instead of deers..
I read some papers like how to reduce laying wastes and such. Wow the success was when they reached 20 % Wow..
But..
Maybe..
Only solution IMO would be electricity. Nuclear plants. Everything on electricity.
Although we would need to kill all car mechanics and oil pump workers, but it would work, I think..
Yep, and we can still shoot nuclear waste into outer space :arrgh!: Damn green monkeys..

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yep, now it's definite..

I hate even that darn word..

Economy..

There is no solution, undersea man.. With anglo saxon ruthless capitalism, with boots flying all over, there is no way on earth to reduce the effects of our development. There is no way.
Here are some modern terms..
Sustainable development is a bs made by bs men. It only means you burn your fuel more effectively.. :rotfl: Nice, but maybe more profit like, not enviroment..
Alternative sources of energy are imagination. They will never replace 100% everything. And who wants fields filled with solar panels instead of deers..
I read some papers like how to reduce laying wastes and such. Wow the success was when they reached 20 % Wow..
But..
Maybe..
Only solution IMO would be electricity. Nuclear plants. Everything on electricity.
Although we would need to kill all car mechanics and oil pump workers, but it would work, I think..
Yep, and we can still shoot nuclear waste into outer space :arrgh!: Damn green monkeys..

???????:-?

[Skybird]

Lance, this forum has been there. More than once.

there is no solution - in the meaning of the word - to global warming, or as i prefer to say more precise and open to variations: climate change. It is happening, no matter mankind noting it or not. the only questions are 1.) whether or not we stop fueling it, 2.) whether we start trying to adapt to it as best as we still can, or not - getting rolled over by it unprepared, then 3.) wether or not there is enough time left for us to adapt in any way making a difference for us, and the biosphere on which we depend, and all current life depends. It is not a future event that can be prevented. It already takes place. What meaning could the word "solution" have? The words to remember are "adaptation" and "damage control". Also, climate change not only affects man and his industry, but biosphere, botanic and zoologic life as well - and these again affect us. You can't pick out a simple phenomenon, adress it, and then think you are fine again.

before mankind dies as a species, it is our civilisation and communal structures that die, our culture. Earth, and "life" per se, has no problem with global warming. Man has the problem. earth does not care to have a hot desert all around, or an iceage, or a methane-poisened atmosphere. with or without us, the shows keeps running. And currently it is not decided if man ever will become more than just a small three-word-footnote in the diary of this planet. And this is a problem for our ego and also the religious self-understanding of quite many people. we are not being master of all life on earth? the meaning of life not revolving around us alone? homo sapiens not being the ultimate meaning of what life is all about, and evolution?

What a heresy! It cannot be what should not be. Our forefathers wrote into the bible that we shall see ourselves as the greatest, the only ones, the ruler of all and everything. Well, megalomania of that kind usually ends with the patient being locked away in a white cell with rubber walls. :D

[asanovic7]

Yep man! The safest!

Nuclear plants!

:rock:
You may think I am talking nuts here, but nuclear plants are really safe to handle.
Cerrnobil was IMO sabotage.. two big human mistakes one after other, too much to be accident..

You asked for solution, I gave you one. If we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases(co2, cfc's) to a position that was BEFORE 1990, that would be just fine..

So, you can see there will never be a compromise?

Hey, and you can have my wife:rotfl:

[asanovic7]

Lance, this forum has been there. More than once.

there is no solution - in the meaning of the word - to global warming or as i prefer to say more precise and open to variations: climate change. It is happening, no matter mankind noting it or not. the only questions are 1.) whether or not we stop fueling it, 2.) whether we start trying to adapt to it as best as we still can or not, getting rolled over by it unprepared, 3.) wether or not there is enough time left for us to adapt in any way making a difference for us, and the biosphere on which we depend and all current life depends. It is not a future event that can be prevented. It already takes place. What meaningould the word "solution" have? The words to remember are "adaptation" and "damage control". Also, climate change not only affects man and his industry, but biosphere, botanic and zoologic life as well - and these again affect us. You can't pick out a simple phenomenon, adress it, and then think you are fine again.

before mankind dies as a species, it is our civilisation and communal structures that die, our culture. Earth, and "life" per se, has no problem with global warming. Man has the problem. earth does not care to have a hot desert all around, or an iceage, or a methane-poisened atmosphere. witzh or wothiut us, the shows keeps running. And currently it is not decided if man ever will become more than just a small three-word-footnote in the diary of this planet. And this is a problem for the ego of also religious self-understanding of quite many people. wenot being master of all life on earth? the meaning of life not revolving around us alone? homo sapiens not being the ultimate meaning of what life is all about, and evolution, and evolution?

