NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that the Wilkins Ice Shelf has begun disintegrating. A 160 square mile chunk of the shelf has broken off.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28fri3.html?em&ex=1206849600&en=cb3ddfa0e7aab67c&ei=5087%0A) picked up the story about six hours ago. Here's an editorial that was released.

Editorial
Broken Ice in Antarctica

Winter is coming to Antarctica, and that may be the only thing that keeps another of its major ice shelves from collapsing. On Tuesday, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey announced that there had been an enormous fracture on the edge of the Wilkins ice shelf, which started breaking last month.

That province of ice, a body of permanent floating ice about the size of Connecticut, lies on the western edge of the Antarctic Peninsula, the part of the continent regarded as most vulnerable to climate change. Scientists flew over the break — itself covering some 160 square miles — and what they saw is remarkable: huge, geometrically fractured slabs of ice and, among them, the rubble of a catastrophic breach. A great swath of the ice shelf is being held in place by a thin band of ice.

What matters isn’t just the scale of this breakout. Changes in wind patterns and water temperatures related to global warming have begun to erode the ice sheets of western Antarctica at a faster rate than previously detected, and the total collapse of the Wilkins ice shelf is now within the realm of possibility.

It also comes as a reminder that the warming of Earth’s surface is occurring much faster at the poles than it is in more temperate regions. It is easy to think of ice as somehow temporary, but scientists say that the Wilkins ice shelf may have been in place for at least several hundred years.

Nothing dramatizes the urgency of global warming quite like a fracture of this scale. There is nothing to be done about a collapsing polar ice sheet except to witness it. It may be too late to stop the warming decay at the boundaries of Antarctic ice, yet there is everything to be done. Humans can radically change the way they live and do business, knowing that it is the one chance to find a possible limit to radical change in the natural world around us.

I think that this development is certainly rather illuminating. It's very clear that the average temperatures are increasing dramatically at the poles. What this will hold for the future remains to be seen, but if this process continues, I can certainly see that things are going to become problematic for lowland countries.

What this will hold for the future remains to be seen, but if this process continues, I can certainly see that things are going to become problematic for lowland countries.

This has happened before and will happen again. It is a natural cycle of the earth.:rolleyes:

Interesting. The ice in Antarctica is breaking off at the end of the Antarctic Summer...

Huh, wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that it was melting during the summer. Five bucks says that just like the Ice Shelf that the Goracle Featured in his "Movie" it will be back next year.

Also, might have missed it, but the average climate dropped .65 degrees celcius over the last year, when it had taken a full century to heat up .65 degrees.

This has happened before and will happen again. It is a natural cycle of the earth.:rolleyes:

Mass extinction has happened before and will happen again. It's natural, therefore good.

This has happened before and will happen again. It is a natural cycle of the earth.:rolleyes:

Tell that 50 million Bangladeshis who are going to be without their homes in the near future. :rolleyes:

This has happened before and will happen again. It is a natural cycle of the earth.:rolleyes:

He never claimed otherwise, he just said it could cause problems for people. Do you dispute this?

Tell that 50 million Bangladeshis who are going to be without their homes in the near future. :rolleyes:


Mass extinction has happened before and will happen again. It's natural, therefore good.


No, see, all we have to do is say the word "natural" and we are thus relieved of any need to do anything about anything. Obviously, the death and/or misery of the masses of humanity (and a multitude of other non-human species) living on the coasts or low lying areas are only a "natural" consequence.

One would expect, though, that if I were standing on a railroad crossing watching the train rapidly approaching, I would do my best to jump the hell out of the way. I might fail, but I should at least try. Ah! But, of course, I'm not personally driving the train and I can't really stop it with my own comparatively meager personal strength, so my just standing there is obviously the "natural" thing to do.

**puts on blindfold, lights cigarette, and awaits his fate**

He never claimed otherwise, he just said it could cause problems for people. Do you dispute this?

