Sticksboi05 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 1998 was a horrible winter. 0.1 inches of snow officially at Reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Funny thing about ice And yet wasn't there just a thread about the icepack in Greenland on here the other day? And aren't the polar bears still having trouble navigating the polar ice because it is melting so early? You can keep claiming its not happening in order to avoid making the hard choices about seriously reducing the amount of crap we pump into the air, but I want my kids to know what a polar bear looks like outside of a zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Whenever I get involved in one of these arguments, I usually just say this: It doesn't really matter if we're causing it or not. The fact is we pollute way too much and pollution is bad for the planet. We need to clean up our act, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Funny thing about icehttp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ The disappearing sea ice that was supposedly going to dramatically change the North, if not the world, is back. Thanks to really cold weather -- gee, where did that come from?--winter sea ice has been growing across the North. "Clearly we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," says Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa. There goes a good story. And if you doubt me on this, the source is as biased on climate change as sources get: The CBC. And if the weather stays cold, the ice will get even thicker, says the report... http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html This isn't the only sign of rising sea ice and extra-cold temperatures. The U.S. National Climatic Date Center reported the other day that temperatures in the United States set cold records in January. "The average temperature in January 2008 was 30.5 F. This is -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 49th coolest January in 114 years." ...As for ice, A University of Illinois report showed that Arctic sea ice is back to its previous level. added interesting if you are interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event A one year gain isn't anything. Things are still very low: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/17-8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 The last several years have been low points in the solar cycle. We are starting a new solar cycle. The solar cycle appears as if it will be low solar output. NOW even w/ that decrease in solar output tempeartures are still well above average. I've written about this here before w/ respect to this. Based on any look at the historical data for solar output the Earth is warmer than you'd expect for the solar output we are seeing. Despite the solar output being low and expecting to see below average temps we are still well above normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 NOW even w/ that decrease in solar output tempeartures are still well above average. Above average compared to what? Saying we're above or below average is misleading as we only have a couple hundred years at best of accurate temp. recordings. You mean above average compared to 19th century temperature recordings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Above average compared to what?Saying we're above or below average is misleading as we only have a couple hundred years at best of accurate temp. recordings. You mean above average compared to 19th century temperature recordings? Well, I believe it is based on about 100 years of data, but above that average. I will point out that if anything the expectation is that in the mid-20th century we should have shifted from a warming phase to a cooling phase that would result in an ice age in 50,000-100,000 years. Again, if anything, we should be cooling not above average as compared to the last 100 years. I will point out that there is nothing wrong w/ comparing to as average over 100 years, if nothing happened over the 100 years that would suggest things should have changed. What wouldn't make sense, is if we had the data, would be comparing to the average temps for the whole Earth's life. For example, we know the "young" sun was much cooler. **EDIT*** I wanted to add the upper atmosphere is cooling. So we are talking about warming at lower levels despite the opposite affect occurring at higher levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 A one year gain isn't anything. Things are still very low:http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/17-8 Are you seriously trying to prove your point with info from an environmentalist website? Anyway, you realize we have only been measuring Arctic Ice for 30 years? Kinda changes the whole meaning of these reports doesn't it? I guess that is why Pro-AGW folks don't mention that little bit of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Are you seriously trying to prove your point with info from an environmentalist website?Anyway, you realize we have only been measuring Arctic Ice for 30 years? Kinda changes the whole meaning of these reports doesn't it? I guess that is why Pro-AGW folks don't mention that little bit of information. Yes, I am. The information is not wrong. We have only been using satelites since 1979 to measure ice levels, but nobody doubts that we aren't at lows w/ respect to a much larger number of years based on what people native to the area tell us based on their recorded histroy. **EDIT** I wanted to come back to this. This sort of arguement, that we only have data for 30 years, so we should ignore it is just garbage. We know by several sources that warming and sea levels have been changing for an extended period of time. For example, we have tidal charts for some Europeans ports for hundreds of years. We know that data shows little to no change in sea levels through most of the 1800's, and then started to increase. That only makes sense in the context of AT LEAST warming, if not melting. Warming is going to cause melting ice. Yes, we only have 30 years of satelite data to quantatively measure the levels of ice since 1979 because satelites allow us to do that and these other sort of measures don't, but to claim that there hasn't been on average melting for much longer than those 30 years just isn't reasonable or realistic based on multiple independent pieces of data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I want my kids to know what a polar bear looks like outside of a zoo. just remember, they look friendly, but they're deadly. zoos are better for viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 just remember, they look friendly, but they're deadly. zoos are better for viewing. Indeed, and not declining either http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/21966/Polar_Bear_Scare_on_Thin_Ice.html According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005), "The world's polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming. "According to new research," the Scotsman reports, "the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade. "We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change," Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman. The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). "A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining," the Telegraph reports. "In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today," added the Telegraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 We have been lucky to be a species that rose from a lull in the weather of this planet. That is it, end of story, our time is measured in geological activity. sometime in the next 200,000 years from now when we might be back down to the 7,000 left as has happened in the past... the Earth won't care what we have done.. Can't be any worse than the snowball effect or the earth roiling in lava. