|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 3906
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: Latest on Global Warming Bunk |
  |
|
Here's the key quote from the latest global warming hype:
| Quote: | Antarctica's coastal glaciers shed enough meltwater every year to raise
sea levels by 0.02 of an inch, even as new snow falling in the interior locks
up the same amount in the icecap. The result was that sea level remained
more or less the same from year to year.
"A little bit of change in one of these things could throw it all out of balance
and, evidently, that is what is going on," said University of Colorado geophysicist
John Wahr, who helped analyze the new satellite measurements. |
So an increase in melting could mean sea levels go up by 0.03 of an inch
every year --instead of 0.02 --Arrrrgh!! We're Doommmed. Doomed I tell ya.
And, by the way, if the temperatures around coasts of Antartica have gone
up about 4 degrees, then it must be warmer in more tropical seas too.
Which would mean more evaporation of water --and thus more
snow falling on Antartica. Compensating for the increased melting. Duh!!
| Quote: | Antarctica Cannot Replace Ice Loss
Study finds continent is shrinking faster than it can grow. Experts say changes to the global water cycle could hasten the pace of sea-level rise.
By Robert Lee Hotz, LA Times Staff Writer - March 3, 2006
The ice sheets of Antarctica — the world's largest reservoir of fresh water — are shrinking faster than new snow can fall, scientists reported Thursday in the first comprehensive satellite survey of the entire continent.
Researchers at the University of Colorado determined that between 2002 and 2005 Antarctica lost ice at a rate of 36 cubic miles a year, rather than growing from heavier snowfalls as had been predicted. That amount of ice is equivalent to about 30 times the fresh water used by Los Angeles every year.
"It is the first time we can say that if you look at the entire ice sheet, it is losing mass," said geophysicist Isabella Velicogna, whose findings were published online Thursday by the journal Science.
This month, an independent research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge reported that the Arctic glaciers of Greenland were melting twice as fast as five years ago, adding an extra 38 cubic miles of fresh water to the Atlantic Ocean every year.
Taken together, the findings suggest that a century of steady increases in global temperatures is altering the seasonal balance of the world's water cycle, in which new snow and ice neatly offset thaw and rainfall runoff every year to maintain the current level of the seas.
If so, experts say, increasing global temperatures — the 10 warmest years on record all occurred after 1990 — may be hastening the demise of the polar icecaps and estimates of the pace of sea-level rise could be too low.
By previous calculations, Antarctica's coastal glaciers shed enough meltwater every year to raise sea levels by 0.02 of an inch, even as new snow falling in the interior locked up the same amount in the icecap. The result was that sea level remained more or less the same from year to year.
"A little bit of change in one of these things could throw it all out of balance and, evidently, that is what is going on," said University of Colorado geophysicist John Wahr, who helped analyze the new satellite measurements.
Portions of the Antarctic coast are 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 60 years ago, research has shown.
Those same areas have lost an estimated 5,500 square miles of ice in the last 30 years, calving icebergs the size of Belgium and Rhode Island. In 2002, an entire ice shelf collapsed into the sea.
But the newest work signals a broader loss across the entire continent — an amount equal to more than 13% of the annual sea level rise measured in recent years, the researchers said. The shrinkage is concentrated in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has enough fresh water to raise sea levels more than 20 feet.
The researchers based their findings on unique gravity measurements collected by a pair of orbiting satellites, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, launched in 2002.
Eric Rignot at JPL called the gravity measurement technique "a breakthrough" because the satellites allow researchers for the first time to measure changes across immense swaths of Earth's surface.
In a separate measure of the effects of changing temperatures on a continental scale, researchers in South Africa reported Thursday in Science that even minor changes in rainfall caused by climate change could drastically affect lakes, rivers and streams across one quarter of Africa by the end of the century.
Climate-driven changes in water supplies "potentially have devastating implications," said researchers Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz of the University of Cape Town.
They used computer databases of drainage basins and global climate models to calculate the potential impact of changing rainfall patterns on drainage across Africa.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-warming3mar03,1,4008400.story?coll=la-headlines-world |
Last edited by Fintan on Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pauper
Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fintan you're killing me here! Can you please lay out your ideas on Global Warming.