No, I do not dispute it has and will cause problems. The human race has and will overcome those problems and survive like they have before.

What I do dispute the the "AlGore the sky is falling and it is all caused by humans" mentality. What I do dispute is the Western world (Europe, US, Korea) is more responsible for it than the developing (China, India, parts of South America) or third world countries (most of Africa, parts of Asia parts of South and Central America.)

Also, might have missed it, but the average climate dropped .65 degrees celcius over the last year, when it had taken a full century to heat up .65 degrees.

No wonder they changed the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change." They want to cover their collective asses when we enter the next Ice Age. :p After all, they predicted in the 1950's we were heading for another Ice Age. :rolleyes:

I do not see how people will refuse to admit at the very least that humans are exacerbating climate change. We know for a fact that human beings are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than Earth's natural processes can sequester. We know for a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global temperature average and will change the climate.

This much is indisputable.

Furthermore, we cannot hold all human beings equally accountable for this problem. Some people clearly benefit more than other from our inaction. A starving Ethiopian child clearly is less to blame for climate change than the CEO of Exxon-Mobil.

No, see, all we have to do is say the word "natural" and we are thus relieved of any need to do anything about anything. Obviously, the death and/or misery of the masses of humanity (and a multitude of other non-human species) living on the coasts or low lying areas are only a "natural" consequence.

One would expect, though, that if I were standing on a railroad crossing watching the train rapidly approaching, I would do my best to jump the hell out of the way. I might fail, but I should at least try. Ah! But, of course, I'm not personally driving the train and I can't really stop it with my own comparatively meager personal strength, so my just standing there is obviously the "natural" thing to do.

**puts on blindfold, lights cigarette, and awaits his fate**

Look, just because scare-mongerers like Al Gore are screaming about oncoming trains and "get off the tracks or you'll die" that doesn't make it true! I accept that there may be a moving object of some kind approaching, but it's not as big or as fast as the doomsayers claim.

No wonder they changed the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change." They want to cover their collective asses when we enter the next Ice Age. :p After all, they predicted in the 1950's we were heading for another Ice Age. :rolleyes:

Only a small number of scientists predicted a coming Ice Age. These reports were sensationalized, but the majority of scientists disputed the research.

Furthermore, global climate change is the most accurate term. The real problem from the increase of global temperatures will be caused by the shifting of climate patterns. Rainfall patterns could potentially change drastically, as could ocean and wind currents. A lot more is affected than just average temperature.

We know for a fact that human beings are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than Earth's natural processes can sequester.

No we do not. It is a theory, not a proven fact.

We know for a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global temperature average and will change the climate.

No we do not. It is a theory, not a proven fact.

This much is indisputable.

No it is not. See above.

Furthermore, we cannot hold all human beings equally accountable for this problem. Some people clearly benefit more than other from our inaction. A starving Ethiopian child clearly is less to blame for climate change than the CEO of Exxon-Mobil.

We can hold the governments that pollute the most as more accountable. We can hold China and India more accountable than most Western countries. So, why should we ask Western countries to cut back on pollution more than countries like China, Russia, India....:rolleyes:

No wonder they changed the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change." They want to cover their collective asses when we enter the next Ice Age. :p After all, they predicted in the 1950's we were heading for another Ice Age. :rolleyes:

Bullshit. How many predictions of a coming Ice Age can you find in the peer-reviewed journals of the time, as opposed to the popular press? If you take the time to actually research the topic you'll find that journals and scientific organisations were pretty much unanimous in saying that there was insufficient data to draw conclusions.

Contrast that to the present day, when virtually every scientific society and organisation in the world has agreed that the data is in and that human activity is significantly affecting the climate.

Only a small number of scientists predicted a coming Ice Age. These reports were sensationalized, but the majority of scientists disputed the research.

Horse hockey. I suppose the reports of Global Warming are not sensationalized. :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Furthermore, global climate change is the most accurate term. The real problem from the increase of global temperatures will be caused by the shifting of climate patterns. Rainfall patterns could potentially change drastically, as could ocean and wind currents. A lot more is affected than just average temperature.

