NationStates Jolt Archive

Countdown to global catastrophe
Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years,
leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
24 January 2005

The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the
first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad
news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

really? so we reached it? sweet. now i can drive my truck with no guilty feelings. whew.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of
senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world -
and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their
report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been
reached.

whoa. "senior politicians, business leaders and academics"? THAT'S a good group of people to be taking advice from. i bet all of like, 2 of the "academics" have a degree in anything related to climate. pretty much they meant to say its a group of do-gooder know-it-alls who are here to tell us how we should live. and i bet they drive everywhere in shiny V10 mercedes sedans.

The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every
country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony
Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as
chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union.
And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a
high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the
temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to
disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure,
water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and
the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic
events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice
sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

first of all, one does not need to be a genius or a climatologist to understand that no natural process or system is dependent on any one factor, nor can things "run away." and yet here they are, saying that if we don't all drop our car keys and pick up bikes, the earth will instantly become a flooded desert wasteland where nothing grows and mankind is doomed. pretty much the same outcome that they said would happen if we didn't drop all our nukes into the ocean.

The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade above the average
world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when
human activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon
dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started
to affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has
already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the
pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature
latitude before the crucial point is reached.

well, that's great, except they neglected to point out something: that the average world temperature in CITIES has increased since 1750. well, duh, so has population in those cities. the "urban heat island" effect. i love it so here in the OC. it, er... "warms" my heart every winter. the average world temperature outside of cities has fallen since 1750. yes FALLEN. apparently we are still coming off the Great Summer in the 1200-1300 era (my date range may be off. no death threats please). speaking of the great summer, most of greenland's ice was melted then - that's why the vikings called it greenland - and yet there wasn't any mass catastrophe, nor any deserts springing up everywhere - no "runaway" earth.

More ominously still, it assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says
it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2.
The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it
is likely that the vital 400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years'
time, or even less (although the two-degree temperature rise might take
longer to come into effect).

"ominous"? shut up. carbon dioxide is a small part of the atmosphere: 400 parts per million. that's small. there's some analogy i remember, that says that if the composition of the earth's atmosphere was a football field, then nitrogen would go all the way to the other 30 yard line, and oxygen right up to 6 inches from the goal line. CO2 would take up about 4 inches, the rest by inert gases like argon, neon, etc. for you math folks, it's about 70% nitrogen, 29& oxygen and everything else is small fractions of a percent. apparently that little bit will hurt us. and BTW a difference of 2ppm sounds like common measurement error. shit, i bet that's the difference between the antelope valley's air and the san joaquin valley's air.

"There is an ecological timebomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, the
former transport secretary, who co-chaired the task force that produced the
report with the US Republican senator Olympia Snowe. It was assembled by the
Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Centre for American
Progress in the US, and The Australia Institute.The group's chief scientific
adviser is Dr Rakendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.

sure it is, you bastard. and like i will trust some UN lackey. these folks are just creating a crisis as they will be the solution. "give us grants and offices and staff and we can fix the problem." man, the UN is nothing but a hand asking for more damn money and more excuses for it.

The report urges all the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of
their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their
research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls
on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as
India and China, which have big and growing CO2 emissions.
"What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20
years that will deliver a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of
the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green
issues who now advises business.

renewable resources? oil is renewable. it's not unobtanium. i'm pretty sure that if we can make synthetic diamonds, then synthetic oil is not far away. and for low-carbon energy, there are some really nice nuclear reactor designs out there. the highest source of carbon from those would be the farts of the staff.

The report starkly spells out the likely consequences of exceeding the
threshold. "Beyond the 2 degrees C level, the risks to human societies and
ecosystems grow significantly," it says.
"It is likely, for example, that average-temperature increases larger than
this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers
of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts.
[They] could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs
and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including
the Amazon rainforest."

greenies trotting out coral reefs and rainforests is like moobats crying out for the children. and who likes rainforests anyway? if the rainforests suddenly started going away i would dance with joy as it would be less of those goddamn huge bugs and creepy diseases to worry about. seriously the place is not friendly. sources close to rainforests say the place is like some big, bug-infested weed that wants to eat you. that's not something i am too concerned about saving. while the greenies point out a few cute monkeys or frogs, remember the millions of mosquitos and snakes that see humans as a meal. yeah - bye rainforest, won't miss you.

