by
Chuck L.
Member since:
January 19, 2009
Rememeber all those scientists who said the arctic ice is melting? Turns out they were wrong.
October 29, 2009 09:19 PM EDT
(Updated: October 29, 2009 09:32 PM EDT)
views: 305
|
comments: 104
It's ALREADY melted: Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert I don't think there's a lot to argue about here. The multiyear Arctic ice is gone, and it's global warming that's taken it away. We really DO have to do something about this, folks... truly we do.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 104
Yee ha.
We think like teenagers..."It won't happen to me. I won't die in a drunken car crash. I won't get pregnant..." It goes on and on!
Is it because we think one person cannot make a difference? We cannot make a difference unless we do it one person at a time...over and over.
because it is already floating and displacing
it's mass in seawater already
If the ice caps on Greenland and Antartica melt
then we're in trouble with sea levels.
There is no evidence that this is occurring.
Until it does show signs of melting,
we've got very little to worry about
Other studies have also shown that the ice on Greenland and in the Antarctic is thinning, which means even if the surface area of the ice doesn't change the ice is rapidly diminishing in depth.
Besides, warmed seas expand, currents change, weather/climate change follows inevitably. Even Doesn't matter what you call the phenomenon, or which side of the American continents it happens on.
And I never did espouse such a thing as George suggests. Which, of course, he knows.
False. And disturbingly confused. It is Antarctic ice that contains 70% of the world's fresh water. The Antarctic does contain 90% of the world's ice.
For the record, the Arctic is the North and mostly floating ice, the Antarctic is the South and the ice is mostly on land (Antarctica is our 7th continent).
Just thought it would help the discussion if the "facts" presented were actually factual.
1998.
It has been cooler every year since then and many scientists are predicting it to continue. Seems that 98% of the earth's warmth comes from the sun, not man. Hmmm!
1998.
It has been cooler every year since then
This is proabably one of the most idiotic arguments deniers use. If you look at the trend of annual global temperatures it is steadly going up. Yes, you do have spikes like 1998. The fact is that there has not been one year since the late 1970's when the average global temperature has been at or below the normal average temperature.
This graph shows annual mean global temperature anomalies over the period 1880-2001.
As is evident in the graph, 2001 was second only to 1998 in terms of global temperature, and the trend has been toward increasing temperatures at least since the beginning of the 20th century.
Go to the graph:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html
You could say it has been cooling since 98, but only in relativity to 98. Still record highs in the past ten years.
It is such smoke and mirrors denialist brainwash themselves.
Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me like they do on you.
Try the Limpaugh show, they are suckers for that mind trick.
If global temperatures were produced by man, how do you explain past increases before the agricultural or industrial ages? And how do you explain the decreases since the agricultural age?
As much as some would like to believe we are omnipotent, man still cannot control the weather.
I understand that you believe if I do not agree with you, I must be ignorant. I would never presume the same about you.
I have read many scientific journals about climate change and there are almost as many who believe it is man made as those who believe it is not. I happen to be one who believes it is not. The major changes that have occurred in the past have been proven not to be man made, because man was not around. It is cyclical.
Now that man is here, he exerts some, albeit minor influence in the equation. It is not something that can be understood from a one hour TV show, or reading magazines. Popular science may be popular, but that does not make it correct.
Man should be a good steward of his surroundings, but not because chicken little believes the sky is falling.
If you need something to be passionate about, think about the current state of our country. We could have prevented the problems and did not.
If global temperatures were produced by man, how do you explain past increases before the agricultural or industrial ages?
This is from your comment above. This question assumes that only man can explain (cause) past increases in temperatures. Now no one, to my knowledge, has ever said that. Obviously, before agriculture, changes in climate were produced by non-human factors and no one says that non-human factors cannot produce changes again.
So the question makes no sense unless you believe that those who say that this climate change is being contributed to or caused by human actions think that only man can bring about such changes.
Why do you think that man is unable to bring about such a climate change by increasing the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
PS: I am passionate about the current state of our country and have proposed a basic change we can easily make that will eliminate or contribute to the solution of those problems. I have spent almost 40 years now and have written a book explaining that solution. I put my money where my mouth is.
Please visit www.nopom.info to see if I am an idiot. If I am stupid or if I don't understand human nature it should be obvious in the novel. I welcome your thoughts on my ideas.
Rude D. - I am pleased with my lobotomy.
pretty remarkable, Shubnell, how silly that is. 100 % of the earth's warmth comes from the Sun. Even the warmth from your hot air indirectly came from the sun. Carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere, however, tend to trap that warmth. Read a book once in a while.