The shift in global temperatures will take place even if man were taken off the earth tomorrow. Global Climate Change is called Glacial Pluvial periods. It has happened for millions of years and will continue for as long as the earth rotates on it's axis with or without man.

Look, just because scare-mongerers like Al Gore are screaming about oncoming trains and "get off the tracks or you'll die" that doesn't make it true!


Who cares about Al Gore?

I prefer to direct my attention to collapsing ice shelves and people who have lived in the Arctic region for millennia (http://inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?auto_slide=&ID=385&Lang=En&Parent_ID=&current_slide_num=).

No we do not. It is a theory, not a proven fact.

You clearly do not understand what constitutes a scientific theory. The numbers do not lie. CO2 concentration continues to increase. The amount that earth's plant life can sequester can be, and has been clearly measured. People are producing more than this finite amount. Ergo, humans are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No we do not. It is a theory, not a proven fact.

Gravity is just a theory too. A scientific theory is more than just a conjecture; it is a hypothesis that is supported by massive amounts of data. It is something that is continually tested and retested to ensure its veracity. All of our observations so far support the anthropogenic climate change theory.

No it is not. See above.

Unless there is a massive cabal involving millions of people who are deliberately falsifying all of the millions quanta of data on climate change, than climate change theory stands. The above have all been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

We can hold the governments that pollute the most as more accountable. We can hold China and India more accountable than most Western countries. So, why should we ask Western countries to cut back on pollution more than countries like China, Russia, India....:rolleyes:

The West is still the largest polluter, even though China and India are rapidly catching up with the West. As such, the West has the obligation to make the most drastic changes.

Who cares about Al Gore?

I prefer to direct my attention to collapsing ice shelves and people who have lived in the Arctic region for millennia (http://inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?auto_slide=&ID=385&Lang=En&Parent_ID=&current_slide_num=).

I think your Sarcasm Detector's broken. ;)

Horse hockey. I suppose the reports of Global Warming are not sensationalized. :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Global Warming is accepted by pretty much every scientific organisation on the planet as established fact.

Can you show us even one scientific organisation which did the same for Global Cooling?

The West is still the largest polluter, even though China and India are rapidly catching up with the West. As such, the West has the obligation to make the most drastic changes.

There's also the fact that our emissions per capita are far higher: the US only has about a quarter the population of China, but it has almost the same level of emissions. We have more leeway to make cuts.

Horse hockey. I suppose the reports of Global Warming are not sensationalized. :rolleyes: Give me a break. :rolleyes:

The shift in global temperatures will take place even if man were taken off the earth tomorrow. Global Climate Change is called Glacial Pluvial periods. It has happened for millions of years and will continue for as long as the earth rotates on it's axis with or without man.

The press has been remarkably restrained in their coverage of climate change. Considering that potentially billions of lives over the next century or two hang in the balance, I'd say they are being too restrained about their coverage. When the Arctic permafrost melts, and billions of tons of methane and CO2 are released into the atmosphere, you will see what I mean.

We're not talking about million year cycles. We're talking about drastic climate changes that could potentially take less than a century. Some one will have to pick up the pieces, and I do not want to have to be the one making the body count.

This has happened before and will happen again. It is a natural cycle of the earth.:rolleyes:

Al Gore would disagree. ;)

Interesting. The ice in Antarctica is breaking off at the end of the Antarctic Summer...

Huh, wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that it was melting during the summer.

no.

next question.

Also, might have missed it, but the average climate dropped .65 degrees celcius over the last year, when it had taken a full century to heat up .65 degrees.

the climate dropped?

Who cares about Al Gore?

I prefer to direct my attention to collapsing ice shelves and people who have lived in the Arctic region for millennia (http://inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?auto_slide=&ID=385&Lang=En&Parent_ID=&current_slide_num=).