It goes on: "Above the 2 degrees level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or
runaway climate change also increase. The possibilities include reaching
climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West
Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea
level more than 10 metres over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown
of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and
the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of
carbon to a net source of carbon."

yeah sure. and the weather will begin clubbing baby seals, eating puppies and shitting in your soup until you give up your foolish "technology" and worship mother earth in sackcloth and ashes. what is it about some people that they hate what they have? our modern world economy feeds more people than have ever existed ever, and our technology makes what those in the middle ages could never imagine. do these people really want to turn back the clock to before the industrial revolution? i think they do, but they would regret it the minute they did.

While I agree that you're probably right about this being blown out of proportion, since I'm pretty sure some environmentalists didn't even think we would make it as far as we have, I also think you're going to far to the other end of the spectrum. The environment can be damaged enough that it will hurt us and the bug infested weeds that are the rainforests are fairly important pieces of real estate to the global environment.

sure it is, you bastard. and like i will trust some UN lackey. these folks are just creating a crisis as they will be the solution. "give us grants and offices and staff and we can fix the problem." man, the UN is nothing but a hand asking for more damn money and more excuses for it.



renewable resources? oil is renewable. it's not unobtanium. i'm pretty sure that if we can make synthetic diamonds, then synthetic oil is not far away. and for low-carbon energy, there are some really nice nuclear reactor designs out there. the highest source of carbon from those would be the farts of the staff.
Look at it this way, how could they possibly fuck up a nonexistant problem. On second thought, don't answer that.


Biodiesel can help replace the fuel problems associated with oil, and those scaaaary eeeeeeviiiiil Jooooos have come up with some nanos that should pretty much eliminate the need for oil as a lubricant.

Enviormentalist wackos have been saying we're on the brink of a "global catastrophe" since the 70s.

I say we're on the brink of catastrophe.

I say we're on the brink of catastrophe.

I say you need to do some research...

Weather pattern in Melbourne, Victoria Australia this week.

Mon FINE 34
Tues FINE 34
Wed STORMS 13 (120mm in 31 Hours = Total Average February rainfall)
Thurs SHOWERS 14 (Was stuck at home as my town was flooded)
Fri STORMS 18

We have also had snow falling on the ski fields and this is supposed to be summer!

I seriously think it is a freak weather pattern and nothing to do with the BS of global warming.

renewable resources? oil is renewable. it's not unobtanium. i'm pretty sure that if we can make synthetic diamonds, then synthetic oil is not far away. and for low-carbon energy, there are some really nice nuclear reactor designs out there. the highest source of carbon from those would be the farts of the staff.

It might be a bit off topic (edit: I think it'll become on topic pretty soon :) ), but I thought this (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645) article was kind of interesting. The chances of this being true are relatively low, but at the same time it's not impossible.

renewable resources? oil is renewable. it's not unobtanium. i'm pretty sure that if we can make synthetic diamonds, then synthetic oil is not far away. and for low-carbon energy, there are some really nice nuclear reactor designs out there. the highest source of carbon from those would be the farts of the staff
Oil actually is NOT renewable. It takes far more energy to produce synthetic petroleum than you would get out of it.
You claim that since we can make synthetic diamonds, we should be able to make synthetic oil with a positive energy yield...but the only thing oil and diamonds have in common is carbon. Also, synthetic oil wouldn't really solve the climate issue: burning it yields as much CO2 as regular oil.
I do agree with you a bit on nuclear power though: it needs to be very carefully regulated, but it isn't the menace some people (on both sides of the global warming issue) make it out to be.

S-S:
You keep saying that since CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere, it can't have a large effect. That's tremendously faulty logic. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 25% since 1850-most (if not all) of that increase is due to human activity. The kind of increase in concentration we are currently approaching has, in the past, led to a global temperature increase of around 5 degrees C over our current temperature. As you can imagine, that made for dramatically different weather patterns than exist today.
Current climate change scenarios predict a sea level rise of almost a foot by 2100 or so...that means Miami, New Orleans, parts of LA, NYC, and a pretty significant amount of the East Coast would be flooded. Weather patterns would be wildly different than we know now: expect droughts in the Plains and increased rainfall in the Southwest. Oh, and tropical diseases like malaria and dengue fever will increase their range, pushing into the South. It would be a bad thing.
Climate change is real. CO2 does absorb heat. We are dumping quite a bit of it into our atmosphere. We need to wake up, stop pretending there's no problem (there was SNOW in YEMEN over the winter, for fuck's sake, and a record-shattering rainstorm in Arizona. ARIZONA. The middle of the desert.), and do something, before my generation gets royally screwed.

