Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[CAP1]

Lookie here. We will NOT agree about the last bit. And while you can ponder on the accuracy of our contribution, I refer to Simaril when he stated that we should perhaps not help on with destabilization of our climate.
Guess we all agree about GW though,....since we have that much Ice melting in the last 50 years. Would amount to about most of the European glaciers put together, the biggest one by far being only a quarter or so of the total there. And don't forget the sea-ice, since it normally melts before....

And Indy:
"and people have lived below sea level for centuries. The idea people will just stand around and drown is retarded."
I guess you must be living below sea level. And I guess people lived fine with the Dinos. Oh, forgot that we got created only a short while ago perhaps. Anyway, I think that the rather "delicate" climate in the later and less violent times of our earth did indeed help with us becoming...."intelligent creatures", but however, reading these threads make me think if that is the case at all.....

soooooooooo..........

if the ice is melting this fast, then the rest of the lost squadron should be exposed pretty soon/.?

[Angus]

Yes. In bits from under the glacier roots. Just like the B-17 that's partially delivering itself from a neighbour of mine.
However the Middle of the Greenland Glacier will take a while. Depends on what the Gulf stream does when the sea ice will seize to keep it at bay. I am thinking about a slab of farmland in...the Kola noodleula, when the Gulfstream passes Iceland northbound to Asia. Europe will freeze over, and I am not sure how the return sea will be to the US coast.
Note the map I posted, - the last Ice-Age was mostly in the northern hemisphere. You still had vast deserts etc.....

[CptTrips]

Well, Dr. Jones is gone. 

It's a good start.  Many more heads need to roll.

Wab

[CAP1]

Yes. In bits from under the glacier roots. Just like the B-17 that's partially delivering itself from a neighbour of mine.
However the Middle of the Greenland Glacier will take a while. Depends on what the Gulf stream does when the sea ice will seize to keep it at bay. I am thinking about a slab of farmland in...the Kola noodleula, when the Gulfstream passes Iceland northbound to Asia. Europe will freeze over, and I am not sure how the return sea will be to the US coast.
Note the map I posted, - the last Ice-Age was mostly in the northern hemisphere. You still had vast deserts etc.....

but now here's my point on that.

in 1969, those aircraft were reported still on the surface. yet, in 1989 when they went up there to find them, they had to borough(did i spell that right?) through 250 feet of ice. that means that while the ice was melting somewhere else for 20 years, it was forming in the area of the lost squadron during that same 20 years.

 this is the point i'm trying to make. while it melts in one place(or region) it is simultaneously re-forming in another area(or region).

 this is nothing more than the normal life cycle of the planet.

 now, do i believe we can/do affect the environment on a local basis. yes, i do. especially when i look out over philadelphia from the air in south jersey.....i can see the smog lingering in that city in the summer time.

 as for global warming/global climate change.........it is not brought on by human beings, it is not directly affected by human beings, it will not be sped up by human beings, and it will not be stopped by human beings.

 for anyone to think that we are more than a pimple on the arse of the planet, is asinine.
 i don't mean that as an attack on anyone...........

[Widewing]

What we do know however is that they want to put a tax on CO² emission, which effectively means a tax on all animal life on the planet! It's pure fascism and someone has to stop it! If we can't do it now, who will in the future when the tax has already been legalized?!?

Well, there's one factor not recognized by the "scientists". Something that has been a human legacy for centuries. While the Global Warming mob owns most of the politicians, the "Deniers" own most of the guns...   


My regards,

Widewing

[BiPoLaR]

Well, there's one factor not recognized by the "scientists". Something that has been a human legacy for centuries. While the Global Warming mob owns most of the politicians, the "Deniers" own most of the guns...   


My regards,

Widewing

[CAP1]

Well, there's one factor not recognized by the "scientists". Something that has been a human legacy for centuries. While the Global Warming mob owns most of the politicians, the "Deniers" own most of the guns...   


My regards,

Widewing

so far

[batch]

this of course will be the next wave of their takeover.......... the gases released from firing a gun cause global warming......... there will be charts and graphs which clearly show that since the invention of the gun the earths temperatures have steadily increased......... if we dont ban all firearms worldwide the earth will soon burst into a giant flaming ball

[Mace2004]

this of course will be the next wave of their takeover.......... the gases released from firing a gun cause global warming......... there will be charts and graphs which clearly show that since the invention of the gun the earths temperatures have steadily increased......... if we dont ban all firearms worldwide the earth will soon burst into a giant flaming ball

LOL.  Actually, while the gas release causes global warming the lead increases ventilation and a significant decrease in long term production of CO2 and body temperature so it's a net benefit.   

[Stoney]

Lookie here. We will NOT agree about the last bit. And while you can ponder on the accuracy of our contribution, I refer to Simaril when he stated that we should perhaps not help on with destabilization of our climate.
Guess we all agree about GW though,....since we have that much Ice melting in the last 50 years. Would amount to about most of the European glaciers put together, the biggest one by far being only a quarter or so of the total there. And don't forget the sea-ice, since it normally melts before....