In the past millennia we had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. How the hell are we suppose to know for sure if this is not a normal situation.

In the past millennia we had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. How the hell are we suppose to know for sure if this is not a normal situation.

ooh, ooh, i has an idea! we could look at evidence and use our powers of reason!

if only there were a body of people devoted to doing just that and putting their findings into writing somewhere...

This has happened before and will happen again. It is a natural cycle of the earth.:rolleyes:

So? How makes this things less problematic?

edit:


What I do dispute the the "AlGore the sky is falling and it is all caused by humans" mentality.

oic. You were just disputing something that hadn't been mentioned. Why not.

ooh, ooh, i has an idea! we could look at evidence and use our powers of reason!

if only there were a body of people devoted to doing just that and putting their findings into writing somewhere...

Sigged!

ooh, ooh, i has an idea! we could look at evidence and use our powers of reason!

if only there were a body of people devoted to doing just that and putting their findings into writing somewhere...

Seems the past evidence points at drastic climate changes.

Seems the past evidence points at drastic climate changes.

not recently.

but yeah, over geologic time, sure. now what does the evidence tell us about mechanisms for that change?

Sigged!

sweet

In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether or not Global Warming is real; people should be concerned about how much of a deadly compound we routinely vent into the air (CO2). It may or may not be hurting the planet's ecosystem, but in the long run it's certainly going to hurt humanity if we keep overwhelming Earth's ability to remove it.

not recently.

but yeah, over geologic time, sure. now what does the evidence tell us about mechanisms for that change?

Our current climate has only been this way for only 13,000 years. Even within that time period we have had quick changes as I already stated. Even on our small human time scale 13k years isn't that long. All I am saying is that the Earth's climate is not stable like many people think it is. Evidence by scientists points to that fact. Seems at this point in our short existence things are changing again. Most likely we can't do a damn thing about it. We can cut our carbon footprint. That in itself probably won't do anything. However I can't argue against a cleaner environment.

No wonder they changed the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change." They want to cover their collective asses when we enter the next Ice Age. :p After all, they predicted in the 1950's we were heading for another Ice Age. :rolleyes:As recent studies, made up by myself, have shown the number of Viking settlements can be directly traced to how warm the planet has been, I have concluded that we are currently entering a new Ice Age as there are only a couple of Vikings left, myself included. So if you want to be able to experince Viking raids first hand I believe you should continue with global warming and an usher a new golden age for Vikings, and legalize raids by true Vikings.

As recent studies, made up by myself, have shown the number of Viking settlements can be directly traced to how warm the planet has been, I have concluded that we are currently entering a new Ice Age as there are only a couple of Vikings left, myself included. So if you want to be able to experince Viking raids first hand I believe you should continue with global warming and an usher a new golden age for Vikings, and legalize raids by true Vikings.

Just to tip you Vikings off for the next cold spell. Learn from the locals on Greenland how to hunt seals and ice fish when the weather turns cold again.

So does this mean you guys will try to take back Eastern Canada?

Just to tip you Vikings off for the next cold spell. Learn from the locals on Greenland how to hunt seals and ice fish when the weather turns cold again.

So does this mean you guys will try to take back Eastern Canada?No seal is not so tasty, trust me I was there about seven hundred years ago. Though to tell the truth the Inuits, who actually were not there before us tried to chase us off our ancestral lands so we ended up in a war and won. Then we got bored and started fighting each other, until we got bored again and invaded Ireland. Then we died from old age, aka fatty livers.

Also, Eastern Canada has no real good looking women so no.

No we do not. It is a theory, not a proven fact.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

I did experiments at school like this.

This has happened before and will happen again. It is a natural cycle of the earth.:rolleyes:

Indeed. To bad people buy into the shit that is being spewed about it though.

Only a small number of scientists predicted a coming Ice Age. These reports were sensationalized, but the majority of scientists disputed the research.