I say you need to do some research...
Those words fall upon deaf ears. Figuratively and literally. I'm hearing impaired. :D

My excuse to not listen to you :p

Weather pattern in Melbourne, Victoria Australia this week.

Mon FINE 34
Tues FINE 34
Wed STORMS 13 (120mm in 31 Hours = Total Average February rainfall)
Thurs SHOWERS 14 (Was stuck at home as my town was flooded)
Fri STORMS 18

We have also had snow falling on the ski fields and this is supposed to be summer!

I seriously think it is a freak weather pattern and nothing to do with the BS of global warming.
I don't know...it did snow in Yemen. And it was like 66 degrees (F) in NJ in December. Very bizarre. Not to mention the Florida hurricane weirdness.

Setian-Sebeceans...a little bitter are we? That cynicism pill must be easy for you to swallow. Geez, take a breather and stop foaming at the mouth. But, seriously, you do make a good point.

So how exactly does it hurt you by being a responsible citizen?

We have 6.2 billion people in the world, and increasing net population by 2.3 people per second. We produce 75% of the world's waste and consume 33% of its recources. We're stupid obese egotistical spoiled Americans --- only 250 million people and we manage to destroy so much and cause so much damage.

Really, how hard is it to ride a bike or to buy a hybrid? To recycle and not waste water? To have 2 or less children?

Be responsible, not jaded and haphazardous and stupid.

Those words fall upon deaf ears. Figuratively and literally. I'm hearing impaired. :D

My excuse to not listen to you :p

You mean you're deaf, you gimp? Why don't you say so!? PC is bullshit.

We don't know enough about global climate to know IF we're altering it, nevermind whether it's a bad thing or not. From what I've read about personally as far as our attempts at environmental protection, we have a bad habit of making things worse when we try to 'fix' things.

We have barely 100 years of scientifically recorded weather information. We're basing climatology on that?!? Color me skeptical.

If Global Warming is real then when is it going to kick in? "The polar ice caps are melting", "The oceans water has risen by .04" in the last 20 years." blah blah blah. Its been -30C here 5 times in the last 3 weeks. Bring on global warming. It would be nice not have to warm my car up for 30min before I go to work each day.

If Global Warming is real then when is it going to kick in? "The polar ice caps are melting", "The oceans water has risen by .04" in the last 20 years." blah blah blah. Its been -30C here 5 times in the last 3 weeks. Bring on global warming. It would be nice not have to warm my car up for 30min before I go to work each day.

Why not bike or take public transport, then?

Global warming doesn't necessitate warming, simply erratic temperatures.

And yes, it is a ploy to get laymen to act responsibly, but I guess we might have to just not give you innoculations so you all die out and the problem solves itself.

To have 2 or less children?
Umm, last time I checked the US wasn't the one with the population problem.

Look, while there is a lot of money grubbing exagerration on both sides, probelms are building. We won't alll die in some huge catastrophe really really soon, but things will get worse if we don't do something. That doesn't mean banning cars or something, but it does mean that we might want to just start looking to creating less CO2. The temp in cities is partially increasing because of all the CO2. Having a planet that even can have life is not an easy thing, I bet it didn't take much to make Mars like it is right now. It may happen over a long long time (except in places like the Maldives and Bangladesh, suckers) but that doesn't mean we can't get a start now.

Global warming = melting icecaps = water levels rise = water has greater surface area = greater evaporation of water = cooling of the air

not that simple but can you catch the drift?

Umm, last time I checked the US wasn't the one with the population problem.

You seemed to have missed the part about 33% consumption of resources and 75% waste and pollution.

When we have women with 15 kids in Alabama for kicks or world records, or because they are delusioned Christians, we need to curb the growth.
Besides, 250 million + is still too many for America.

Couple interesting tidbits:

1) The icecaps are getting thicker.

2) There is no proof that Carbon Dioxide increases are responsible for urban temperature increases. They may be a factor they may not. Urbanization(ambient temperatires, asphault) which is a definite facor may be the primary factor.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 25% since 1850-most (if not all) of that increase is due to human activity.

Sorry, but only 3.23% of CO2 emissions are anthropogenic. That means that nature emits 96.77% of all CO2.

How?

