Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13385

What we didn't already know unless you drink the Al Gore Koolaid.

-S

[MothBalls]

I guess you missed the part where he said "hot areas will get hotter and cold areas will get colder". You just proved his point.

Maybe you should at least taste the punch before declaring it to be poison. Did you even watch the movie?

,edit.

Did you read the article you linked to?

Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

[SUBMAN1]

I guess you missed the part where he said "hot areas will get hotter and cold areas will get colder". You just proved his point.

Maybe you should at least taste the punch before declaring it to be poison. Did you even watch the movie?

Hardly. Did you notice he only fed you 300 years of data - approximately the lowest point of our mini ice age until now? Or did he fail to mention the glacier melt that has been steady and started before the use of hydrocarbons? NO! He conveniently left that part out.

So hows your Kool Aid? You swallowed a ton of it.

-S

[Skybird]

Yawn.

Once again, second run:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/pdf/ngeo338.pdf

[mrbeast]

Don't sweat it Mothballs, he never fully reads the articles he posts.

I seem to remember a similar thread where the author of the article Subman posted acually admitted in a postscript that the evidence that he had used to support about 90% of his argument was in fact wrong; didn't stop ol' Subman from running with it though, despite me drawing his attention to it several times.

[Morts]

Don't sweat it Mothballs, he never fully reads the articles he posts.

I seem to remember a similar thread where the author of the article Subman posted acually admitted in a postscript that the evidence that he had used to support about 90% of his argument was in fact wrong; didn't stop ol' Subman from running with it though, despite me drawing his attention to it several times.
selective reading:rotfl: :rotfl:

[MothBalls]

Doesn't bother me. :)

Selective reading? The person who read it to him didn't finish it.

Some people are so blinded by their own bigotry towards anything they don't believe they can't see the truth or open their minds to any other possibilities. It's fun to occasionally poke them with a stick just to watch them get all excited.

[Hanomag]

Who cares? :|\\

Once were underwater it wont matter much anyhow.

So live it up while you can, spend your savings!

Thats what Im doing! :rock:

[Letum]

There is a important difference between weather and climate.

[SUBMAN1]

Doesn't bother me. :)

Selective reading? The person who read it to him didn't finish it.

Some people are so blinded by their own bigotry towards anything they don't believe they can't see the truth or open their minds to any other possibilities. It's fun to occasionally poke them with a stick just to watch them get all excited.
Explain to me where I have selective reading. Since you can't, I'd say the above is an attack on me based on selective reading since they didn't bother to read the article! :D :p

-S

PS. I forgot to mention the record cold even in non arctic areas last year, and expected to be worse this year. But everyone in this thread seems to be on the Al Gore Kool Aid.

[SUBMAN1]

Who cares? :|\\

Once were underwater it wont matter much anyhow.

So live it up while you can, spend your savings!

Thats what Im doing! :rock:
Not to poke at you, but if you know anything about science (And the media gets this wrong all the time by the way), Sea Ice is 'floating' ice. If all the floating ice in the world melted, it has no effect on sea level.

-S

PS. I guess if it had no affect on Sea Level, then it wouldn't be so dramatic now would it?

[Hanomag]

Who cares? :|\\

Once were underwater it wont matter much anyhow.

So live it up while you can, spend your savings!

Thats what Im doing! :rock:
Not to poke at you, but if you know anything about science (And the media gets this wrong all the time by the way), Sea Ice is 'floating' ice. If all the floating ice in the world melted, it has no effect on sea level.

-S

PS. I guess if it had no effect on Sea Level, then it wouldn't be so dramatic now would it?

Like I said whether its Sea Ice, Glaciers, Obama, whatever, ....

I DON'T REALLY, HONESTLY, TRULY, CARE! :arrgh!:

I am not a self proclaimed know-it all like many posters. The reason why I don't know the difference between Sea Ice and Glaciers is, because I choose not to.

Ignorance is bliss. :yep:

Also don't worry about poking me I am quite durable. I have been spit on in real life and had to take it. So I am sure a little ribbing on a video game forum can be tolerated. :sunny:

I am just posting so I can get my post count up anyway. :doh:

As per my post in this thread Where Is Everybody?( Big Drop ) (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=143160)

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually - if all the sea ice - aka floating ice melted - it would be all the ice - because as it melts the stuff held underwater by the weight will rise - so ultimately it would all end up on the surface and it would melt.....