Furthermore, global climate change is the most accurate term. The real problem from the increase of global temperatures will be caused by the shifting of climate patterns. Rainfall patterns could potentially change drastically, as could ocean and wind currents. A lot more is affected than just average temperature.

You do realize that some temperatures are increasing in some parts of the world while decreesing in other parts.

Global Warming is accepted by pretty much every scientific organisation on the planet as established fact.

Can you show us even one scientific organisation which did the same for Global Cooling?

Uh...Agenda? He's not totally denying Global Warming just that it has been sensationalized.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether or not Global Warming is real; people should be concerned about how much of a deadly compound we routinely vent into the air (CO2). It may or may not be hurting the planet's ecosystem, but in the long run it's certainly going to hurt humanity if we keep overwhelming Earth's ability to remove it.

Here's an idea...

Instead of cutting down trees, why don't we PLANT MORE OF THEM!!!

You do realize that some temperatures are increasing in some parts of the world while decreesing in other parts.

Hence why it's called an average rise in global temperatures, Corny.

You do realize that some temperatures are increasing in some parts of the world while decreesing in other parts.

You do realize these changes are a lot more drastic than ever before?

Even on our small human time scale 13k years isn't that long.

yeah, it's just three times longer than the entire history of civilization. like nothing!

Most likely we can't do a damn thing about it. We can cut our carbon footprint. That in itself probably won't do anything.

evidence?

yeah, it's just three times longer than the entire history of civilization. like nothing!

We have been around much longer than written history. We will be around for a long time to come.


evidence?


Evidence? You have a time machine I can borrow?

You do realize these changes are a lot more drastic than ever before?
You do realize the last ice age ended very suddenly. The time frame was only a few decades. The changes are normal. So your theory is shot to hell.

Warming, then a cold snap. Around 14,000 years ago (about 13,000 radiocarbon years ago), there was a rapid global warming and moistening of climates, perhaps occurring within the space of only a few years or decades. In many respects, this phase seems to have resembled some of the earlier interstadials that had occurred so many times before during the glacial period. Conditions in many mid-latitude areas appear to have been about as warm as they are today, although many other areas - whilst warmer than during the Late Glacial Cold Stage - seem to have remained slightly cooler than at present. Forests began to spread back, and the ice sheets began to retreat. However, after a few thousand years of recovery, the Earth was suddenly plunged back into a new and very short-lived ice age known as the Younger Dryas. Although the Younger Dryas did not affect everywhere in the world, it destroyed the returning forests in the north and led to a brief resurgence of the ice sheets. This map by D. Peteet shows the possible distribution of Younger Dryas cooling around the world. The main cooling event that marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas seems have occurred within less than 100 years, according to Greenland ice core data (Alley et al. 1993). After about 1,300 years of cold and aridity, the Younger Dryas seems to have ended in the space of only a few decades (various estimates from ice core climate indicators range from 20 - 70 years for this sudden transition) when conditions became as warm as they are today. Around half of the warming seems to have occurred in the space of a single span of 15 years, according to the latest detailed analyses of the Greenland ice core record (Taylor et al. 1997).

Source:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html


Edit: I also want to correct a figure I said earlier. I said that the current conditions have existed for only 13k years. I was off by 5k years. The current conditions have only been around 8k years. Not long at all. Barely enough time for Earth to wipe it's ass.

I'm actually quite entertained that there are still yanks who doubt that climate change is a reality. There is, with the exception of a few whose calibre is much like those who doubt evolution, an ever growing scientific consensus upon the issue.

Only a small number of scientists predicted a coming Ice Age. These reports were sensationalized, but the majority of scientists disputed the research.



The facts about "the Ice age is coming"bs has been posted multiple times. morons still post it over and over.
Opinions = fact bullshit = reality. if you bury your head in the sand bad things go away.

Even if Tuvalu completely sinks out of existence, they'll still deny that it's not natural.

Even if the world looks like a bad Kevin Costner movie or Lex Luthor's plan succeeded, they'll still deny it's not natural.