Incremental warming of the oceans results in CO2 coming out of solution.

Outgassing of volcanic rock.

Probably many other ways also.



I leave you with a quote from Thomas Moore:

"Strangely enough, if you believe the prognosticators right now, we live in the 'best of all possible worlds,' at least as far as climate goes. In the 1970s, many scientists worried about global cooling. The Department of Transportation organized a multiyear research effort involving hundreds of scientists and economists to evaluate its effects. The researchers found that a cooling of the world would reduce living standards. Since many of those same forecasters now predict doom from warming, we are obviously living on the edge between a world that is too hot and one that is too cold. Given that mankind, over the last million or so years, has evolved in climates that were both hotter and colder than today's, how is it that we in the 20th century are so fortunate as to have been born into the ideal global climate?"

It appears to me that it is too early to call the there is/there isn't any global warming debate. The climate has heated up, but it goes through temperature variations anyway, so maybe there is some effect, maybe ther isn't.
Nevertheless I voted "Global warming is a theory that probably will have a good outcome for the world", because regardless of the truth of the theory it has at least put pollution and waste onto the political agenda. Even if it turns out to have been a big empty scare story, by having made us more aware of our direct impact on the ecosystem, it has to have a good outcome.

As I have explained before, "global warming" is nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the CIA starting in the late 70s as a result of a bet made at the agency christmas party.

People scoff at this, but look at the evidence. The people who are the most vocal about the whole thing are always banging on about the ice-caps melting causing a disastrous rise in sea level. I mean what the fuck, how stupid can you be? Yet there it is.

Further have any of you stopped to think that the Beardy-Weirdies that gravely sit there opining about this shit are probably less than competant in the first place anyway. Really now, would any of those buffoons actually get a public hearing if they didn't get "help" in the first place. Face it, most of these bozos can't find their ass with both hands, nevermind come up with a planetological theory. You may also note that most "experts" are not real scientists in the first place, but second raters looking for an easy ride on the climate disaster gravy train.

If that doesn't convince you think about the actual theory for a second. According to these putzes, burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmos. causing infra-red to be absorbed raising the temp, thus causing massive climate change. Now apart from the fact that the biggest green house compent in the atmosphere is H20 (water) and no-one cares about that, think about the source of carbon in the first place. It comes from fossils (well dead organics basically not really fossils) right? So it is either dead plants or dead animals originally. Now where to animals get their biomass carbon from? From plants. And where do plants get carbon from. Om my fucking god!!!!!!! That's right, they get it from the atmosphere. Holy fuck!. So if you think about it, we are only putting back what was already taken out. Given that stuff was alive - and prospering to take carbon out - in the first place, replacing it is hardly likely to cause global catastrophe is it?

So you see, it is a dumbass theory, which no-one should believe, but people do because it suits them. (Don't even get me started on how until the mid seventies met. records from 1860 onwards "proved" were headed into another ice age and that global cooling was "certain".)

The theory is rubbish on some many counts, and has no actual evidence to support it. Belief in global warming is no different to believing in creationism, it takes little bits of disconected science, to support an irrational theory. Like I said, its just practical joke perpetrated by the CIA.

You mean you're deaf, you gimp?
1. Not completely deaf, but I do have to wear hearing aids.
2. Gimp? What's that?
PC is bullshit.
"PC"? what does that mean?

You seemed to have missed the part about 33% consumption of resources and 75% waste and pollution.

When we have women with 15 kids in Alabama for kicks or world records, or because they are delusioned Christians, we need to curb the growth.
Besides, 250 million + is still too many for America.

You're in LA. What the hell do you know about Alabama! (I'm from NY, so I don't either, but at least I don't pretend to). The real population increase is in non-developed nations. But I guess you were too busy bemoaning Americans and acting elitist to remember that.

Some more proof for you guys.

Source: http://www.envirotruth.org

The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

A good example of the sort of misinformation that is being publicized regarding this topic is seen in the following quote from Dr. (Zoology) David Suzuki in the June 21, 2002 version of his "Science Matters" column that appeared in newspapers across Canada: "Increased concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced."

Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, responds, "The Suzuki comment displays an ignorance of climate science. Even the Greenpeace report on global warming concedes that water vapour is the most abundant and most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour is ignored because the models can't include clouds. Imagine recommending devastating economic and therefore social policy based on a climate model that can't even include clouds!" In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapor constitutes 97 percent. Other GHG are methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and trace gases.

