global warning update.

[Angus]

Well, Jackal, make up your mind then. Is the Ice melting or not. Oh typical answer, uhhhh, it's prolly a natural cycle.
"You have stated global warming as the cause you belive that is responsible for the melting"
You will need something to warm in order to melt ice. Yes, I belive that it's melting because the globe is warming.
And why is the globe warming. Well, I think we have something to do with it but the question how much actually remains debateable IMHO.
Oh, and an 80 year cycle puts us to 1926. 60 to 80 from 1926 to 1946.
While the melting and re-freezing doesn't happen in an instant, there should be ample data about this. And is it?
You can also use another method to try to judge the ice cover. Animal life, like Polar Bears. They don't go over vast areas of open ocean. This is the method David Attenborough uses as a "Thermometer".
Guess what. Polar Bears were a nuicance in my country until the 20th century, then poof, they were gone. Only had a handful here in the last hundred years. And no cycles.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, Jackal, make up your mind then. Is the Ice melting or not.
 

Maybe you missed this Angus. I`ll requote it.
"OK...the ice is melting. I know this because Angus, by gawd ,told me so."
That`s not the debate. The cause is.

Oh typical answer, uhhhh, it's prolly a natural cycle.

An answer that has been put forth, yes. Not my answer, but a possibility that has been put forth as a possible theory.

You will need something to warm in order to melt ice. Yes, I belive that it's melting because the globe is warming.

OK, that is your belief. Got it. I`m going to temporarily make the assumption that you rule out any other possibility. Correct me if I`m wrong. At this point I can`t assume much else since you refuse to answer the direct question asked numerous times.

 

Oh, and an 80 year cycle puts us to 1926.

Reversing from this point in time, yes. That is assuming that this is and ending/starting point.

60 to 80 from 1926 to 1946.

That is a 40 year period. It actualy has noting to do with anything concerning this because proposed starting/ending pooints have not been put forth. You are assuming current time for ending/starting points.

While the melting and re-freezing doesn't happen in an instant, there should be ample data about this. And is it?

Evidently there is some.....or at least it has been suggested. Once again, I`ll quote from the article..."This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature." Remeber...that`s old Doc Gut Feelings statement, not mine. I`m still waiting until he learns to read.

You can also use another method to try to judge the ice cover. Animal life, like Polar Bears. They don't go over vast areas of open ocean. This is the method David Attenborough uses as a "Thermometer". Guess what. Polar Bears were a nuicance in my country until the 20th century, then poof, they were gone. Only had a handful here in the last hundred years. And no cycles. [/B]

[/QUOTE]

Much of a population increase there in the last couple of hundred years?
In times, not so distant in the past, my state was on the verge of completely loosing our deer population. It wasn`t due to global warming....or even climate cycles. Just saying.

And no cycles.

Well......at least you are certain of that. The scientific community doesn`t seem to be able to agree/disagree with it. Of course, that`s no surprise.

I realize this is probably futile, but I`ll put my question up again just for kicks. I can certainly understand your reluctance to give a direct answer to it but hey..........

Requote from a requote......................
"Do you, or do you not believe that the cyclic periods theory in the article is a possibility?"

Possibility? Yes/No?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
Or are we going to do something about it? I've already made up my mind which camp I'm in.

And camping is about all you will do Beet. Make sure you don`t go to the campground on anything other than a bicycle. If you truly beleive in what you say you beleive as facts, you might consider buying a lot of heavy, insulated clothing. If you accept the theory , then it seems you are in for some bitter cold weather.

[lazs2]

LOL... do you think angus and beet have "I want to believe" posters in their bedrooms...  The religion of environmentalism....


beet... You have never answered my question about how much and how soon.   You seem to admit that C02 is a tiny percent of global warming... that man only contributes about 2-4% of even that (co2).   You don't say how long that 2-4% of the co2 that in itself, is only a minor cause of global warming will affect real global warming.    You talk of london and new york being underwater (not a bad thought) but don't say when or... how much us all dying off would slow that days coming.

So... if man disapeared off the planet...  and the planet stayed on it's natural course.... what would the temp be in 100 years?

We all seem to agree that rising co2 levels might.... might... raise the temp 1 degree in 100 years, all else staying stable (LOL) including how much energy the sun sends down...  

Soo... what would happen if we just disapeared?

2bighorn summed it up... there is climactic change and it is natural...  we undoubtably are contributing in SOME way but it is so minor as to be unprovable and so.... most of us are not willing to change one thing that will inconvienience us (including tourism) in the off chance that we slow the doomsday by a few minutes of eternity.

