I like Al Gore and what he's trying to do and honestly believe that we need to take the whole GW thing seriously (regardless of how much it is just a natural climatological cycle), but Al Gore would tie Spring to Global Warming.
Six months from today those folks up in Luleå will be on their winter treks to Benidorm. Here, we:ll still be complaining that the snow hasn:t yet arrived, and this global warming stuff may seem a bit more real
A friend of mine's 11th grade son runs distances for a local HS. Regionals were today, haven't heard how he did (prequalified on time for state in at least one event) but winds were 20-35 mph all day and he has not had a meet this year when there weren't similar winds. One invite was canceled after a few events, hurdles wouldn't stay up, officials papers blowing all over. A couple meets also featured drizzle and snow flurries. A lousy year for spring sports here in Colorado. Let's hope for better at state next weekend (also the weekend of the Big 12 meet in Boulder.)
When is science not science? When it appears in a Yahoo "news" piece.
Antartic ice has been growing for as long as such things are measured. Breaking small pieces of ice (berging) is a natural consequence of expanding glaciers.
Given that Antarctica holds 90% of the worlds glacial ice (30 million cubic Km) and the average temperature there is minus 57F (80 below freezing), it's safe to say that Antarctic Ice melt is not going to happen at all.
Even if the entire Greenland ice sheet (which averages -24F to -4F at the highest) were put under hot sunlamps it would take thousands of years to melt. Even the latest report (ACIA 2006) said that fringes of the Greenland ice sheet were losing 239 cubic km per year. (never mind that the interior is gaining that back) Even if that rate increased tenfold to 2390 km^3 per year it would take 1200 years for the ice in Greenland to melt and the sea level would rise 23 feet. That's not going to happen. 239 km^3 per year works out to 12,000 years. By that time we'll be in another ice age.
The math just doesn't add up. The science doesn't either. Any honest geophysicist will tell you that you can just melt 2.85 million km^3 (Greenland) or 30 million km^3 (Antarctica) of ice without an event to produce the energy required on the scale that mankind couldn't possibly produce.
Meanwhile the Antarctic Ice sheet is actually expanding, and the latest 2 reports in 2005 said that the Greenland ice sheets are actually thickening, gaining back 80 km^3 per year in the interior.
Al Gore is an idiot and a gross profiteer who benefits from global warming scare tactics.. Global warming is a hysterical religious movement that distorts facts and labels those who disagree heretics.
Thank you Malmo for stating what I know/believe from education and experience to be true but lacked the initiative to look up the the numbers.
(No, I did not actually witness the last ice age.)
I concur, Al Gore is an exploitive, self-aggrandizing buffoon.
lonewolf wrote:Thank you Malmo for stating what I know/believe from education and experience to be true but lacked the initiative to look up the the numbers. (No, I did not actually witness the last ice age.) I concur, Al Gore is an exploitive, self-aggrandizing buffoon.
Guess some of us can now stop racing around shouting "The ice is falling, the ice is falling!"
Thanks to all here for putting this controversy to rest. They almost had me thinking maybe even we were somehow responsible...
The thing is imo, most of the see-no-evil monkeys latch on the the convenient global-warming twig mr Gore has extended and hang on to it as if it was the be-all-end-all element of Man's obvious pollution of the planet and swing their tales off like that's the one and only issue. Paw-over-eyes, this monkey refuses to look around at the world around it, and resorts to "scientific" data from over the past century--during which time of course the vast amount of species anihiliation and deforestation, and air and water pollution has moved to the no-way-back point--to fashion statements about "eras and periods" of weather that in fact have no long range patterns, no starting point, no patterns. What is out there now IS, that's what we and the polar bears and honeybees are living here and now. Hang your "patterns"; look around you. I'm saying the anti-global warming factions are using this single--but signal--issue to try to obfuscate a larger matter.
Lay off the specious analogies about PC/Liberals/"Greenies" and such; and come down off the reverse pulpit-PC speeches about religion and "heretics."