It is very revealing that an increase in the production of water vapor at the equator during the 1998 El Niño climate event caused worldwide average temperatures to spike by almost 1°C that year. The human contribution to the atmosphere's total water vapor content is trivial by comparison. A study by Dr. Kevin Telmer, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Jan Veizer, Professor of Geology at the University of Ottawa, demonstrates that the larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at higher temperature permit more CO2 to be absorbed by plants (see www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00zf.html). Thus, we have a self-regulating system that helps keep the climate in check.

Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."

Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics blame variations in the Sun's brightness, not CO2 levels, for most of Earth's climate change. This idea is further supported by climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki who demonstrated in a recent edition of the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age of the latter seventeenth century, the rapid warming in the early part of the twentieth century or the relatively unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "... the Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than previously assumed." Dr. Ball sums up, "Ignoring the Sun and water vapor as causes of climate change is like ignoring the transmission and engine when the car is not working."

Like carbon cycle modelers, Dr. Ball and Dr. Veizer believe that CO2 merely responds to temperature changes; it does not cause them. Here is some of the evidence that supports this hypothesis:

1. Global mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface (and hence atmospheric) temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise;
2. Ice core records show that, at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, atmospheric temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels finally increased;
3. At the beginning of the most recent glacial period, about 114,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 remained relatively high even as temperatures plummeted.

Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.
Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Dr. Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concludes, "It is highly probable that global average temperature will go up and down during future years regardless of what we do."

Global warming = melting icecaps = water levels rise = water has greater surface area = greater evaporation of water = cooling of the air

not that simple but can you catch the drift?

Rubbish. Most of the polar ice is floating on water. It floats by displacing an equal weight of water. As it melts, it turns into water and its denisty increases. Now it's still displacing the same weight of water as before, but it is now also water. Therefore it "fills" the void it created by displacement when it was floating ice, but no more. (Melted ice equals = water = same density = same volume).

There might be a tiny rise, given that there is some difference between the density of salt water and fresh, but it is insignificant.

As to the terrestrial ice. It is but a small fraction, and in any case if it all melts it will most probably become ground water, if anything.

There can be no catastrophic rise in sea level, because of physics. Anyone can see that.

As to the terrestrial ice. It is but a small fraction, and in any case if it all melts it will most probably become ground water, if anything.

There can be no catastrophic rise in sea level, because of physics. Anyone can see that.

Nearly the whole of the Antarctic Ice mass is terrestrial. A small fraction it is not. The Arctic Ice shelf is not of great concern, as you pointed out, but Antarctica and Greenland, for that matter, could be.

Further have any of you stopped to think that the Beardy-Weirdies that gravely sit there opining about this shit are probably less than competant in the first place anyway.

Hey. I have a beard. I'm sort of weird. I'm opining as seriously as you are.
How dare you call me less than competent? ;)

Nearly the whole of the Antarctic Ice mass is terrestrial. A small fraction it is not. The Arctic Ice shelf is not of great concern, as you pointed out, but Antarctica and Greenland, for that matter, could be.

Most of the ice in the antartic region is in the western ice shelf (floating). Anatartic itself is basically arid. Indeed, it has the dryest regions in the world.

Also, there is a conspicous lack of ground water in the far south, quite likely, any terrestrial ice will easily fill the interstial spaces on the continent itself.

Further, most of the worlds polar ice is in the northern hemisphere, it being wetter.

As I said, there may be some negligble rise in sea level in the event of total melting of the ice caps (which won't happen anyway), but by no means catastophic. It's a myth. And a badly though out one at that.

While you are at it. Why don't you explain the fact that burning fossil fuels just returns carbon that was fixed in the first place. It was taken out, not it is being put back in. What's the big deal.

What astounds me more is the anti-global warming nuts who get all of their information from Crichton's "State of Fear" ...

What astounds me more is the anti-global warming nuts who get all of their information from Crichton's "State of Fear" ...

Don't be too harsh on us. I also learned everything I know about genetics from Jurassic Park. :)

Don't be too harsh on us. I also learned everything I know about genetics from Jurassic Park. :)

Jurassic Park is true.

Jurassic Park is true.

Everyone knows that it is a primary historical document. That was written in real-time to the actual events.

Most of the ice in the antartic region is in the western ice shelf (floating). Anatartic itself is basically arid. Indeed, it has the dryest regions in the world.