[Angus]

Here is a bad answer:
"Much of a population increase there in the last couple of hundred years?
In times, not so distant in the past, my state was on the verge of completely loosing our deer population. It wasn`t due to global warming....or even climate cycles. Just saying."

Do deer travel with ice?

And a second question, which Attenborough (sure he must have bedroom posters). Why are animal species from warmer areas spreading into what used to be cooler areas? Same goes with vegetation.

You see, there is not much of living with posters on the wall (I am quite insulted, you take me for something PETAish or Greenpeaceish, which I am not). Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Here is a bad answer:
"Much of a population increase there in the last couple of hundred years?
In times, not so distant in the past, my state was on the verge of completely loosing our deer population. It wasn`t due to global warming....or even climate cycles. Just saying."

Do deer travel with ice?
 

Bad answer? I asked you a question.
I asked you a simple question that shouldn`t have been hard for you to answer since you live there. Nevermind , hell I`ll look it up.

Do deer travel with ice? Good point. The exact point I was asking about. The deer nearly became totaly wiped out in this state. Ice/no ice had nothing to do with it. Neither did global warming or cyclic climate changes. There are other reasons animal population decreases or becomes totaly extinct. Some are natural causes with changes in the earth makeup. Some are caused by population/industrilazation increases. Seen many dinosaurs around lately? Things on earth change. Not always man made, but sometimes.

You see, there is not much of living with posters on the wall

There is not much sense trying to live with posters who will not consider factors other than they wish  to beleive, even though there are other possiblities put forth.

(I am quite insulted, you take me for something PETAish or Greenpeaceish, which I am not).

Don`t know if that is directed at me. If it is..I take insult to your insult because it certainly didn`t come from me. I`m trying to get a simple yes/no answer to a simple question. If you are insulted by me, it is self inflicted. Once again , I understand your reluctance to answer. I think we all do.

Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.

..............and looking at an effect and refusing to consider any other possiblity for the cause other than the one you have based your whole position on. A position, which by the way, is certainly not agreed on in the scientific community.

Simple question......
"Do you, or do you not believe that the cyclic periods theory in the article is a possibility?"

Possibility? Yes/No?

[GtoRA2]

On the upside if the ice in greenland keeps melting, in a few more years we will be able to get a few more P-38s from there.

[Angus]

News update.
Yesterday Britain had the warmest day in 80 years.
Pollen are also increasing between years as the temperature is steadily rising. Well, that's what the Brits say.
And the answer to the question about the Polar Bears is: The drift ice is too far away from here now, so the open sea keeps them away from here.
Got nothing to do with deer, but everything to do with a rising temperature.
Oh, and it was Lazs who came up with that poster joke.
Then Here Jackal...read a tad better:
"Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



..............and looking at an effect and refusing to consider any other possiblity for the cause other than the one you have based your whole position on. A position, which by the way, is certainly not agreed on in the scientific community."

This comment is from me:
"And why is the globe warming. Well, I think we have something to do with it but the question how much actually remains debateable IMHO."
The scientists af many nations now MOSTLY agree that we have a lot to do with it hence all the measures being taken to counter.

Then the answer to your question. Yes. Cyclic meaning cyclic warming. Possible, but IMHO unlikely.

On we go. Since glaciers are shrinking right in front of my eyes and revealing areas that no human has seen for almost 1000 years they were indeed smaller 1000 years ago! There was a warm period from ca 8th century (?) untill 1200 or so. Definately not man made. Then they grew and stayed there untill recently. Now they retreat fast. Indeed the warming is so fast that one of the most popular skiing hills from as late as the 80's are now practically barren. And in other places very few skiing days.
And  GtoRA2 : There is a B17 coming from the nearest glacier where I live. The engine block is outside the nearest farm to it. But after going down and under the ice it's pretty well chewed up

[Mini D]

One of the biggest killers of  deer populations is harsh sustained winters. Usually, to counter this, a state will issue more hunting tags and even begin poisoning large heards of deer to thin the population (they all run out of food at the same time... thinning gives the rest more time). This is often protested as cruel, though the alternative to it would definately be something that was blamed on human population too.

It's kinda odd how that comes up as a microcosm for this entire "debate".

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
News update.
Yesterday Britain had the warmest day in 80 years.
Pollen are also increasing between years as the temperature is steadily rising. Well, that's what the Brits say.
 

Well...if you believe in the global warming theory, that will reverse shortly. According to the theory put forth, in a short time Britian will go into a mini-iceage. That`s what the global warming theorists side says anyway. Of course you allready knew that.

Then Here Jackal...read a tad better:"Its living on the delicate border og arctic and temperate climates, and easily being able to observe what is going on.