Except that global warming is a huge farce. 1 degree average change in the last 100 years - and remember they were using thermometers in places like siberia for some of their "numbers" - anyone wanna bet a russian made thermometer circa 1900~ would even be accurate to 1 degree???

No one looks to things like sunspots, cyclical airstream patterns, carbon absorbtion by the oceans, etc. Its just like they scream "theres a hole in the ozone layer!" - yea there is - every winter. Every summer its closed up - and its over the freaking pole, not over where people are. Besides - there are answers to global warming that are very easy - just the wacko's would rather control your lives by limiting what you can do, what you can eat, what you can use - than actually fix the problem that is their "claimed" concern.

So Subman - right there with ya bud!

[Morts]

Ignorance is bliss. :yep:
i belive you just stole Subman1's motto

[MothBalls]

No one looks to things like sunspots, cyclical airstream patterns, carbon absorbtion by the oceans, etc.

Some people do, like me for instance.

My earlier point was only that some people will form an opinion and never look back. It's fun to poke them with a stick so you can watch them jump up and down as they try to shove their conclusion down everyone's throat. :) A closed mind gathers no intelligence.

About global warming in general, I'm not convinced either way. I still look at all of the arguments, facts, data, etc. and learn more every day. It may be cyclic, it may be caused my man. I can't say for sure.

Some of the evidence that man is having an effect on the environment is convincing, and some of the evidence that's it just part of the natural process is just as convincing.

One thing is for sure. There are some things we can do nothing about. There are some thing we can change. Out of the things that we can change, we should. Not to the extreme but maybe start heading in that direction. Evolution, not revoloution.

Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? If it is us [humankind] causing it, and we can develop the technologies to change that, then we should. Tis better to try to be a part of the environment rather than continue to exploit it and take the risk.

Bottom line is, the planet will survive, with or without us. The earth isn't going anywhere, we are. We need to keep looking at the problem(s) with an open mind and educate ourselves so we can make the best decision.

I'll put my stick away for now. (But I was having so much fun with it :()

[fatty]

Question: how does the ice breaking off from the shelves and floating freely factor in to sea ice levels?

[SUBMAN1]

Ignorance is bliss. :yep: i belive you just stole Subman1's mottoThat is true, since you keep proving me right. Your ignorance has allowed others to sell you on something akin to the moon being cheese, and you're happy about it. Glad you pointed that out.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Question: how does the ice breaking off from the shelves and floating freely factor in to sea ice levels?

Ice floating displaces the exact same amount of water that it is in itself water - something the media can't figure out as well as some others that I see. From a shelf however, if that shelf is land based, then you have something displacing water that was once not of that water, so in effect, you are adding water to water and it will rise.

This is not happening in the last year in either Antarctica or Alaska since both land masses are increasing their glacier ice like never before recorded. Alaska in particular has added more ice than it lost to its most famous glaciers for the first time in recorded history.

-S

[MothBalls]

Question: how does the ice breaking off from the shelves and floating freely factor in to sea ice levels?

Ice floating displaces the exact same amount of water that it is in itself water - something the media can't figure out as well as some others that I see. From a shelf however, if that shelf is land based, then you have something displacing water that was once not of that water, so in effect, you are adding water to water and it will rise.

This is not happening in the last year in either Antarctica or Alaska since both land masses are increasing their glacier ice like never before recorded. Alaska in particular has added more ice than it lost to its most famous glaciers for the first time in recorded history.

-S


Here's a visual of what whatshisname just said:
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ipy07.sci.ess.watcyc.icesimulate/

If you read the [ENTIRE] article with this link, you'll also notice:
However, although the melting of floating ice doesn't significantly affect sea level, there are other consequences. Variations in salinity and temperature drive global ocean circulation because of density differences; fresh water is less dense than salt water and warm water is less dense than cold water. This thermohaline circulation is sometimes referred to as the great ocean "conveyor belt" because it is one of Earth's main mechanisms for transporting energy.