And when we all live in pressurized domes, they'll shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, it's natural."

didn't some people claim that the little ice age ended around the time of the industrial revolution?

I'm actually quite entertained that there are still yanks who doubt that climate change is a reality. There is, with the exception of a few whose calibre is much like those who doubt evolution, an ever growing scientific consensus upon the issue.

I don't hear people saying climate change is not happening. Global warming is the term most debated but I don't believe that the general populace believes that the weather is not changing.


Edit: As for yanks vs Brits you guys have your fair share of knuckle draggers. I use to live in Leeds myself. Experiencing both nations I realize now where some of the people in the US came from. :P

didn't some people claim that the little ice age ended around the time of the industrial revolution?

Never heard that one but I am sure it is only a small group claiming that if they are at all.

Tell that 50 million Bangladeshis who are going to be without their homes in the near future. :rolleyes:

Bangladesh has a much bigger population than that. It has easily three times the number you listed.

Only a small number of scientists predicted a coming Ice Age. These reports were sensationalized, but the majority of scientists disputed the research.
.


It was on the front cover of TIME magazine in the '70s.

Link to 1974 article.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

As recent as 1994.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980050,00.html


Weather hysteria has been a hallmark for the media since it started.

I don't hear people saying climate change is not happening. Global warming is the term most debated but I don't believe that the general populace believes that the weather is not changing.


Edit: As for yanks vs Brits you guys have your fair share of knuckle draggers. I use to live in Leeds myself. Experiencing both nations I realize now where some of the people in the US came from. :P

In my experiance, "climate change" and "global warming" tend to be interchangeable.

Equally, I believe the difference between American and British fuckwits is that ours tend to be less politicised, less vocal, and more concerned with the state of the England football team and the content of today's "Jeremy Kyle" than the state of the world, the illusion they deem global warming to be and the like.

Good. It's about damn time those snooty pinguns get whats coming to them.

In my experiance, "climate change" and "global warming" tend to be interchangeable.

Equally, I believe the difference between American and British fuckwits is that ours tend to be less politicised, less vocal, and more concerned with the state of the England football team and the content of today's "Jeremy Kyle" than the state of the world, the illusion they deem global warming to be and the like.

I don't agree 100% that "climate change" and "global warming" are that interchangeable. They mean two separate things. For example "climate change" is much more palatable because it is fairly ambiguous. Global warming means exactly what it says. That is where the big disagreement is.

As for the differences in fuckwits I have to agree. I also noticed alcohol consumption was very high in the UK. In fact I thought it couldn't be beat until of course I went to Ireland.

Good. It's about damn time those snooty penguins get whats coming to them.

They seem happier on documentaries and in zoo's anyways.

I don't agree 100% that "climate change" and "global warming" are that interchangeable. They mean two separate things. For example "climate change" is much more palatable because it is fairly ambiguous. Global warming means exactly what it says. That is where the big disagreement is.


While true in terms of definitions, you're missing the point. Global warming IS happening. Climate change is used as an interchangable term because global warming is something that can be easily misunderstood, as is made obvious by the fact that despite the scientific consensus the populace still seems rather divided.

Unfortunately, it not only didn't work, it made things worse.

They seem happier on documentaries and in zoo's anyways.

Its probably because Morgan Freeman's voice is so monotone and boring, that anything else is exciting.

While true in terms of definitions, you're missing the point. Global warming IS happening. Climate change is used as an interchangable term because global warming is something that can be easily misunderstood, as is made obvious by the fact that despite the scientific consensus the populace still seems rather divided.

Unfortunately, it not only didn't work, it made things worse.

The average global mean temperature has inched up however we as humans don't completely understand how all the puzzle pieces fit. What are you going to say if the average mean temp falls over the next five years?

Edit: Until we get a long term track record I don't think we can point at one thing and say ah ha. In fact it would take longer than our lifetimes to really see where we are headed.