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Indeed, and not declining either :readnews: but....but...but Al Gore said they were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 :readnews:but....but...but Al Gore said they were And I'm still waiting on my beachfront property from all this melting:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 And I'm still waiting on my beachfront property from all this melting:laugh: Al Gore told me to buy a lot of carbon credits too... I really hate Al Gore :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Indeed, and not declining eitherhttp://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/21966/Polar_Bear_Scare_on_Thin_Ice.html According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005), "The world's polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming. "According to new research," the Scotsman reports, "the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade. "We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change," Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman. The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). "A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining," the Telegraph reports. "In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today," added the Telegraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution "Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, 8 are declining, 3 are stable, 1 is increasing, and 7 have insufficient data." The on going polar bear explosion in one area of Canada. (I will point out that I don't think stopping global warming JUST to save polar bears makes any sense.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 (I will point out that I don't think stopping global warming JUST to save polar bears makes any sense.) They are indicators...come on please try to look further than the tip of your nose on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 (I will point out that I don't think stopping global warming JUST to save polar bears makes any sense.) I do! Who else is going to model for Coke come Christmas time? Penguins? **** that noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I never cared about global warming. But I would like to have clean air, land, and water and that is where Republicans and I will never agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I never cared about global warming. But I would like to have clean air, land, and water and that is where Republicans and I will never agree. Is there a Republican stance against clean air, land and water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 They are indicators...come on please try to look further than the tip of your nose on this. Well, I think more regular flooding of all of our costal cities as sea levels rise is a bit more pressing of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Is there a Republican stance against clean air, land and water? Apparently. Were you not aware of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 ............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 This article happen to be in the Raleigh News & Observer today. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columnists_blogs/story/134115.html Like many climate-change skeptics, Will is confusing weather with climate, which encompasses longer time periods, generally 30 years or more. The shorter-term fluctuations he frets about are natural, have been happening for centuries, are well understood by climate scientists and are predicted by global climate models. It is the longer-term progressive warming that began over a century ago -- and coincides with the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- that is cause for concern. Climate-change skeptics are successfully making the public think the evidence of our impact on the Earth's climate is confusing and contradictory. The details are complicated, but the basic science is actually simple. Have you ever climbed into a closed car on a sunny August afternoon? Pretty hot wasn't it? That is essentially what the growing layer of gases in the atmosphere does to the Earth, trapping in the heat caused by the sun warming up the land, just like it warms up the dashboard in your car. Here in the world's wealthiest nation the impacts of climate change on most of our lives have been relatively minor. Elsewhere, crops are failing, temperature-sensitive diseases like malaria and cholera are increasing and coastal villages are preparing to move to higher ground. Here, arguing about whether the Earth is warming is political sport. Elsewhere, the argument has moved on to which new technologies might reverse climate change, how societies can adapt to it and who should pay for the costs. When a coral reef in Papua New Guinea is wiped out by warming oceans, local fisheries collapse and fisherman can't afford to send their kids to school. When Arctic permafrost melts, the physical underpinning of entire Alaskan villages is endangered. Nearly 1 billion people, or 1 in 7 worldwide, live at low coastal elevations and are experiencing flooding, erosion and other direct impacts of climate change. We haven't experienced impacts of that scale here in North Carolina, but we eventually could. As sea level continues to rise, coastal communities here, too, will be threatened, and economies based on tourism and agriculture will suffer. Some of our fisheries could be affected too. One of the many effects of increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that the oceans are becoming more acidic. This will affect economically important marine life like shrimp, crabs and oysters by making their skeletons more brittle and harder to grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Well, I think more regular flooding of all of our costal cities as sea levels rise is a bit more pressing of an issue. That's about as reliable a prediction as the estimated,dated polar bear studies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.