Now you have to factor in the Global Ocean Conveyor:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/polar/icemelt_oceancirc.html&edu=high


The problem [I see] with the whole global warming debate is that there's so many inter-related systems at work, so many data points to consider, and so many variables that change every time you change any one data point, it's easy to extrapolate data to prove your point. For or against, you can always come up with "proof" you are correct.

Nobody knows for sure. If you think you're right, you're full of chit.

That always leads me back to, we should just change the things that we can. If there is a possibility that we are having a negative impact on the environment we should do what we can to mitigate those affects.

Stop burning fossil fuels and start developing renewable energy would be a good starting point.

[Skybird]

Some people are eternally calling for infinite ammounts of information (and then always some more), they claim that that way we should gain more education, but at the same time they are forever determined to ignore it right away anyway, since for them the solution lies in pacifying their troubled mind and convince themselves that it is okay to live on like they use to do, since there is no need to be worried or to change something, and so: round and round the carussel goes, and except the same "reasonable argument" of why more information is needed, no other talking is ever being done - but this one talking ad nauseum.

Has anybody even cared to read and try to understand what the article I linked is about? It is about a change in methodology that allowed them first time ever to do a meta-analysis that compares observation data not with generalised data as usual models produce them, but to compare them explicitly on the basis of just those cells of models that correspondent with the cells of observed data. That way they were able to delete the influence of intemittend and third variables, allowing them to attribute changes of climate being found in studies to just one simple cause: the human variable. Other variables may exist, but theirninfluence is not decisive. It is a question of methodology and thus the important thing is a bit hidden and does not sound sensational, but in fact it is a complete new level of analysis quality.

The question wether or not the warming at the pole is man-caused, must no longer be asked.

You guys can carry on to just ignore the unwelcomed news and make demands for more study and information, but that does not make you any smarter, while the climate issue - caused by man! :yep: - continues to unfold, completely unimpressed by your "reasonable scepticism".

the irony here is: the data you always demand - already is there. You just have not heared the shot, because you don't want to hear it. According to the motto: a problem I don't care about, is a problem that does not exist anymore. Out of sight - out of mind.

Beginning of this week there was a TV film, a 15-20 minute article in a TV-magazine about the lobbying industry at the EU headquarters in Brussel. The size of this lobbying is frightening, it outclasses the whole political and bureaucratical administration of the EU in size. Dozens of billions are spend by the industry for lobbying, to prevent any laws and regulations that a given company does not like. The anti-climate lobby is one of the biggest factions in lobbying, and one of the greatest spenders. Billions get spend on campaings and pseudo-scientific structures and institutions that are then used to replace the real scientific institutions, and to change the latter's scientific literature and data with propaganda material that gives the impression to be scientific, but is not, and is manipulative and suggestive instead. Lobbying itself has grown into one of the greatest businesses on this planet. No other administration gets as massively targetted by it than the EU, not in Asia, not the (also heavily targetted) US congress. And American companies and their lobbying representations are the major players in the game.

seeing these eternal round-and-round debates about doubting the human factor in climate change in order to prevent changes that would effect short termed profit interests, I must say that obviously it is billions very well spend, from the industry's position. I knew that it were several hundred millions per year being spent on it, but that it actually reaches into the several billions, was new for me.

Climate scepticism - in plain English: f#ck off, I do not want to change my way of life, it does not matter what happens when I'm gone.

[fatty]

Ok, I misunderstood what an ice shelf is. I didn't realize that it was already floating on water. I was curious to see how the enormous chunk that broke off of Ellesmere Island late this summer might have skewed the results.

[XabbaRus]

I was watching an interesting programme on TV the other day. It was explaining that the amount of Arctic ice isn't dependent on how cool the winters are but on how warm the summers are.

What subman seems to be not accepting is that human activity is accelerating global warming. No one is denying that the earth does warm up and cool down but that we are exacerbating it. And just like one swallow doesn't make a summer, one season of arctic ice increase does not disprove the climate change theory.

All articles I have read have said that even if there is a seasonal increase in sea ice the overall trend, is that it is reducing, so that even with the seasonal increase there is still less ice overall.