Its probably because Morgan Freeman's voice is so monotone and boring, that anything else is exciting.

He has a great voice to take a snooze by.

Weather hysteria has been a hallmark for the media since it started.
So then, don't take your information just from the mass-media. As you were told way back on page one, the media hysteria about the "coming ice age" was not reflected in the peer-reviewed journals at the time. If you pay attention to the peer-reviewed journals NOW, however, you will find that the global warming question is considered well-settled.

So then, don't take your information just from the mass-media. As you were told way back on page one, the media hysteria about the "coming ice age" was not reflected in the peer-reviewed journals at the time. If you pay attention to the peer-reviewed journals NOW, however, you will find that the global warming question is considered well-settled.

Scientists rely on one another fairly often. Many of them will parrot one another. The field of astronomy is a good example. As for the raw data of temperatures those cannot be disputed. As I just mention in another reply. What if the temperatures drop slightly over the next 1-5 years?

Edit: I think the real question here is there a long term trend toward warming? We don't know but can only speculate.

well, no matter what one's political views are, one cannot deny the ill effects of this junk we're throwing up into the athmosphere.

The average global mean temperature has inched up however we as humans don't completely understand how all the puzzle pieces fit. What are you going to say if the average mean temp falls over the next five years?

Edit: Until we get a long term track record I don't think we can point at one thing and say ah ha. In fact it would take longer than our lifetimes to really see where we are headed.

I'd say that I have no idea what it would mean, and neither would you. Neither one of us are climatologists, and rather than spouting some gibberish about not being able to understand it, why don't we just trust that the scientists who've been studying this stuff know what they're talking about?

I'd say that I have no idea what it would mean, and neither would you. Neither one of us are climatologists, and rather than spouting some gibberish about not being able to understand it, why don't we just trust that the scientists who've been studying this stuff know what they're talking about?

Alright lets go get a beer. Your turn to buy..... ;)

well, no matter what one's political views are, one cannot deny the ill effects of this junk we're throwing up into the athmosphere.

Yep I blame it on Californication.

Alright lets go get a beer. Your turn to buy..... ;)

Well, I'll pass on having one, but here you go. *tosses one over*

Uh...Agenda? He's not totally denying Global Warming just that it has been sensationalized.

Which is nonsense. Anyone who's read the IPCC report would know that it's been anything but sensationalised.

It was on the front cover of TIME magazine in the '70s.

Link to 1974 article.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

As recent as 1994.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980050,00.html


Weather hysteria has been a hallmark for the media since it started.

Time is a peer-reviewed scientific journal now? You realise that this confirms what Trotskylvania said: that the Ice Age claims were driven by the media and a few fringe-scientists, wheras the modern Climate Change consensus is endorsed by an overwhelming majority of scientists?

The average global mean temperature has inched up however we as humans don't completely understand how all the puzzle pieces fit. What are you going to say if the average mean temp falls over the next five years?

Edit: Until we get a long term track record I don't think we can point at one thing and say ah ha. In fact it would take longer than our lifetimes to really see where we are headed.

And 50 or so years is not a long term track record either.

I'd say that I have no idea what it would mean, and neither would you. Neither one of us are climatologists, and rather than spouting some gibberish about not being able to understand it, why don't we just trust that the scientists who've been studying this stuff know what they're talking about?

Climatologists do not know everything either.

Which is nonsense. Anyone who's read the IPCC report would know that it's been anything but sensationalised.

I guess you haven't been watching the news reports then. The News Reports have sensationalized it as has hollywood and Al Gore. Do not sit on the other end and tell me that it hasn't.

Climatologists do not know everything either.

No, they don't, and I never said they did.

HOWEVER

They are the ones who've spent years studying this stuff. They're the ones who understand the data, who've been gathering it, researching it, ect ect.

So, understandably, they'd know a lot more about the subject than you or I would. Let me restate this: WE--THAT IS, YOU AND I--DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS STUFF. We have not spent the time researching it. We do not have access to most of the data. We did not spend years of college learning what was already known and then researching what has yet to be known.