Those "facts" and figures are statistics from a straight-line Newtonian paradigm in a world where Chaos and Probability reign.
get out and look around the world, the country, this country, your state and community. If you can report that you have seen no degradation of the natural environment, or anything less than frightening depradation here and abroad, then I think we, you and I, have very different faculties--or value systems.
Global warming is a strawman, political plaything that serves to keep the masses befuddled and to allow the carnival barkers of the right to ply their "damn the liberals, full speed ahead with consumption of natural resources."
The anti-global warming hucksters get to brandish their shiny canes and point to their "facts" and "figures" --based on arbitrary time periods that have no relevance to the present facts--that only direct attention away from what you can see right now today anywhere around you. If you care enough to look. And feel for this beautiful planet benighted by a strange, greedy race.
Take roll call: all creatures great and small? How many can muster up to the call, since Man's dominion got into full sway? Where are you going to find water and air in the coming tiny bit of time? [edit for spelling, sense]
I just read another article admitting that the doom and gloom prophecy was the result of failure to recognize and allow for migration of "sensors", which severely skewed the interpretation.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (anyone remember those?), its all a scam folks.
lonewolf wrote:I just read another article admitting that the doom and gloom prophecy was the result of failure to recognize and allow for migration of "sensors", which severely skewed the interpretation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record (anyone remember those?), its all a scam folks.
I could understand a "scam", if politicians aka AG were the only ones promoting it. But all Academies of Science around the world? They are all saying, there is a global climate change and we are contributing to it. Are they scamming?
lonewolf wrote:At the risk of sounding like a broken record (anyone remember those?), its all a scam folks.
Spoken like a true oil man . . .
Just trying to save ya'll a lot of useless anguish.
I hope that you are right, lonewolf.
And that the report that is hitting the airwaves today is wrong.
That report summarizes the work of thousands of scientists from
60 Nations, over the past two years. The conclusions include
the fact that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting at a much faster
rate that previously expected --- a rate of 114 billion tonnes of ice
melt per year, equivalent to the total annual mass loss for Greenland.
I hope they are wrong about the possible causes and implications,
but I wonder how many bright guys could be so wrong...
i am not saying the climate is not changing. It changes every day, week, month, year, century, millenia and ... eons; was doing so for millions of years before man inhabited the planet and will continue to do after man joins the dodo birds.
I am saying man did not cause it and cannot change or stop it.
This forum is hardly the place to go into a long discourse on the evidence for or against man being responsible for global warming but I will make two simple points.
1. Increased carbon dioxide emissions are the result of warming, not the cause as espoused by the carbon alarmists. Even were it so, mans contribution is inconsequently puny compared to that of the rest of nature.
2. The poles of the earth have not always been at their present position. they have erratically migrated thousands of miles. Artic, temperate and tropical climates have migrated around the globe accordingly. Not within the observable span of recorded history.. but, ya gotta start someplace. And, incidentally, loss of some Antartic ice is being offset by growth in the Artic/Greenland.
I suspect many/most of the "scientists" who ostensibly buy into global warming have a vested interest in continuing the controversy and the ensuing research grants and fees for representing and speaking knowlingly for those commercial enterprises profiting from the carbon credit boondoggle
I don't blame them for looking out for their own well being.. LIke lawyers, they are just taking the other side.. but they are wrong....
My position on this is the result of education, not because I am an "oil man". The fortunes of the oil bizz wax and wane on a much shorter cycle and completely independent from global warming.
lonewolf wrote:I am saying man did not cause it and cannot change or stop it.
So you agree there is global warming. As I think most people should, the debate is whether it is man made or not
lonewolf wrote:loss of some Antartic ice is being offset by growth in the Artic/Greenland.
This surprises me, where did you read this? Also, this sounds more like an argument against global warming. I don't think such an argument is needed to take the side of "there is not enough evidence to conclude global warming is man made".