[Skybird]

Just googled a bit. The earliest hints that I found on the fly for scientists pointing at that global wamring would cause a temporary grow of ice (and other paradoxical effects), may it be in area covered, may it be in thickness of ice, dated back to 1997. However, I googled very short only, the first three pages of results only, and then lost interest. I know that I read about seasonal growing of ice due to warming when I started to study. and that was autmun 1989. :lol:

The information is all out there, since quite long. One just needs to want to see it, instead of stucking one's head in the sand, or playing "see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing" with those three chimps. The effects this thread is about, are no surprise. they are no contradiction to global warming. they have been predicted roughly twenty years in advance.

They are evidence for global warming at the poles taking place. Unfortunately they do not have a lobby spending hundreds of millions and even billions to promote them in public and push them in political decision making. That's the decisive difference to climate sceptics, who are in unlimited supply of money.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh... I saw it on tv - it must be true....

And its amazing to me that I point out how EASY reversing global warming would be (were it a real occurance) and everyone wants to still argue over it like its a problem. You take some sulpher microdust and release it in the proper part of the atmosphere - we have the technology right now to do this - and it will actually form a mostly permanent (and non-harmful) barrier that will reflect about 1% of the sunlight the earth recieves. Current mathematical models - even the ones used by the wacko's that sell you global warming cool-aid - say that a mere 1% decrease in the sunlight hitting the earth would be more than sufficient to reverse what they see as global warming.

Yet you never hear about ideas like this - because the whole "global warming" ithing s not about saving the planet - its about making you change YOUR behavior. Stop driving gas based cars, stop taking nice long hot showers, start recycling your own waste into compost, grow your own food and "get back to nature", put an end to "big business" (and small business too while we are at it - aw heck - get rid of ALL business - its evil anyway) because "business" means someone has something and you need it and its the governments job to give you all your supposed to have anyway - this "free market" stuff might get you off the government breast - and we can't have that. But if government can restrict your freedom of movement, control your ability to communicate and conduct business, it can make you utterly dependant on IT - meaning its assured a permanent place of dominance in your life. Which is the goal.

When I was growing up - the fear was a new ice age - now its the opposite. But every scientist admits that "nuclear winter" is a real thing that could happen. The planet will survive with or without us, but it is our job to be good stewards. Unfortunately - because there are so many countries that do their own thing - aka CHINA - each nationality alone can do little real change in modifying the environment. Even a united continent - Europe, Africa, North or South America alone would do little. So stop telling me not to drive an SUV - and instead talk to the biggest air polluters in the world - again - CHINA. Oh wait - they are communist, keep their people repressed, perform human rights violations out the wazoo - but its ok because they actually are what all the wacko's on the left want to emulate - a government they can control that has total control of their "subjects".

Stop arguing about if its real - find reasonable solutions (like mentioned above) that will solve the issue WITHOUT forcing everyone to change their lives. Do that - and it doesnt matter if its real or not because it can be handled. The fact people dont do that shows that its NOT about saving the environment.

[Skybird]

Stop arguing about if its real - find reasonable solutions (like mentioned above) that will solve the issue WITHOUT forcing everyone to change their lives.
Yes, that is the holy grail of sceptics, isn't it: WE SHALL NOT CHANGE OUR HABITS WE GREW FOND OF. We shall not change our business by which we make our profit this day. We shall not look beyond the most imminent moment. The reality of climate chnage is only an issue if we must not change.

Everybody wants to party, but nobody accepts to do the cleaning.

Or as I wrote less charming some posts above:

Climate scepticism - in plain English: f#ck off, I do not want to change my way of life, it does not matter what happens when I'm gone.

[CaptainHaplo]

See Skybird - you prove my point - you would rather change MY life - whether by convincing me of some fallacy, or by regulating my life - than actually discuss SOLUTIONS.

You see - this discussion shows the difference in mindset between us Americans and the rest of the world. We value our personal freedom to the extent that we are willing to consider ideas, but we are NOT willing to let others dictate what we will and won't do. Many, like Skybird (who obviously does not dwell in the US) have grown comfortable with the idea that because "government" or some other group says we should all do something - its ok for it to require changes in his life.