There IS an issue with sunspots. If the sun decides to not have any, the Earth gets cooler... a LOT cooler. In our case, it MAY be reducing the RATE of warming, thereby masking it somewhat. But if that's what's happening, it's not very effective this time. global temps should be steadily (and fairly rapidly) dropping. The fact that warming has only slowed over the past few years (as the sunspots have waned) is about as good a demonstration of global warming being affected by our activities as anything I can think of.
It would take only 72 years.
The percent of the sun's energy that is retained (or reflected) has to change only a tiny amount for it to have a major impact.
Just today, I watched a guy explaining that if we are going to try to decrease the temperature by 7 degrees, which is what the UN proposes is necessary, then the entire planet would have to give up driving cars, trucks, buses, flying in airplanes, running any factories, etc. And in 33 years of living without cars and trucks and planes and buses and factories and corporate farms (with farting cows), we will have only decreased the temperature by one degree.
That statement is inaccurate Marilyn. I can be charitable and assume that you do not understand that it is inaccurate, since if you did understand it you would therefore be a liar. Scientists agree that almost half the carbon dioxide currently in the sky was put there over the past couple hundred years by humans through the burning of coal and oil, and the deforestation of land.
Because it's absolutely and unequivocally false, Marilyn. Why would a real news station wilingly pass along information that isn't true. Especially such obvious falsehoods as you present in your comments?
The study that this article discusses is a Canadian study and had nothing to do with the UN. Meanwhile, ALL of the academies of sciences from 34 countries concur with the scientific consensus, as do every other major scientific organization in the world. In fact, the few who do disagree are almost all associated with free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to stop any regulations that their members don't like. In other words, they decided they didn't like the policy options so they retroactively claimed that the science must therefore be wrong. That's not how science works, Marilyn. It works by following the data where they lead, which in this case means following tens of thousands of studies by thousands of scientists over more than thirty years of research by every type of scientific organization around the world...including any legitimate peer-reviewed science offered by skeptics. And all of that data demonstrates quite significantly that climate change is already operating and our vast CO2 emissions are driving the engine.
And as this article suggests, the most recent research almost all shows that the problem is getting worse, faster, then had been originally thought.
So it's time to stop playing the denialist game and start thinking about the future of our planet so that we don't screw it up for our children and grandchildren.
:)
nothing personal Marilyn.
There are no more excuses for inaction. And no more time.
cause the world needs more money so we can have sweet honey,
while the bees are on strike and dying too,
the question remains what to do?
and the bats have got a disease we don't know much about
and have started to fall out of the sky and started to die,
we still don't know why
there was a time we use to worship trees and bees and fish in the seas
but now we think it will all cost too damn much,
are that we have a lot of time
we all have loss the taste for mother's milk
her warm and soft breast,
mother nature has given us
she has loss trust, can you not hear?
we are abandon in selfish wonder,
reflection in the river of time,
thinking we know so much
out of paradise to the waste land of our own device
for some damn monkeys that we claim to be
looking up at stars,
wondering just who do we think we are
thinking we, who, they are gods
having forgotten all too soon about the light of the sun, moon, and stars
the link to mother call, as the fire we made keeps us warm and from harm,
a flicker against the darken sky, creatures all around begin too die
did we hear her sweet refrain
come home, don't be late, time to come home before it's too late.
Every collapsed society / economy had members who saw it coming and were resisted by the conservatives of the day and place. It's just human nature.
It's merely a way to do 2 things - control us more and tax us more.
I am sensitive enough to human suffering that I like poor children to be taken care of and such so whoever does that has my support. But I don't think any existing philosophy of government or economics can prevent the fall. None have in the past. We are using up our natural resources. Money is (world wide) becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. The technology to impose control and prevent opposition is at our fingertips. We are headed for a great collapse and it will be ghastly.
False.
The vast majority of scientists overwhelmingly concur with the scientific consensus that was developed over more than thirty years of research by every kind of scientific organization in the world, including any real science by skeptics. And the evidence leads to the overwhelming conclusion that our CO2 emissions are messing up our planet big time. Which is why ALL of the academies of science around the world and ALL of the major scientific organizations ALL concur with the scientific consensus.
As for your "many scientists," perhaps you remain confused. There are very few scientists who disagree, and most of them are associated with non-scientific free market lobbying groups whose only interest is to block regulations for their non-scientific membership.
Let's assume for a moment that this "global warming thing" is only some cyclical phenomena, not a man made tragedy in the making, can we still agree that dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air regardless of global warming, is still a bad thing?