| Author |
 Topic  |
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
 Posted - 02/02/2005 : 16:29:50
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
Antarctic's ice 'melting faster'
Guide to Climate Change
A team of UK researchers claims to have new evidence that global warming is melting the ice in Antarctica faster than had previously been thought.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (Bas) say the rise in sea levels around the world caused by the melting may have been under-estimated.
It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years.
The findings were announced at the Climate Change Conference in Exeter.
Rising sea level
Professor Chris Rapley, director of (Bas), told the conference that Antarctica could become a "giant awakened", contributing heavily to rising sea levels.
Melting in the Antarctic Peninsula removes sea ice that once held back the movement of glaciers.
As a result, glaciers flow into the ocean up to six times faster than before.
The other region in the continent affected by the changes is West Antarctica where warmer sea water is thought to be eroding the ice from underneath.
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted the average global sea level would rise by between 11cm (4.3in) and 77cm (30.3in) by 2100 - but forecast the Antarctic's contribution would be small.
But over the past five years, studies have found that melting Antarctic ice caps contribute at least 15% to the current global sea level rise of 2mm (0.08in) a year.
It is not known whether the melting is the result of a natural event or the result of global warming.
Professor Rapley said that if this was natural variability it might be expected to be taking place in only a handful of places. However, studies had shown that it was happening in all three major ice stream in West Antarctica.
Several major sections of the Antarctic ice sheet have broken off in the past decade.
The Larsen A ice shelf, which measured 1,600 sq km, broke off in 1995. The 1,100 sq km Wilkins ice shelf fell off in 1998 and the 13,500 sq km Larsen B dropped away in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3927813.stm
Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol
Fossil fuel burning is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions
As Russia decides to back the Kyoto protocol, BBC News Online looks at the agreement which many say is the best hope for curbing the gas emissions thought partly responsible for the warming of the planet.
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement setting targets for industrialised countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
These gases are considered at least partly responsible for global warming - the rise in global temperature which may have catastrophic consequences for life on Earth.
The protocol was established in 1997, based on principles set out in a framework agreement signed in 1992.
What are the targets?
Industrialised countries have committed to cut their combined emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008 - 2012.
Each country that signed the protocol agreed to its own specific target. EU countries are expected to cut their present emissions by 8% and Japan by 5%. Some countries with low emissions were permitted to increase them.
Russia initially wavered over signing the protocol, amid speculation that it was jockeying for more favorable terms. But the country's cabinet agreed to back Kyoto in September 2004.
Why has Russia decided to back the treaty now?
The deciding factor appears to be not the economic cost, but the political benefits for Russia. In particular, there has been talk of stronger European Union support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, when it ratifies the protocol.
But fears still persist in Russia that Kyoto could badly affect the country's economic growth.
Have the targets been achieved?
Industrialised countries cut their overall emissions by about 3% from 1990 to 2000. But this was largely because a sharp decrease in emissions from the collapsing economies of former Soviet countries masked an 8% rise among rich countries.
The UN says industrialised countries are now well off target for the end of the decade and predicts emissions 10% above 1990 levels by 2010. Only four EU countries are on track to meet their own targets.
Is Kyoto in good health?
Before Russia's backing, many feared Kyoto was on its last legs. But Moscow's decision has breathed new life into the protocol.
The agreement stipulates that for it to become binding in international law, it must be ratified by the countries who together are responsible for at least 55% of 1990 global greenhouse gas emissions.
The treaty suffered a massive blow in 2001 when the US, responsible for about quarter of the world's emissions, pulled out.
The additional uncertainty over Russia's position was seen as another nail in the coffin, but observers are now hopeful the 55% threshold can be reached.
Why did the US pull out?
US President George W Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, saying implementing it would gravely damage the US economy.
His administration dubbed the treaty "fatally flawed", partly because it does not require developing countries to commit to emissions reductions.
Mr Bush says he backs emissions reductions through voluntary action and new energy technologies.
How much difference will Kyoto make?
Most climate scientists say that the targets set in the Kyoto Protocol are merely scratching the surface of the problem.
The agreement aims to reduce emissions from industrialised nations only by around 5%, whereas the consensus among many climate scientists is that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, emissions cuts in the order of 60% across the board are needed.
This has led to criticisms that the agreement is toothless, as well as being virtually obsolete without US support.
But others say its failure would be a disaster as, despite its flaws, it sets out a framework for future negotiations which could take another decade to rebuild.
Kyoto commitments have been signed into law in some countries, US states and in the EU, and will stay in place regardless of the fate of the protocol itself.
Without Kyoto, politicians and companies working towards climate-friendly economies would face a much rougher ride.
What about poor countries?
The agreement acknowledges that developing countries contribute least to climate change but will quite likely suffer most from its effects.
Many have signed it. They do not have to commit to specific targets, but have to report their emissions levels and develop national climate change mitigation programmes.
China and India, potential major polluters with huge populations and growing economies, have both ratified the protocol.
What is emissions trading?
Emissions trading works by allowing countries to buy and sell their agreed allowances of greenhouse gas emissions.
Highly polluting countries can buy unused "credits" from those which are allowed to emit more than they actually do.
After much difficult negotiation, countries are now also able to gain credits for activities which boost the environment's capacity to absorb carbon.
These include tree planting and soil conservation, and can be carried out in the country itself, or by that country working in a developing country.
Are there alternatives?
One approach gaining increasing support is based on the principle that an equal quota of greenhouse gas emissions should be allocated for every person on the planet.
The proposal, dubbed "contraction and convergence", states that rich countries should "contract" their emissions with the aim that global emissions "converge" at equal levels based on the amount of pollution scientists think the planet can take.
Although many commentators say it is not realistic, its supporters include the United Nations Environment Programme and the European Parliament.
you
me
we used to be on fire |
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
|
|
BLT
> Teenager of the Year <
South Sandwich Islands
4204 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 16:52:57
|
I believe it is part of a natural cycle, however I also believe we are speeding it up.
 "Anything Dave Matthews can do, John Mayer can do worse" |
 |
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 16:55:28
|
Temperature changes of the earth do fluctuate in natural cycles, however the climate change we're having at the moment is not related to the natural cycle, I think we had this in another thread once, but this climate change is largely agreed to be directly linked to increase of industry and aspects of modern living that are contributing to the greenhouse effect. for example...
Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant'
13:38 02 February 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Jenny Hogan, Exeter
The massive west Antarctic ice sheet, previously assumed to be stable, is starting to collapse, scientists warned on Tuesday.
Antarctica contains more than 90% of the world's ice, and the loss of any significant part of it would cause a substantial sea level rise. Scientists used to view Antarctica as a "slumbering giant", said Chris Rapley, from the British Antarctic Survey, but now he sees it as an "awakened giant".
Rapley presented measurements of the ice sheet at a major climate conference in Exeter, UK. Glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula, which protrudes from the continent to the north, were already known to be retreating. But the data Rapley presented show that glaciers within the much larger west Antarctic Ice sheet are also starting to disappear.
If the ice on the peninsula melts entirely it will raise global sea levels by 0.3 metres, and the west Antarctic ice sheet contains enough water to contribute metres more. The last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2001, said that collapse of this ice sheet was unlikely during the 21st century. That may now need to be reassessed, Rapley warned.
Cork from a bottle
Changes on the peninsula, where 75% of the 400 mountain glaciers are in retreat, have provided new insights into the ways that ice sheets may disintegrate.
In March 2002, a huge floating ice shelf known as Larsen B shattered into icebergs. This turned out to have an effect akin to pulling a cork from a bottle. With Larsen B no longer impeding movement, the ice floes that fed the shelf began moving faster towards the sea and started to thin. The finding took scientists by surprise when revealed in September 2004 and now modellers are now working to include such mechanisms in their predictions.
Climate records derived from the analysis of sediments show that ice shelves off the peninsula have been absent in several earlier eras, when natural variability warmed the world. But the break-up is affecting ice closer to the pole than ever recorded, said Rapley. "It's like the Heineken effect," he said, referring to the beer adverts that claim Heineken "reaches the parts other beers cannot reach".
Indications that climate change may be affecting the west Antarctic ice sheet comes from three glaciers, including Pine Island and Thwaites. Data reveal they are losing more ice - mainly through the calving of icebergs - than is being replaced by snowfall. According to a preliminary analysis, the difference between the mass lost and mass replaced is about 60%.
Whether the loss of mass by the glaciers is due to natural variation or is caused by human-influenced warming of the oceans is not known for sure. Scientists are now making more field measurements to assess the causes, but warming is a likely culprit, said Rapley: "The fact that three of them are simultaneously accelerating suggests that is the case." The melting of these three glaciers alone is contributing an estimated 0.24 millimetres per year to sea level.
I read somewhere that the melting of this ice sheet alone will cause global sea level rise of 16 foot
you
me
we used to be on fire |
Edited by - starmekitten on 02/02/2005 16:57:54 |
|
|
|
kathryn
~ Selkie Bride ~
Belgium
15320 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 18:20:18
|
So, is it unfair to blame GOP-led US environmental
programs for ruining the world's climate?
 I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2005 : 18:51:07
|
No, it's not unfair, but its a problem that has long been coming and the Democrats haven't made it big issue. Al Gore would have. I've heard him talk about the issue and he really knows the facts and really sees it as one of the primary issues for our generation. Surprisingly one of the biggest proponents in the US Congress of doing something to solve problem is John McCain. But nothing is going to be done in the US for at least another 4 years.
I agree that climates naturally flucuate, but they haven't apparently flucuated as quickly as they have in the past 100 years. |
|
|
|
GypsyDeath
Zapped Profile
3575 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 08:33:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by BLT
I believe it is part of a natural cycle, however I also believe we are speeding it up.
"Anything Dave Matthews can do, John Mayer can do worse"
I second this.
I think theres major changes which are going to change the way we look at the world right now.
The whole thing scares the crap out of me. I hope i die before it happens, but have this funny feeling im not going to be that lucky.
 |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 08:36:54
|
It can be arranged.
Love, love, my season |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 08:42:08
|
The government here doesn't seem to be especially proactive in dealing with these issues either. There's been a lot of radio speak since the tsunami about global climate change and blah blah blah but nothing implemented, nothing looked at, nothing suggested. The only party who seemed to suggest they would start with the renewable energy, eco-friendly community, significant lowered carbon emissions and all that jazz are the Liberal Democrats but sadly it looks like along time before they'll ever get a sniff of power. It's a shame and we're going to run everything into the ground soon enough.
Actually I did read another thing that I thought was lovely, I'll see if I can find it...
(of course by then I'll have my hill top bunker with the plans for when the electricity runs out and all sorts of neat things; I've got the plans locked up in my safe)
you
me
we used to be on fire |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4109 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 08:44:11
|
I rather not even think about that, I get so scared...and when you have two children growing it's even more scary!
We have the answer to all your fears
It's short, it's simple, it's crystal dear
It's round about, it's somewhere here
Lost amongst our winnings |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 08:45:24
|
Yeah I was gonna say that the Libs seem like they will be pretty proactive on this subject. Another reason why I will vote for them (for all the good it will do)
Love, love, my season |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 08:54:30
|
um.. not what I was looking for but interesting nonetheless...
Only huge emissions cuts will curb climate change
15:59 03 February 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Jenny Hogan, Exeter
To have half a chance of curbing global warming to within safe levels, the world's greenhouse gas emissions need to fall dramatically to between 30% and 50% of 1990 levels by 2050, a new study suggests.
This is needed to achieve the European Union's ambition of trying to limit global warming to below 2°C over this period - a crucial goal which now appears wildly optimistic.
Such emissions cuts would allow the world's carbon dioxide levels to be stabilised at 450 parts per million, says Malte Meinshausen from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland, who presented the work at a major climate conference in Exeter, UK, on Wednesday. Carbon dioxide concentrations are currently approaching 380 ppm, having risen from pre-industrial levels of around 280 ppm. But the EU has recommended 550 ppm CO2 as a suitable goal.
"Two degrees is a hard target, but we have to start somewhere," says Frank Raes, a climate modeller at the European Commission's research centre in Ispra, Italy. "We will not get started if we say, no, we have to go to 450 ppm," he cautions.
But Meinshausen calculates that 450 ppm is the level at which there is just a 50-50 chance that the world's average temperature rise will not exceed 2°C by 2050.
Shocked reaction
Meinshausen was invited to talk to EU officials about his work in September 2004. "It created a certain shocked reaction," he told New Scientist. But striking as the figures are for policy makers, they come as no surprise to climate scientists.
He looked at the range of predictions that climate models make for the global mean temperature rise when CO2 concentrations are set at certain elevated levels. Counting how many models predict warming greater than 2°C gives some indication of the probability it will happen.
Meinshausen plotted these probabilities against the CO2 levels for which they occurred. If CO2 levels stabilise at 400 ppm, there is about a 75% chance of staying on target to stop the world warming by 2°C. At 450 ppm, the odds are about even and beyond 550 ppm, there is a 75% chance of feeling temperature rises of more than 2°C, the study suggests.
He also worked out how the risks were affected if CO2 concentrations first peaked at higher values then fell back to these levels. Because the climate takes time to respond to carbon dioxide concentrations, the maximum temperature can be kept down as long as carbon dioxide levels fall quickly after the peak.
Kyoto in force
Concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are projected to keep rising, reaching twice pre-industrial levels within this century. And the Kyoto protocol that comes into force on 16 February only calls for some industrialised countries to cut their emissions from 1990 levels by an average of 5% over five years.
But cooling the Earth may take more. "There's no question, you have to take really dramatic steps compared to the tiny steps taken so far," Meinshausen says. "If they want to be serious about 2°C, they have to change their attitude to climate change."
Any delay in cutting back greenhouse gas emissions will make meeting targets much harder work later on, says Steffen Kallbekken from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway.
He presented a study on Wednesday showing that a 20-year delay in curbing emissions had a "dramatic" impact on what needed to happen next. In that scenario, yearly cuts would have to be three to seven times deeper to stay below the same temperature threshold than if there had been no delay in curbing emissions, he says. That means waiting for new technologies to solve the problem might not be a good idea, Kallbekken warns.
you
me
we used to be on fire |
|
|
|
two reelers
* Dog in the Sand *
Austria
1036 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 09:08:08
|
the climate was always far from being stable. there is no natural cycle. there are only short periods of states of equiliribum, but there is no "normal" or reference climate. earth' climate has been warming since it exists, sometimes fast, sometimes slow. catastrophal events like ice ages have always occured, and there is no pattern. if one looks at temperature curves from the last hundreds of million of years, there is no pattern, it goes up and down, is stable for some periods and sometimes it begins to oscillate.
the problem with prognosis is that the climate system is far to complex to model. if you look into literature, you will find a lot of contradicting models for everything.
for example, nobody knows how fast the gulf stream will react to increased "warm" water from melting greenland glaciers as result from global warming. will it be centuries or decades until it is turned off - and this is important, because an inactivated gulf stream will result in a real cold ice age in the nortern hemisphere (5° - 15°C colder than today, if i remember correctly). and we all will wish for global warming than.
another example, regarding this thread: until now antarctica was believed to be widely inaffeacted by global warming. now scientist say the opposite. new climate model within the next year, what will be predicted than ?
what contributes to the climate ? almost everything: variing solar power, natural and anthropogen greenhouse gases, vulcanoes, ice shields, glaciers, astronomic cycles (milankovich), the position of the moving continents, oceans and their salinity, and and and.....and most of them are heavily interacting. the whole system is far from being understood. imo, because it is a chaotic system and therefore, just can't be understood or predicted.
i think that current global warming is a fact, and that emissions from humans do contribute. but even without those emissions the climate can catastrophally change, any time. however, by reducing CO2 emissions the air would be more healthy to breathe.
I joined the cult of Souled American / 'cause they are a damn' fine band |
|
|
|
starmekitten
-= Forum Pistolera =-
United Kingdom
6370 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 09:14:43
|
I did try reading some of the papers (not my area at all so I mainly read the abstract and summary of reviews) and you're right, the models and predictions do vary almost from group to group but the emissions contribution seems to be globally recognised.
So I guess in a sense reduction of emissions is short term limitation (because the earth is gonna do what the earth is gonna do) but surely it's worth doing so anyway purely for damage limitation rather than ignoring it and accelerating whatever crisis is heading our way?
you
me
we used to be on fire |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 13:18:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
So I guess in a sense reduction of emissions is short term limitation (because the earth is gonna do what the earth is gonna do) but surely it's worth doing so anyway purely for damage limitation rather than ignoring it and accelerating whatever crisis is heading our way?
That is exactly the point and sadly it's the one most people don't get. The earth may be going through a natural warming, but usually it does it over thousands or millions of years, which even then can lead to mass extinction events (MEE). Some MEE's have lasted millions of years, we are predicted to lose about 50% of our species in the next 100 years or so due to climate change.
Of course, natural catastrophic changes can occur (meteorites, volcanoes) but they are hardly likely (Supervolcano- run!!) so we should be worrying about what we are doing to the atmosphere and how we can reduce our impact on the natural climate change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups |
|
|
|
The King Of Karaoke
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
3759 Posts |
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 16:21:25
|
Wind's faster - piss harder.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 16:37:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
Wind's faster - piss harder.
a little something to tap your feet to while whistling through the fog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gd3VoGUi9c
|
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 23:45:34
|
| I don't understand why some are so convinced of global warming even though the only evidence they can give for global warming are computer generated models which are not reliable as they have no predicted the last 10 years of world weather. |
|
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 01:28:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by danjersey
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
Wind's faster - piss harder.
a little something to tap your feet to while whistling through the fog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gd3VoGUi9c
Thanks dan, that was bracing and refreshing as a new Copenhagen morning.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2009 : 01:35:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Champ
I don't understand why some are so convinced of global warming even though the only evidence they can give for global warming are computer generated models which are not reliable as they have no predicted the last 10 years of world weather.
there's also polar ice melts, increase of CO2, ocean acidification, glaciers receding..
Plus, I believe the models did predict a slowing of the warming just now, with a pick up in a couple of years, partly because of El Nina, which has gone now. If anything, the IPCC predictions are on the low side for sea level and temp rise.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 01:45:09
|
| Polar ice melts can just as easily be attributed to changing ocean currents as man made global warming. Once again, they did not predict a decline in warming over the last 10 year period (as referenced by their confusion on the issue from those stolen emails). They also did not predict increasing ice cover in most of Antarctica. I can't say invest trillions of dollars combating global warming due to relatively short term declines in the north poll ice cover, and world wide temperatures that are less than the medieval warm period. |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 07:21:17
|
They did predict the slowing of the warming, but hey, no matter.
The Antarctic isn't gaining ice, it's losing ice overall. Even the supposedly stable East Antarctic sheet has now been found to be losing ice. What you're referring to I think is increased sea-ice cover. Antarctic sea-ice cover has been increasing for some time due to ozone depletion and a consequent change of winds, water column mixing etc Overall, Antarctic ice is decreasing.
I think I'm right in saying that the medieval warm period occurred only in the Northern Hemisphere with overall global temperatures at that time cooler than the last few decades.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 12:38:25
|
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
- Kevin Trenberth, IPCC lead author
|
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 07:06:17
|
That's your reason for doubting man-made climate change? A stolen out of context quote? If you read the whole email exchange, one of the authors suggests a reason for the slower warming.
That quote smacks of frustration at not getting more data to me. The climate is a complex system and modelling it is difficult - taking into account various feedback systems is hardly simple. The majority of scientists have been saying that anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change for years, yet you doubt it.
There is no doubt that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - unfortunately this time we're pumping it into the atmosphere ourselves, rather than it being a natural occurrence.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
Edited by - Llamadance on 11/28/2009 07:06:51 |
|
|
|
Jose Jones
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1758 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 07:12:15
|
either i'm going to burn in hell or drown on earth. i just can't win!
-----------------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown. |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 01:45:08
|
That quote indicates that in their own words their modeling is unreliable. Depending on who you talk to, and when you talked to them, Antarctica's ice which is on land can be said to be melting or increasing. Eastern Antarctica has been said to be getting colder. This proves nothing at all and once again cannot justify spending a ridiculous amount of money to fight so called global warming, which is now called climate change to cover all their bases. At best, all the evidence are short term 30 year trends, not long enough to demonstrate anything other than a natural climate cycle. For instance, there are climate cycles that last for 60 years. Just remember, in the words of those prominent world leading consensus defining unbiased "scientists", "Hide the decline!"
|
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
|
|
Crackitybones
- FB Fan -
Guadeloupe
65 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2009 : 20:25:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Champ
That quote indicates that in their own words their modeling is unreliable. Depending on who you talk to, and when you talked to them, Antarctica's ice which is on land can be said to be melting or increasing. Eastern Antarctica has been said to be getting colder. This proves nothing at all and once again cannot justify spending a ridiculous amount of money to fight so called global warming, which is now called climate change to cover all their bases. At best, all the evidence are short term 30 year trends, not long enough to demonstrate anything other than a natural climate cycle. For instance, there are climate cycles that last for 60 years. Just remember, in the words of those prominent world leading consensus defining unbiased "scientists", "Hide the decline!"
This article gives a good summary of the climate-change sceptic positions (and counters them too!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm |
Edited by - Crackitybones on 12/08/2009 20:26:37 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2009 : 20:45:31
|
Fuck the BBC.
Watch this for a few inconvenient truths. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is VERY questionable. Our climate is driven by solar cycles. CO2 follows the temperature of the atmosphere by hundreds of years since the main contributor is the ocean. With the following evidence you simply cannot say that CO2 produced by man's activities is altering our climate, it just doesn't stack up.
Why this is not being discussed at the conference is beyond me.
http://neithercorp.us/media
|
Edited by - pot on 12/08/2009 21:32:52 |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2009 : 00:32:32
|
Furthermore, while the UK Met Office regards 1998 as the hottest year yet, Nasa thinks it was 2005
Yeah and 2 years ago according to Nasa the warmest year on record was 1945(ish), which was a correction they had to make after some guy reviewed what they had posted. I am actually starting to think that all these experts have no idea what they are talking about. They are all coming up with different numbers and trends...where the hell is the reliability? |
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2009 : 21:11:39
|
What bothers me most is this power hungry celebutard Al Gore, and his demand that all opposing views cease and desist.
Al Gore states that "the debate is over". What Al Gore really wants, much like L Ron Hubbard is to create a new religion "the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion."
And by God (global warming/climate change) he has.
When gold reserves are no longer available, just create a new standard, i.e. "carbon footprints"
and then tax tax tax...
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2009 : 22:35:33
|
I saw a BBC documentary last night predicting more doom and chaos. Scientists have come up with a method to trap the CO2 we are using by planting fake plastic trees. I kid you not. Apparently plastic is a CO2 trap when it's dry, but releases it again when wet. They reckon planting 6 million of these will be enough to offset the CO2 we are releasing into atmosphere every year.
How about maybe we just stop cutting down the fucking rain forests! |
|
|
|
Ziggy
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
2462 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 01:23:19
|
| I can't work out whether danjersey is deliberately trolling or is just a fucking idiot. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
things to talk about - climate change