The issue of global warming is one that is very contentious - there are "experts" and truly genuine, reputable scientists on each side. Thats why I, though I don't believe in it myself, accept that its a possibility.

But note what my response was - even though I don't believe the "sky is falling" over the issue - I am willing to look into truly viable solutions. The things that most push for however, are not realistic solutions. Its not that I couldn't implement them on a personal level if I chose, its because even if everyone in the whole "Evil US" did - it wouldn't make a real difference.

Let me give two examples. First you have China - who pollutes worse than every single motorist in the US combined. Even if we were to stop driving our cars immediately and forever, the "man made" carbon introduced into the environment would not decrease to pre-manmade levels. Second - and this is where things like "stop driving petro vehicles" really kills me - all the cows in the US give of more environmentally harmful gas than all the cars in the US combined. So ok - we stop driving - now what - the lefties who want to have total control are going to insist we kill all our cows next?

Skybird - IF it is real - your major concern would not be trying to convince me or trying to tell me how to live - but rather finding ways that YOU could fix the issue without my assistance. Realists know that not everyone is going to agree with them - just like when the first guy said the earth was round. Instead of talking solutions and real fixes, you want to convince me so that I live my life by some arbitrary set of rules (can you say another facet of socialism?) that in reality have no effect other than to grant others a portion of control over my life.

Instead of arguing - why are we not talking solutions? They are there - they can be implimented without everyone - Skybird included - having to change their life. They can be done without causing any harm. They can be done in ways that could even create things like JOBS and people with pride and indepencence. Oh wait - that would be evil wouldn't it?????

Seriously though - lets take this in the direction of solutions. I mentioned one - there are others. Anyone care enough about the issue to find them and post about the pro's and cons to discuss the subject rationally?

[Letum]

So... because you are American, you would only consider solutions that do
not involve combined effort and sacrifice?
No wonder your nation was late in both world wars!

[Skybird]

You take yourself far too important with all that "we do not something just we're being told to do it", and the carussell of "discussing solutions" I see going round and round since yaears and decades now. Both is your arguemnt to deny any chnage in yourself.

But you see, when 1.3 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians now are on their way to claim the right to live in the same materialistic excesses like less than one billion westerners (480 million EU-citizens and 330 million US Americans), then that means that the level of pollution and planetary exploitation would increase by a factor of three, although those less than 1 billion europeans already were enough to push the planet over the peak and getting us ending up where we currently are. And when less than 5% of the globe's population consumes 40-55% of the global ressources for the american way of life and industry, and creates as much pollution than 3-4 times as many chinese, and both together produce two thirds of the globe's emissions or more, than there is a problem and it means that you have to change indeed. And wether you like that or not, simply is not important, becasue sooner or later you either give in to the growing ecological pressure, or you break.

Obama has studied especially germany very closely, which in many fields of eco-tech is world market leader, and especially he was interested in the jobs that were created by going ecological. This is a great chance for the US, although at germany's massive cost, and I have little doubt that he will try to set the US economy on fresh rails by focussing on creating jobs in the long run in the ecological field. And we talk of several
hundred thousand if not millions of jobs. with the potantial capacity of the US, the US could become world leader in climate protection and producing acording ecological high tech - and creating jobs and have a profutable business of it at the same time. Again, this would be at germany's costs, but since the planetary and clmatic benefit ranks higher in importance, I am willing to accept that as an unavoidable consequence. However, all that hightech does not relieve us from the fact that man and especially americans consumes way too much of eqarth'S ressources, depleting the planet becasue we take more than it can afford, and can replace. Our way of living, our consuming behavior, has to chnage. It is imperative, and espeically formamericans: for nobody else consumes as huge ammounts per heads and wastes ressources as carelessly as the US society.

Our excessive consuming in the West we need to reduce, and reduce drastically. It needs to be reduced to a level where we could say that if all people on the planet would live by our own living standard, the biosphere and the planet still could afford that, and could repklace what we take from it, without reducing it's basis. And china and India and Brazil need to understand that they cannot industrilaise at the cost of making the same mistakes like we did, and moving on on the same 100+ years old ways like our industrialisation did. 'they must put their effort on modern technology from the beginning on, instead of going through 100 years of fossile engines before reaching there. If they don't understand that, our problems will multiply within one generation.