Read it just fine the first time Angus , but thanks. Yea, you are observing what is going on, but you don`t know the cause....just like the scientific community.

The scientists af many nations now MOSTLY agree that we have a lot to do with it hence all the measures being taken to counter.

LOL Haven`t seen the scientists from either side of the fence agrre on anything other than......could be/could not be.....maybe/maybe not......possibly, but most importantly IF. If a rabbit had wings, his butt wouldn`t hit the ground so often.
So far , all any of them is done is based their speculations on incomplete data and projected scenarios of IF. That`s all they can possibly do because there is no possible way for them to include events that they neither know about, understand or is no way to predict. Can`t be done. Predicted scenarios, in a sterile situation based on if this continues, if this does or does not happen, it this that or the other remains the same as it is now......does not include mother natures natural influence when things become off balance one way or the other. The earth has been changing since recorded history began.

Then the answer to your question. Yes. Cyclic meaning cyclic warming. Possible, but IMHO unlikely.

Thank you. Don`t know exactly why you consider it unlikely, but hey it is just as feasible as the global warming theory. Both are based on maybes/maybe nots.
At least you are considering it. That means that you also have to be considering that the global warming theory could possibly just be a load of horse manure.

And the answer to the question about the Polar Bears is: The drift ice is too far away from here now, so the open sea keeps them away from here.Got nothing to do with deer, but everything to do with a rising temperature.

An shows nor proves anything as to the true cause. I beleive you understood the comparison just fine.
Look at it this way....you said that they were considered a pest and nuisance there at one time. Problem solved, huh?

On we go. Since glaciers are shrinking right in front of my eyes and revealing areas that no human has seen for almost 1000 years they were indeed smaller 1000 years ago! There was a warm period from ca 8th century (?) untill 1200 or so. Definately not man made. Then they grew and stayed there untill recently. Now they retreat fast. Indeed the warming is so fast that one of the most popular skiing hills from as late as the 80's are now practically barren. And in other places very few skiing days.

Which, once again, shows an effect, but proves nothing of the cause. Ice is melting....we got that Angus.
The earth has always been in a constant state of change. I suspect it always will be. Mother nature seems to have a pretty good balancing act going on, always has. You have stated that what needs to be done counter global warming is plant more vegetation. Ok, look at the areas that are being opened up that have not had vegetation on them for a long , long time. Vegetation, forests, etc. will appear and grow here.  No Ancient Eygyptians needed.
Mother nature doing a balancing act?

[lukster]

There are many dire predicitions based on the theory of continuing global warming. The ice in Greenland melts and gives rise to sea levels swamping costal cities. Have those in the doom and gloom camp considered that warmer air holds more moisture? Perhaps the ice melted in Greenland will be offset by the increased moisture held in the warmer air? Lotta variables to consider.

[lazs2]

luckster... of course many things will change in the coming decades... of course we didn't avert nor can we avert global warming or cooling and of course the natural variables are many times more significant than anything man can do..

You are speaking rationaly but.... you are speaking to religious fantatics... the "believe" and they "see" and they "feel" you can't argue that...  they don't care when somethingt in their theory gets debunked.... they move on to the next part... all mans fault... all prevenable by ruling with an iron fist...

and all.... must be done right frigging now before large chunks of the sky fall on us.   Oh.... and all must be paid for by someone else and everything they do should be exempt.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
... of course we didn't avert nor can we avert global warming or cooling and of course the natural variables are many times more significant than anything man can do..

You've gone from asking me how much CO2 in the air is man made, to presenting this ^ as "fact". Earlier, you suggested "waiting and seeing", and that the situation of melting glaciers could be solved by "market forces". Now you're back to citing concerns about global warming as a "religion" - I never heard such twaddle in my life!


Angus - I have a slight correction to what you said earlier. Yesterday was not the warmest day Britain has ever known in 80 years, but it was the warmest June 12 since 1925. However, it certainly has been excessively hot in the past week, reaching 33° here in the south yesterday.

[lukster]

Originally posted by beet1e
You've gone from asking me how much CO2 in the air is man made, to presenting this ^ as "fact". Earlier, you suggested "waiting and seeing", and that the situation of melting glaciers could be solved by "market forces". Now you're back to citing concerns about global warming as a "religion" - I never heard such twaddle in my life!


Angus - I have a slight correction to what you said earlier. Yesterday was not the warmest day Britain has ever known in 80 years, but it was the warmest June 12 since 1925. However, it certainly has been excessively hot in the past week, reaching 33� here in the south yesterday.

So, it was hotter in 1925? How do you explain that?

[beet1e]

Freak year!