What a heresy! It cannot be what should not be. Our forefathers wrote into the bible that we shall see ourselves as the greatest, the only ones, the ruler of all and everything. Well, megalomania of that kind usually ends with the patient being locked away in a white cell with rubber walls. :D

Yep, skybird really speaks like a prodigy.. :up:

Ongoing revolution is going on that we only participate in and not guiding or controlling it.. Still we don't have to shoot the rabbits to help them die out, now, don't we? :D We are accelerating it and that is not good..
We are pissing off the Gods..

[moose1am]

Sea Ice is so far off shore that the polar bears are stranded on the land mass and can't swim out to the ice and catch seals this summer. Scientists who were surveying the coast line's shore birds were forced to retreat when a polar bear showed up. Normally this time of the year the polar bears are all out on the sea ice but not this summer.

And yes it was just yesterday that scientists discovered that this shelf of ice had vanished. It fell of into the sea and floated away.

Ice does not melt and ice shelfs don't fall into the ocean when the earth cools down. That only happens as the Earth Warms up.

Remember all it takes is a few degrees of warming to melt ice. Ice melts when it gets above 32 deg F. So ice can go from 31 deg F to 33 deg F and melt. That's only a difference of two deg F. And the mean average temperature of the earth has risen more than 2 deg F.

I don't care where those pictures that Subman posted were manufactured, the Arctic Seas have much less ice now than before.

Why else would Russia start sending Bears out to Patrol the Arctic? They know as we know that the ice is melting up there and exposing rick oil resources for the taking. And they are going to try to claim the outer continental shelf's oil etc. They would not be doing that if there was too much ice covering the Arctic Ocean. But the ice is melting and exposing the water and that's why Russia is going after the oil in this region.

I saw this first, but then I thought good ole subman will see it next ...

So I let it go :cool:

Wait a minute your not talking about the 1,400 mile galcier that just fell into the ocean are you. I'll go get the article.

This thing is so big ... the glacier itself very very old.

Didn't the whole thing go crashing off at the same time and thats why it's so big?

[Wolfehunter]

Lance, this forum has been there. More than once.

there is no solution - in the meaning of the word - to global warming or as i prefer to say more precise and open to variations: climate change. It is happening, no matter mankind noting it or not. the only questions are 1.) whether or not we stop fueling it, 2.) whether we start trying to adapt to it as best as we still can or not, getting rolled over by it unprepared, 3.) wether or not there is enough time left for us to adapt in any way making a difference for us, and the biosphere on which we depend and all current life depends. It is not a future event that can be prevented. It already takes place. What meaningould the word "solution" have? The words to remember are "adaptation" and "damage control". Also, climate change not only affects man and his industry, but biosphere, botanic and zoologic life as well - and these again affect us. You can't pick out a simple phenomenon, adress it, and then think you are fine again.

before mankind dies as a species, it is our civilisation and communal structures that die, our culture. Earth, and "life" per se, has no problem with global warming. Man has the problem. earth does not care to have a hot desert all around, or an iceage, or a methane-poisened atmosphere. witzh or wothiut us, the shows keeps running. And currently it is not decided if man ever will become more than just a small three-word-footnote in the diary of this planet. And this is a problem for the ego of also religious self-understanding of quite many people. wenot being master of all life on earth? the meaning of life not revolving around us alone? homo sapiens not being the ultimate meaning of what life is all about, and evolution, and evolution?

What a heresy! It cannot be what should not be. Our forefathers wrote into the bible that we shall see ourselves as the greatest, the only ones, the ruler of all and everything. Well, megalomania of that kind usually ends with the patient being locked away in a white cell with rubber walls. :DBecause Most people are lazy and most people don't give a rats arse....:nope:

If people cared and respect their world they would do something about it.

The only time these people will do something is when the world is dieing and their is no saving it. Then you will see masses waking up to the reality. But its too late.

To few fighting the fight and their tactics are too peaceful. Green peace etc. should be more aggressive.

[asanovic7]

That's it man!!

Kill that profit making murderers, burn them to hell!!