[Frame57]

Who cares? :|\\

Once were underwater it wont matter much anyhow.

So live it up while you can, spend your savings!

Thats what Im doing! :rock:
Not to poke at you, but if you know anything about science (And the media gets this wrong all the time by the way), Sea Ice is 'floating' ice. If all the floating ice in the world melted, it has no effect on sea level.

-S

PS. I guess if it had no affect on Sea Level, then it wouldn't be so dramatic now would it?Precisely! There is controversy in the scientific community about this. With the evidence being clear that global warming or cooling is due to natural cycles, one can only think that some "scientist" support Al Gore in order to get more hoax money to do more hokey "research".

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, evolution is still controversial, so Creation must be true...:roll:

[Morts]

Ignorance is bliss. :yep: i belive you just stole Subman1's mottoThat is true, since you keep proving me right. Your ignorance has allowed others to sell you on something akin to the moon being cheese, and you're happy about it. Glad you pointed that out.

-S
ofcourse im being sold crap, since im an atheist and im a "commie"...im bound to fail:rotfl:

[Biggles]

Ignorance is bliss. :yep: i belive you just stole Subman1's mottoThat is true, since you keep proving me right. Your ignorance has allowed others to sell you on something akin to the moon being cheese, and you're happy about it. Glad you pointed that out.

-S
ofcourse im being sold crap, since im an atheist and im a "commie"...im bound to fail:rotfl:

Not to mention that you're danish:stare: :lol: ;)

[Frame57]

Well, evolution is still controversial, so Creation must be true...:roll:Mendel's law is the only practical answer to the theory of evolution...:know:

[CaptainHaplo]

At no point did I ever state that the US should not make changes - what I said was that if your expecting us ALL to do so at the whim of some theory called global warming - your smoking crack. I have no problem with being involved in a solution, and if someone wants to bring up the world wars - in WW2 we were heavily involved well before 1942 thank you. Oh but of course us being the "evil USA" lets just concentrate on the negative - and totally disregard that we bailed europe's A$$ out of the fire not once but twice - with the blood of American men. And you people claim that it is WE who are "self-absorbed" and self-righteous.

Skybird, you actually do well proving my point - the billions of people in the far east are not willing to change their patterns of behavior. Yet you seem intent on making us Americans the "bad guys" for not changing our own habits. Somehow its "ok" to give them a pass, but definitely can't give it to those dastardly Americans!

Now - I again turn to point out solutions. The sulpher-oxide option is but one - and no one has brought up any others. So tell me - who would be the first to fund and work on such an effort? Probably us "EVIL AMERICANS". Who in the world would be willing and able to devote the manufacturing base needed to make such a thing a reality? China wouldn't - Russia wouldn't - the EU can't (hell you all can't even agree on being one entity half the time, much less work together on something that will require manufacturing teamwork.). So who are you gonna call on when your little half measures do nothing more than inconvienence your lives, yet solve nothing? That's right, you will look to the World Leader - the one you have sat here and badmouthed so much, and want help. We will give it - and be vilified still. That is simply the way it is when your the "top dog" - everyone is jealous and since they can't pass you fairly, they want to drag you down. Well - sorry, but many of us Americans just ain't having it.

So I have challenged you 3 times now Skybird, to talk solutions. You want me to change my way of living - yet you can show NO proof that doing so will actually make a difference. Actually, you proved in your last post that it would NOT change anything. So show me why I should make changes - show me how those changes will make a diffence - or stop trying to make it out like I am some selfish person because I don't want to act in a way "you" approve of when it won't matter anyway. Also - either step up and talk solutions - or can you not do so? After all - solving problems is alot harder than pointing fingers.....

And for the record - I have 2 children that I work my tail off to provide for - not only the necessities but a superior education - so that they can truly appreciate and continue to conserve a wonderful planet. I hope to see them enjoy it - so I look for real workable answers - not feel good fairy foo foo claptrap that does nothing but give ignorant people a sense of self-importance.

Or - to put it the challenge of talking real solutions in the terms of an old American saying - "Put up, or (hush) up.".