Also, there is a conspicous lack of ground water in the far south, quite likely, any terrestrial ice will easily fill the interstial spaces on the continent itself.

Further, most of the worlds polar ice is in the northern hemisphere, it being wetter.

As I said, there may be some negligble rise in sea level in the event of total melting of the ice caps (which won't happen anyway), but by no means catastophic. It's a myth. And a badly though out one at that.

While you are at it. Why don't you explain the fact that burning fossil fuels just returns carbon that was fixed in the first place. It was taken out, not it is being put back in. What's the big deal.


You are quite funny you know.

Antarctic Ice, covers almost the entire antarctic continent up to a depth of a mile or so. Yeah, its dry there, in the sense that it rarely snows. The ground is far from dry, but very cold.

How is the Northern Hemisphere wetter? Or did you mean to say better? Go look at a map huh.

A myth is something that many people believe but for which there is no hard evidence. As the caps have not actually melted, then the rise in sea levels could be a myth. In my posts up to now, if you had bothered to read them, you would see that I am agnostic with respect to the global warming catastrophe scenario.

Carbon cycle. The carbon that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels was free in the atmosphere when the world was considerably hotter, and swampier than it is now. If you want to go back to that, fine, keep burning. It may happen, It may not. The good thing about the Global Warming Scare is that it will force research into alternative fuels before the fossil fuels run out. No hiatus.

Don't be too harsh on us. I also learned everything I know about genetics from Jurassic Park. :)

Jurassic Park is true.

Everyone knows that it is a primary historical document. That was written in real-time to the actual events.

This is the funniest thing I've read on the internet since Zack Parson's "The Democrat's Guide to Overthrowing the Government" (read here (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2483))

Thanks guys! :D

You are quite funny you know.

Antarctic Ice, covers almost the entire antarctic continent up to a depth of a mile or so. Yeah, its dry there, in the sense that it rarely snows. The ground is far from dry, but very cold.

How is the Northern Hemisphere wetter? Or did you mean to say better? Go look at a map huh.

A myth is something that many people believe but for which there is no hard evidence. As the caps have not actually melted, then the rise in sea levels could be a myth. In my posts up to now, if you had bothered to read them, you would see that I am agnostic with respect to the global warming catastrophe scenario.

Carbon cycle. The carbon that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels was free in the atmosphere when the world was considerably hotter, and swampier than it is now. If you want to go back to that, fine, keep burning. It may happen, It may not. The good thing about the Global Warming Scare is that it will force research into alternative fuels before the fossil fuels run out. No hiatus.

As I said before, most of antartica is not covered in ice a mile deep. Most of it is a desert. Go watch the "living planet." David Attenborough goes there to look at some tedious lichen. The vast bulk of antartic ice is the ice shelf, which is presently floating. There is just not enough terrestrial ice to make a difference to sea level.

The northern hemisphere polar region is wetter. There is more water there. (Mostly due to the lack of landmass, is being sea and all).

Even national geographic has noticed the claims that sea levels will rise is an obvious flaw in most of the catastrophe scenarios offered. So it's not just me.

Carbon sequestration is an ongiong process, and has occured in both warmer and colder periods. Further, the vast bulk of sequestered carbon is not in the form of fossil fuels, but marine limestones etc. (for example the whole of florida is pretty much made from coquina which is a calcareous rock, and therefore contains vast amounts of sequestered carbon). Even if we burn all the fossil fuel, we have in no way replaced anything like the entire amount of carbon that has been removed. Thus I doubt we could ever return to the "hotter" conditions, even if CO2 was the cause. But whatever.

I agree we need to develop alternate energy sources, because the fossil fuel is inconvienent for many applications. But everyone is scared of nuclear, which is the only real option.

As I said before, most of antartica is not covered in ice a mile deep. Most of it is a desert. Go watch the "living planet." David Attenborough goes there to look at some tedious lichen. The vast bulk of antartic ice is the ice shelf, which is presently floating. There is just not enough terrestrial ice to make a difference to sea level.

Try (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/paleo/webmapper.cgi) something a little more detailed than a vague memory of David Attenborough.
The data is for ice cores drilled for more than 3,500 meters. No, not much terrestrial Ice

The northern hemisphere polar region is wetter. There is more water there. (Mostly due to the lack of landmass, is being sea and all).

Adding the noun phrase 'polar region' makes a big diference.