:rock:

[SS107.9MHz]

I've got some ideas to at least limit or recapture some of the CO2...
The thing about biofuels isn't as bad as it's supposed to be...of course that extracting ethanol from corn is ridiculous, the main problem of the biofuels is that instead of betting on economicaly viable cultures like sugar cane in brasil, most of the producers choose to keep producing the same cultures like corn and similar... about the "there won't be any food letf" that's rubbish, worldwide we already have more food than we're capable of consuming;my Invisible pink unicorn, in the european union we can't even produce what we can so we don't get fines! The problem is that poor countries don't have money to buy the exceding food from the producers. Brasil can be completely selsufficinet in terms of auto biofuel for instance. Europe is another matter, don't know the possibility of growing enough biodiesel for the EU market, but some plants like Ceratonia siliqua, peanuts, or sunflower could in the meantime substancially relieve the demand for oil, before 3rd gen biofuel arrives. If we think of it biofuel is just solar power in chemical form...
Next, someguys in japan just figured out a simpler way to produce carbonfiber for cars, it's possible to recapture atmospheric C02 and make carbon fire for various uses, the problem was the fiber producing tecnology till now was too expensive...

[SS107.9MHz]

Oh Skybird how do you rate the 590is? the 720is was one of the best entry level consumer cameras canon made, so i'm curious about thet one:hmm:

[Skybird]

Oh Skybird how do you rate the 590is? the 720is was one of the best entry level consumer cameras canon made, so i'm curious about thet one:hmm:
I wanted a replacement for the A75, and I did not want to spend much money. I got the A590 for 130 euros, and spüend another 10 euros on a 4 GB SD card.

Handling and philosophy is very similiar, it is a bit smaller, and I do not wish a camera to be any smaller than this, really. Plenty of options that work well, so does the image stabilisation - the most prominent feature that separates it from the 580. Picture quality is very nice, to my great surprise no more stitch mode for panorama shots included - but you do not need it, the included software will stitch all normal shots, correct broken perspectives, even exposure differences as I noted - I was stunned by the very good quality of the result. With a 4 GB chip, you can record videos of 50 minutes at 640x480, 20 pics per second, in surprisingly good quality. some motive automatic modes work very nice, especially the program for "leaves" made a very impressive difference over full automatic.

The only setback is that at ISO 400 and more the dark areas of pictures really become noticably noisy. Since i use such cameras mostly in P-mode or AV a Tv mode, I can manually program ISO 100 and leave it to that - problem solved. Image stabilisation helps considerably. no more 4, but just 2 AA batteries needed. 8 Megapix.

I love it, since I do not trust in the longevity of digital cameras i shy away from spending plenty of money into a digital EOS 450 or so, and stick with my old EOS 600, and buy digital cameras from the low price segment only - today they are so good that you must not spend much money, really. If then they break down after three years, like my last one, it's not so much a loss.

For 130 euros, the A590IS is a superior offer (the A720 costs 400 euros over here). Best value for money. I assume that it is running out soon, and that you can get it even cheaper before x-mas. If you have no exceptionnel demands, do not want to spend much money and want a small but extremely versatile camera to always carry with you, you have found it. the 720 and 590 imo are very much the same, with the 6x instead of 4x optical zoom being the most prominent difference in favour of the n720 - but if that feature alone is worth an additional 270 euros (the costs of 2 590s!) I dare to question, for me it was not. I love the 590. But I am a Canon lover anyway. My SLR is Canon, all my digital cameras are/were Canon, my printer is Canon, my scanner is Canon. Nice handling, superb quality of the work results, they've never let me down.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/canon_a590is.html

[SS107.9MHz]

Oh Skybird how do you rate the 590is? the 720is was one of the best entry level consumer cameras canon made, so i'm curious about thet one:hmm: I wanted a replacement for the A75, and I did not want to spend much money. I got the A590 for 130 euros, and spüend another 10 euros on a 4 GB SD card.

Handling and philosophy is very similiar, it is a bit smaller, and I do not wish a camera to be any smaller than this, really. Plenty of options that work well, so does the image stabilisation - the most prominent feature that separates it from the 580. Picture quality is very nice, to my great surprise no more stitch mode for panorama shots included - but you do not need it, the included software will stitch all normal shots, correct broken perspectives, even exposure differences as I noted - I was stunned by the very good quality of the result. With a 4 GB chip, you can record videos of 50 minutes at 640x480, 20 pics per second, in surprisingly good quality. some motive automatic modes work very nice, especially the program for "leaves" made a very impressive difference over full automatic.

The only setback is that at ISO 400 and more the dark areas of pictures really become noticably noisy. Since i use such cameras mostly in P-mode or AV a Tv mode, I can manually program ISO 100 and leave it to that - problem solved. Image stabilisation helps considerably. no more 4, but just 2 AA batteries needed. 8 Megapix.

I love it, since I do not trust in the longevity of digital cameras i shy away from spending plenty of money into a digital EOS 450 or so, and stick with my old EOS 600, and buy digital cameras from the low price segment only - today they are so good that you must not spend much money, really. If then they break down after three years, like my last one, it's not so much a loss.