[baggygreen]

I'm sceptical of the global warming/climate change/whatever is next crowd, but I think my reasons are sound. bear with me if you please, while I attempt to explain my thoughts and position as clearly as I can.

The earth is essentially a living thing. the core moves, it is not solid. The plates on which land sits move around and grind into each other, sending some plates down to the core where they melt, and forcing others up, into new mountain ranges. relatively soon in a geological scale, Oz will be smack bang across the equator and joined to PNG! My point here is that it is a constantly changing environment.

This changing environment can be shown, for example, by looking to central oz - the arid, desert, 'red centre' of oz was a vast inland sea. Now it is among the most inhospitable places we can find. At some point in history, that sea retreated to the current coastline, leaving dry land in its place and (as best we can tell) permanently altering the type of landscape there.

Now, the climate is not immune to these changes. We have ice ages, it is logical to assume we have the opposite. Cyclical. Up and down. We obviously have no data as to how warm the earth can get, however there are tantalising little hints that emerge from time to time. For example, near where I live is fairly dry bushland. However, there is evidence that around 60,000 years ago or so, the region more closely resembled a sub-tropical rainforest. Another example is scientists drilling ice cores in a glacier in greenland found evidence that at one point Greenland was quite heavily wooded with your average north american pines. Most interesting point? The glacier was still there! it survived to some extent or other at a time when greenland was a heavily wooded location. Obviously we don't know to what extent, but it did exist.

We have no idea how long it took to become that, nor how long it took for the earth to enter (or leave) the last ice age. There simply isn't the data. We're flooded with reports about how quickly the world is warming up, and within a hundred years it might have risen by a whole degree celsius. For all we know, this could be the slowest temperature rise on record. For all we know, temperatures in the past rose 5 or 10 degrees celsius. My point here is we just don't know.

Now, before people jump on my back, I'm all for green change. I see no point in senselessly wasting limited resources. Show me a viable hybrid (or all electric) option for a car, within a reasonable price range, and you better believe i'll buy it. However I am completely opposed to the amount of rubbish being rammed down our throats. Stop logging? What shall we write on, sleep on, build with, eat from, sit on..... Stop eating cows?!? Humans are omnivorous creatures I'm afraid, neither our teeth nor our gastrointestinal tract are designed for a diet of rabbit food.

Promoting cleaner energy is in my opinion a good thing, wind power especially - believe it or not, making solar panels leaves an awful mess in the earth.. When my home is complete, it will have a 4000l water tank hooked up to the toilets and laundry, there will be a solar panel on the roof for hot water (standard with the home) and I shall be installing a small wind turbine similar to the one subman posted a while back. Partly these measures are for selfish reasons - I hate the rising costs, but the cleaner benefits overall are doing no harm to myself nor the environment.

What it comes down to in my opinion, is this: ramming guesswork down our throats is wrong. Enacting new laws and taxes, which will drastically affect peoples lives, based on guesswork is very wrong. The earth has remained through enormous impacts, countless meteorites, nuclear explosions, plagues, volcanic eruptions, solar flares.... almost anything that can be thrown at it. The earth will remain regardless of how we treat it, regardless of how long we stay on it, and pretty much the only thing that will destroy it is the death throes of our sun.

[CaptainHaplo]

Amen brother! I have no problem going "green" when there is a valid reason, but I won't make changes just to allow my freedoms to be slowly restricted.

[Morts]

Ignorance is bliss. :yep: i belive you just stole Subman1's mottoThat is true, since you keep proving me right. Your ignorance has allowed others to sell you on something akin to the moon being cheese, and you're happy about it. Glad you pointed that out.

-S
ofcourse im being sold crap, since im an atheist and im a "commie"...im bound to fail:rotfl:

Not to mention that you're danish:stare: :lol: ;)
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Safe-Keeper]

Yawn.It's SUBMAN. Originality has never been part of his modus operandi:shifty:.

Well, evolution is still controversial, so Creation must be true...:roll:Don't you just love the logic?

1. I think it was Jason who stole the cookie from my cookie jar.
2. I'm not exactly sure how he did it.
3. Therefore, it must've been God!

:D

[VipertheSniper]

sulpher-oxide

You think that's gonna do no harm? How about acid rain?

[Skybird]

At no point did I ever state that the US should not make changes - what I said was that if your expecting us ALL to do so at the whim of some theory called global warming - your smoking crack. I have no problem with being involved in a solution, and if someone wants to bring up the world wars - in WW2 we were heavily involved well before 1942 thank you. Oh but of course us being the "evil USA" lets just concentrate on the negative - and totally disregard that we bailed europe's A$$ out of the fire not once but twice - with the blood of American men. And you people claim that it is WE who are "self-absorbed" and self-righteous.

Skybird, you actually do well proving my point - the billions of people in the far east are not willing to change their patterns of behavior. Yet you seem intent on making us Americans the "bad guys" for not changing our own habits. Somehow its "ok" to give them a pass, but definitely can't give it to those dastardly Americans!

Now - I again turn to point out solutions. The sulpher-oxide option is but one - and no one has brought up any others. So tell me - who would be the first to fund and work on such an effort? Probably us "EVIL AMERICANS". Who in the world would be willing and able to devote the manufacturing base needed to make such a thing a reality? China wouldn't - Russia wouldn't - the EU can't (hell you all can't even agree on being one entity half the time, much less work together on something that will require manufacturing teamwork.). So who are you gonna call on when your little half measures do nothing more than inconvienence your lives, yet solve nothing? That's right, you will look to the World Leader - the one you have sat here and badmouthed so much, and want help. We will give it - and be vilified still. That is simply the way it is when your the "top dog" - everyone is jealous and since they can't pass you fairly, they want to drag you down. Well - sorry, but many of us Americans just ain't having it.

So I have challenged you 3 times now Skybird, to talk solutions. You want me to change my way of living - yet you can show NO proof that doing so will actually make a difference. Actually, you proved in your last post that it would NOT change anything. So show me why I should make changes - show me how those changes will make a diffence - or stop trying to make it out like I am some selfish person because I don't want to act in a way "you" approve of when it won't matter anyway. Also - either step up and talk solutions - or can you not do so? After all - solving problems is alot harder than pointing fingers.....

And for the record - I have 2 children that I work my tail off to provide for - not only the necessities but a superior education - so that they can truly appreciate and continue to conserve a wonderful planet. I hope to see them enjoy it - so I look for real workable answers - not feel good fairy foo foo claptrap that does nothing but give ignorant people a sense of self-importance.

Or - to put it the challenge of talking real solutions in the terms of an old American saying - "Put up, or (hush) up.".

How often must I repeat that excessive spending of limited natural ressources is they main problem and that any technical reduction of emissions alone will not be sufficient, before you understand it? You are fixated on exclusively those ways to see the problem that would leave you without need to change that excessive spending. And exactly that is the problem. with America. with the EU. And with the asian economies as well. Right now the US hides behind India and china, while China and India hide behind the US' stubborness not to change. Since the US pollutes roughly as much as 3-4 times as many Chinese, and consumes the relative greatest share of global ressources although just coming up with 5% of global population, it is up to America to do the first step and set an example. As a nation, China may have taken first position in total emissions recently. But in "pollution per head", America still is record holder, before the EU and before China both of which have much more population. It is no secret that major parts of the american industry are hopelessly outdated, and can survive in global competiton only by help of very massive subsidies and trade protection (wait, what is the US' official position on regulated trade...). Subsidies that still are not used for modernising. Some years ago, it seemed that China would eventually move, which was a threat for Washington, they lobbied heavily with the chinese and took a tough stand on climate themselves, as a result, any hope that China would move had come to an end, they used Washingtons position to claim they will not change their economy as long as Washington does not, and Washington's mission to prevent adressing emission control was successfully acchieved.

Hell, Washington even forbid federal states to establish rules for CO2 regulation! That says it all.

And just for the record, do not compare your country'S climate goals to that of the EU. If the EUs estimations on what could be acchieved are correct, is somethign different, but the goals that were formulated, simply outclasses any American evvrionmental awareness and poltical goals there are. While I am not happy with the EU approach as well and criticise is as not sufficient, it nevertheless is lightyears ahead of America.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is all I have to post concerning global warming:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230007

No Kool Aid for me, thanks.