I'm not "pondering" the accuracy of our contribution--I want to know specifically how much of what has occurred since the ice age is because of man?  I agree with Simaril--let's not indiscriminately pollute the atmosphere--conservation, more efficient utilization of energy, etc. is important regardless of whether or not there's a crisis.  BTW, unless I'm missing something, sea ice melting shouldn't affect the sea levels when it melts, right?

[Angus]

Correct. Sea ice is already in the water.
Land based ice is the more scary one, since there is quite a bit of it. 30 × 10 6 km3 on Antarctica, enough ro raise SL for at least 250 feet, some figures estimate up to 500. (64 x 10 6 km3)
Of course that's not going to happen that quickly, but only a fraction of both the bigh chunks, Greenland and Antarctica will do a lot of hurt.
As for how much the human contribution is, that is a question that will never be completely answered, but it is being worked on. For the first several thousands of years after the Ice age, man did almost nothing, but has been gaining in the last 1000 years or so, and impressively in the last 200, stunningly in the last decades.
The contribution of CO2 can be calculated, however the effect of the increase is more of a challenge.
It's all sad really, - you have 2 camps, - the corporates and the environmentalists, both use dirty tricks, and there are scientists in both camps, although I suspect that most of them are just trying to do their jobs

[Mace2004]

I'm not "pondering" the accuracy of our contribution--I want to know specifically how much of what has occurred since the ice age is because of man?  I agree with Simaril--let's not indiscriminately pollute the atmosphere--conservation, more efficient utilization of energy, etc. is important regardless of whether or not there's a crisis.  BTW, unless I'm missing something, sea ice melting shouldn't affect the sea levels when it melts, right?

There is absolutely no proof that ANY warming of the Earth is because of Man.  Glaciers have been shrinking at a constant rate since 1800, that's before the industrial revolution and increases in hydrocarbon emissions.  "Scientists" such as Michael Mann have promulgated MMGW through the use of tools such as his discredited "Hockey Stick" graph (a bald faced lie featured prominently by the IPCC in 2001).  It alleges a steady, gradual decline in NH temperatures for the past 1,000 yrs and the a "sudden" and rapid rise in temperature starting in the early 1900's conveniently corresponding to the Industrial Revolution.  It doesn't even take a rocket scientist to see it's a bunch of bunk as it completely, and totally ignores both the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age, both of which are irrefutably known to have occurred.  In Mann's graphic they're not just "minimized" they're actually gone,  POOF! 

I'm also a conservationist and don't believe in the indiscriminate polluting of our world and my degree is in engineering and I believe in science....it's scientists who are suspect.  Scientists are human and, as humans, subject to the same self-interests as the rest of us.  According to records obtained by the Wall Street Journal, Phil Jones the head of the CRU received over $19 MILLION in funding between 2000 and 2006.  The latest funding from the European Commission for this "research" is about $3 BILLION.  Of course, there are those that claim that "denialists" are getting massive funding from evil corporations.  In 2008 Exxon made over $45 BILLION in profits in 2008 yet only contributed $125 THOUSAND to two organizations which promoted a skeptical viewpoint on MMGW.  Jeeze, Exxon is either really cheap or getting a huge advantage from a paltry sum.  Who do you think has the most to gain/lose from this discussion?  Who's agenda should create the greatest concern?

[Angus]

There is a flaw in your argument.
You see, forests have a cooling effect. They absorb heat. Hence, deforestation has a warming effect. And that one has been going on at increasing speed for the last 1000 years or so.
CO2 has a warming effect. There is a known rough value for human CO2 emissions in the past few hundred years (guess what, some of it holds hands with deforestation) and it fits uncomfortably well with the CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
So, in short, you cannot vastly change the surface of the planet as well as the quantity of greenhouse gasses without some effect. The only valid debate is the extent of it, - is it serious or minimal....

[RTHolmes]

ok angus how does your human intervention theory explain the massive rise in CO2 130,000yrs ago, and 240,000yrs ago, and 330,000 years ago, and ... etc?



note: this same cycle goes back in the same way for millions of years

[CAP1]

There is a flaw in your argument.
You see, forests have a cooling effect. They absorb heat. Hence, deforestation has a warming effect. And that one has been going on at increasing speed for the last 1000 years or so.
CO2 has a warming effect. There is a known rough value for human CO2 emissions in the past few hundred years (guess what, some of it holds hands with deforestation) and it fits uncomfortably well with the CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
So, in short, you cannot vastly change the surface of the planet as well as the quantity of greenhouse gasses without some effect. The only valid debate is the extent of it, - is it serious or minimal....

i may have missed something, so i ask this in seriousness, not to argue........but just how do we know co2 has a warming effect?