Even national geographic has noticed the claims that sea levels will rise is an obvious flaw in most of the catastrophe scenarios offered. So it's not just me.

In most, but not all. Under the worst of scenarios, sea levels would rise.

Carbon sequestration is an ongiong process, and has occured in both warmer and colder periods. Further, the vast bulk of sequestered carbon is not in the form of fossil fuels, but marine limestones etc. (for example the whole of florida is pretty much made from coquina which is a calcareous rock, and therefore contains vast amounts of sequestered carbon). Even if we burn all the fossil fuel, we have in no way replaced anything like the entire amount of carbon that has been removed. Thus I doubt we could ever return to the "hotter" conditions, even if CO2 was the cause. But whatever.

I agree that we could not return to the pre life hothouse, but we are releasing C faster than it is being sequestered at the moment. The mineral carbon cycle is pretty much unchanged. Volcanoes kicking it out, animals fixing it and it returning back to mineral sedimentary rock form. It is the vegetable cycle that is changing.

I agree we need to develop alternate energy sources, because the fossil fuel is inconvienent for many applications. But everyone is scared of nuclear, which is the only real option.

What's wrong with solar? I don't think we are likely to see nuclear cars any time soon, but solar/electric is possible now.

What's wrong with solar? I don't think we are likely to see nuclear cars any time soon, but solar/electric is possible now.
Biodiesel.

Try (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/paleo/webmapper.cgi) something a little more detailed than a vague memory of David Attenborough.
The data is for ice cores drilled for more than 3,500 meters. No, not much terrestrial Ice



Adding the noun phrase 'polar region' makes a big diference.



In most, but not all. Under the worst of scenarios, sea levels would rise.



I agree that we could not return to the pre life hothouse, but we are releasing C faster than it is being sequestered at the moment. The mineral carbon cycle is pretty much unchanged. Volcanoes kicking it out, animals fixing it and it returning back to mineral sedimentary rock form. It is the vegetable cycle that is changing.



What's wrong with solar? I don't think we are likely to see nuclear cars any time soon, but solar/electric is possible now.


I'm telling you, most of the worlds ice floats already there are completely arid regions in antartica. Yes there are some icy areas of course, but the vast bulk of the worlds ice already floats. The often bandied about figure of sea level rising 200ft is all a myth.

As to solar cars, that's impossible. Solar power has a maximum theoretical efficiency of around 21%. No more is possible because of thermodynamics. Electric cars are possible, but the electricity has to generated somehow, and using solar energy will never be feasible.

Yes we are releasing CO2 faster than the sequestration rate, but we are just returning what was already taken out. Even if we burned all the fossil fuels, it would only be a fraction of the sequestered C. It is impossible to ever reach the atmospheric concentrations that existed millions of years ago, unless the world is plauged with a sudden massive influx of CO2 from volcanic activity. Also, as I mentioned, water is a greenhouse gas, why is no-one freaking out about that?


What's the big deal. Climate change is not happening. Also why do you differentiate vegetable and animals in the cycle. Animals do not sequester carbon from the atmosphere, only plants do. Florida is the result of photosynthetic processes millions of years ago, and there is no way that is being returned to the atmosphere. Again no worries.

It's all a myth.

Why not bike or take public transport, then?

Global warming doesn't necessitate warming, simply erratic temperatures.

And yes, it is a ploy to get laymen to act responsibly, but I guess we might have to just not give you innoculations so you all die out and the problem solves itself.

Living in a rural area and the nearest bus stop or train station is over 30 min away thats not an option.

I was just trying to make light of the matter. I am fully aware that global warming is not just a warming of temperatures causing the earth to bake like a potato. To get to that stage where the ozone to be depleated enough to allow that amount of heat to come through we would already be long dead from radiation.

All 'proof' related to global warming has not been backed up. Stats have shown certain climatic changes are happening, and people assume that it is from CFCs, emissions, mircowaves, refridgerators, etc etc.

Sure pollution adds to the problem and needs to be cut back, but maybe just maybe the earth is just going through some changes. (LOL Sounds like the puberty talk my class got back in middle school) If ice ages existed, which there doesnt seem to be any people saying never happened, then why wouldnt there be 'fire ages' I guess it could be termed. Where the temperature rises, raising water levels and shrinking land areas.

Maybe this is just a way that the earth is cleansing itself. Who knows. All I know is that its bloddy cold in Canada and something needs to happen.