For 130 euros, the A590IS is a superior offer (the A720 costs 400 euros over here). Best value for money. I assume that it is running out soon, and that you can get it even cheaper before x-mas. If you have no exceptionnel demands, do not want to spend much money and want a small but extremely versatile camera to always carry with you, you have found it. the 720 and 590 imo are very much the same, with the 6x instead of 4x optical zoom being the most prominent difference in favour of the n720 - but if that feature alone is worth an additional 270 euros (the costs of 2 590s!) I dare to question, for me it was not. I love the 590. But I am a Canon lover anyway. My SLR is Canon, all my digital cameras are/were Canon, my printer is Canon, my scanner is Canon. Nice handling, superb quality of the work results, they've never let me down.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/canon_a590is.html

Thanx SBird.Oh, but now I can get the 720 for roughly the same price, being it an older model, completely agree on the camers size, it's jeust right, I'm currently using a Lumix FZ7 (Leica Power!:rock:) I do a bit of wildlife so the zoom is a must, and picture qualty, unless you'r shooting in the dark is quite good even with 6mp. Only complain is the 38mm starting point...eheh, f18 solved that though...

[Skybird]

You're sure we talk about the same 720-camera?

[SS107.9MHz]

You're sure we talk about the same 720-camera?
eheheh, we're kinda hijacking this thread,:) but yes:
http://www.precos.com.pt/camaras-digitais-c40/canon-powershot-a720-is-p17537503.html
http://www.kuantokusta.pt/Imagem-Digital-Camaras-Digitais-Canon-PowerShot-A720-IS.php
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/compare.php
It's about 50-60e more than the 590, not sure if it's worth it tough...

[Skybird]

You're sure we talk about the same 720-camera?
eheheh, we're kinda hijacking this thread,:) but yes:
http://www.precos.com.pt/camaras-digitais-c40/canon-powershot-a720-is-p17537503.html
http://www.kuantokusta.pt/Imagem-Digital-Camaras-Digitais-Canon-PowerShot-A720-IS.php
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/compare.php
It's about 50-60e more than the 590, not sure if it's worth it tough...
You're lucky to get it so cheap down there. I would have given it a second thoght, maybe, if I would have seen it at 200 euros over here. But when I checked, some weeks ago, it was 400 euros, and not only with amazon, but others as well.

The IFA is over, prices use to drop for old equipment after it.

However, my choice still is cheaper by one third over here, so I am still happy and do not regret it.

Whehn you buy your camera, use these new Eneloop rechargable batteries by Sanyo, they really work great - no loss of energy when storing them for long, and having solid capacity (and again: no energy loss over time, at least none you would notice). they have 2300mA, i think. Yes, there are 2700 out there, but they use their loading over days and weeks, leaving you effectively with less loaded batteries after sime time. Does not happen with the eneloops, which gives them the advantage.

However, Ansmann digital 2700 are an extremely good choice, too.

[Tchocky]

^^ Ahh, subsim :p ^^

[SS107.9MHz]

You're sure we talk about the same 720-camera?
eheheh, we're kinda hijacking this thread,:) but yes:
http://www.precos.com.pt/camaras-digitais-c40/canon-powershot-a720-is-p17537503.html
http://www.kuantokusta.pt/Imagem-Digital-Camaras-Digitais-Canon-PowerShot-A720-IS.php
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/compare.php
It's about 50-60e more than the 590, not sure if it's worth it tough... You're lucky to get it so cheap down there. I would have given it a second thoght, maybe, if I would have seen it at 200 euros over here. But when I checked, some weeks ago, it was 400 euros, and not only with amazon, but others as well.

The IFA is over, prices use to drop for old equipment after it.

However, my choice still is cheaper by one third over here, so I am still happy and do not regret it.

Whehn you buy your camera, use these new Eneloop rechargable batteries by Sanyo, they really work great - no loss of energy when storing them for long, and having solid capacity (and again: no energy loss over time, at least none you would notice). they have 2300mA, i think. Yes, there are 2700 out there, but they use their loading over days and weeks, leaving you effectively with less loaded batteries after sime time. Does not happen with the eneloops, which gives them the advantage.

However, Ansmann digital 2700 are an extremely good choice, too.

:up:"Gigddy-gigddy-gigddy Hawright!"
Thanks for the tip:D

[darius359au]

Global warming = Having to drive a Prius there fore Global warming doesn't exist because there no way in Earth would I be caught dead in a Prius http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQcSOP2AzXU ;):lol::lol: