Global warming?

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not fully? Thats an understatement. I don know that we have really even scratched the surface (pun intended).

Well put Bullitt.

Thanks.

Whenever I hear about plans to alter the oceans or the atmosphere or some other significant part of the environment, I always think back to that ill-conceived plan to create artificial reefs off the coast of Florida with bundles of old tires. The intentions were good, help the environment and rectify some of the damage we have done to it. Except the ocean tossed those tires around so badly that they ended up wreaking havoc on the underwater reef ecosystem. So much so that now millions of $ has to be spent to recover all the tires. We need to be extraordinarily careful when tampering with the ecosystem in a manner that we think is corrective. History is full of stories of invasive species and other unintended consequences, that sometimes end up being worse than the initial situation, stemming from people rushing a "fix" into place when careful, scientific consideration for the after effects is not properly pursued.

[sugarpop]

Hear hear Bullitt! Well said.

[Aliantha]

From here

New analysis has indicated that contrary to the belief that there is large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, ice is actually
expanding in a large portion of the continent.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica.

The destabilization of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, according to a report in the Australian, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report noted that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

According to Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison, sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water.

Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps.

In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting.

"The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.

The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

My mind is made up because of the evidence. There are mountains of it, and scientists have been collecting it for decades.

There are as many mountains of data the say the opposite and more scientists than ever are changing their minds and altering their opinions.
Decades don't mean shit. ( see posts of BAD DATA) Three or four decades ago it was global COOLING that was the issue and some scientists were predicting another ice age by 2050.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why? Because I brought up the health aspect of the issue? I always do that ...

Seems as though it happens when your arguments are refuted with facts that don't support your opinions. just sayin.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Frankly I prefer the term "climate change," because that is something people can relate to. You can't deny the climate is changing.

The alarmists prefer it too, its a nice broad term that allows for a lot of wiggle room.

[Aliantha]

Oh yep, the climate is changing, in fact, if you take a look at Al Gores movie about wind changes and how it affects the ice caps, you'll see that if what he presented is fact, and the winds are changing, combined with/supported by this new research, then it's perfectly plausible that the southern areas of the earth are going to get colder as the northern areas get hotter.

If we accept this theory, then it's really just a question of how quickly these changes will occur, not if they're occuring.

[classicman]

Thats a If

[Aliantha]

IF you don't think the climate has changed at all in your lifetime then it's an IF. IF you acknowledge that things are a bit different now than when you were a kid, then it's not such an IF after all.

[classicman]

IF we agree that they have changed.... Then what part, IF ANY, does/did mankind have in it.

[Aliantha]

Maybe a little, maybe a lot. According to further information not contained in that report, part of the reason for the wind changes in antarctica are due to the hole in the ozone layer over Australia. If we believe that man caused the hole, then we have to agree that mankind has a hand in this issue.

eta: personally I think the hole in the ozone layer was caused by women in the 80's using too much hairspray for their big hairdo's.

[TheMercenary]

Obama Earth Day Flights Burned More Than 9,000 Gallons Of Fuel

[xoxoxoBruce]

Aw c'mon, it takes that much fuel for the Obama entourage to go from the White House to Capitol Hill.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

There are as many mountains of data the say the opposite and more scientists than ever are changing their minds and altering their opinions.
Decades don't mean shit. ( see posts of BAD DATA) Three or four decades ago it was global COOLING that was the issue and some scientists were predicting another ice age by 2050.

Seems as though it happens when your arguments are refuted with facts that don't support your opinions. just sayin.

The alarmists prefer it too, its a nice broad term that allows for a lot of wiggle room.

I posted an article in response to the claim that global warming isn't real. DiD you read it? And I didn't bring up health concerns to evade anything. I was just adding that, even if it WAS a myth, there are still other very valid reasons to change our ways.

[jinx]

Be the change you want to see.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Maybe a little, maybe a lot. According to further information not contained in that report, part of the reason for the wind changes in antarctica are due to the hole in the ozone layer over Australia. If we believe that man caused the hole, then we have to agree that mankind has a hand in this issue.

eta: personally I think the hole in the ozone layer was caused by women in the 80's using too much hairspray for their big hairdo's.

Someone told me the other day they had heard (on NPR or somewhere) that, because of all the coal we're burning, a layer of particles is in the atmosphere, and that has actually helped slow down or counteract some of the effects of global warming.

[piercehawkeye45]

Global cooling? The particle layer will block sun rays from hitting the Earth, causing them temperature to drop in a much less extreme nuclear winter asteroid impact fashion.