So why should we somehow know enough to counter what they're saying on the subject they're an expert in? Look, I wouldn't trust a climatologist to tell me much about nuclear engineering, but I most definitely would trust them to tell me about climates and what's happening, and the simple fact is the vast majority of climatologists are in agreement over this, which did NOT happen with any previous media sensationalized climate changing hypothesis--not even close.

I guess you haven't been watching the news reports then. The News Reports have sensationalized it as has hollywood and Al Gore. Do not sit on the other end and tell me that it hasn't.

i will tell you that al gore did not sensationalize it. al gore did not sensationalize climate change. he made a very important and scientifically well-grounded popularization that has done excellent work for raising awareness.

Edit: Until we get a long term track record I don't think we can point at one thing and say ah ha. In fact it would take longer than our lifetimes to really see where we are headed.

The problem with this thinking is that only one side can really afford to be wrong...

If the choices are:
1. Act quickly or face irreversably changed climate
2. Wait a couple hundred years for better understanding about atmosphere.

There are distinct problems with alternative 2 IF alternative 1 is correct, on the other hand choosing alternative 1 - with current "flimsy" evidence - will only effect a paradigm shift from oil-economy to alternative fuels even if it would be later shown false.

No wonder they changed the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change." They want to cover their collective asses when we enter the next Ice Age. :p After all, they predicted in the 1950's we were heading for another Ice Age. :rolleyes:

I know it's from way back in the thread, but it always strikes me as funny when scientists are criticised for re-evaluating things when they find more evidence. I suppose they were just covering their asses when they started telling us that one actually can divide an atom.

In the past millennia we had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. How the hell are we suppose to know for sure if this is not a normal situation.

The Medieval Warm Period was restricted entirely to western Europe and parts of the eastern seaboard of North America.

We know that it's not a normal situation, because only one factor has changed, and that is the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which is known to cause a warming effect. It's incredibly basic physics. It's like seeing someone dead with a gaping bullet wound in their skull and saying "well maybe they died of cancer".

The Medieval Warm Period was restricted entirely to western Europe and parts of the eastern seaboard of North America.

We know that it's not a normal situation, because only one factor has changed, and that is the massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which is known to cause a warming effect. It's incredibly basic physics. It's like seeing someone dead with a gaping bullet wound in their skull and saying "well maybe they died of cancer".

So you pick one bit out the the whole article I posted and tried to make a case off that bit of information and ignored the rest of what I was posting?

Furthermore you understand that we only know of this particular area well because it was being recorded by the Europeans. Alaska and Siberia really didn't record to much information at the time this happened. Lastly as you already know the Earths landmass is distributed unequally with most of it in the North. So I guess that would be why the Ice age affected the Northern Hemisphere the most.

The problem with this thinking is that only one side can really afford to be wrong...

If the choices are:
1. Act quickly or face irreversably changed climate
2. Wait a couple hundred years for better understanding about atmosphere.

There are distinct problems with alternative 2 IF alternative 1 is correct, on the other hand choosing alternative 1 - with current "flimsy" evidence - will only effect a paradigm shift from oil-economy to alternative fuels even if it would be later shown false.

I say we do what we can to cut our impact on the Earth. I don't see any logical reason why would should put economic dampers on some economies while not others (Kyoto).

Also, might have missed it, but the average climate dropped .65 degrees celcius over the last year, when it had taken a full century to heat up .65 degrees.

Where are you getting your climatologic data from? The cookie jar?
According to the NCDC NOAA NESDIS:
NOAA: 2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for U.S. and Globe (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html)
For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. Some of the largest and most widespread warm anomalies occurred from eastern Europe to central Asia.
And:
2006 2nd Warmest Year on Record for US - General Warming Trend, El Niño Contribute to Milder Winter Temps (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/ann06.html)
U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0°F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970's at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record

Also, it's Celsius, not celcius.