Where do you stand on this issue? I think you're points are lost, on me anyway, when you put out these posts. Do you believe in the Global Warming phenomenon at all, or are you saying it's being used as a scare tactic?
Clarification will be appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pauper wrote: | | Do you believe in the Global Warming phenomenon at all, or are you saying it's being used as a scare tactic? |
Hi pauper,
Here's an article Fintan published last year regarding climate change. I think it sheds some light on the research he's been reading.
The Battle Against Global Cooling
Here's another really interesting article you ought to check out - pretty much says the same thing; short term global warming isn't nearly as catastrophic as long term global cooling. It's got a neat 15,000 year chronology of climate change too.
Seems like we're in a temporary upswing in temperature, and that is being used as a major Scare-Op to further political agenda.
| Quote: |
SPEAKING FREELY
The Global Warming Scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.
Scam, noun: a swindle, a fraudulent arrangement.
A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.
The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.
(snip...)
The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.
The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars.
Glaciation has prevailed for 90% of the last several million years. Extreme cold. Biting cold. Cold too intense for bikinis and swimming trunks. No matter what scary scenarios global-warming enthusiasts dream up, they pale in comparison with the conditions another ice age would deliver. Look to our past climate. Fifteen thousand years ago, an ice sheet a kilometer and a half thick covered all of North America north of a line stretching from somewhere around Seattle to Cleveland and New York City.
Instead of reducing CO2, we should, perhaps, be increasing it. We should pay the smokestack industries hard dollars for every kilogram of soot they pump into the atmosphere. Instead of urging Chinese to stop using coal and turn instead to nuclear-generated electricity, we should beg them to continue using coal. Rather than bringing us to the edge of global-warming catastrophe, anthropogenic climate change may have spared us descent into what would be the most serious and far-reaching challenge facing humankind in the 21st century - dealing with a rapidly deteriorating climate that wants to plunge us into an ice age. Let's hope Antarctica and Greenland melt. Let's hope the sea levels rise. All life glorifies warmth. Only death prefers the icy fingers of endless winter.
From: Asia Times Online :: Asian News, Business and Economy.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pauper
Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Beautiful. So it's alarmist scientists and a great manipulation of facts.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pauper wrote: | | So it's alarmist scientists and a great manipulation of facts. |
Otherwise known as "The News".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Damian Flynn
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 220
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's good to have some comic relief sometimes. This video put a smile on my face.
Global Warming Protest
Last edited by Damian Flynn on Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BLONDIE
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We were told our pollution was destroying the ozone level and urged us to recycle. Not blaming big business too much; it was our fault!
How are they going to blame consumers like us , for global warming?
I'm sure thats coming soon!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 427
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good one to start the day with. 
P.S. How are your plants surviving? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Damian Flynn
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 220
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Ozregeneration,
Last edited by Damian Flynn on Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janama
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 399
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| excuse me - that article from the Asian Times is complete and utter bullshit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janama wrote: | | excuse me - that article from the Asian Times is complete and utter bullshit. |
But what do you really think about it? hehe.
Fill me in! If I bought a snow job from Dr. Kelley, I'd like to know - I posted it as logical sounding, not gospel.
If I'm spreading bull, please stop me!
thx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janama
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 399
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah - that was a bit flippant - sorry I didn't mean to be rude.
Two points to start with Jerry. The changes in climate he refers to took thousands of years to evolve - yes New York used to be covered in Ice - they tell me you can see the see the deep grooves in the rock as it retreated in Central Park. Whereas the current changes are happening over 100s of years like from 1900 - 2000.
| Quote: | | For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. |
The current CO2 levels are higher than ever recorded before, NOT lower, and it is steadily increasing.
May I suggest you listen to this interview with Stephen H. Schneider
Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences; co-director at the Centre for Environmental Sciences and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2006/1638979.htm
Whilst you are there bookmark the Late Night Live site
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/
- Philip does some excellent interviews like this one with Brigadier General (Retired) Janis Karpinski. Former Commander of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2006/1642145.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Janama wrote: | | Yeah - that was a bit flippant - sorry I didn't mean to be rude. |
no problem.
The Asian Times article may be over the top, but I don't think it's saying co2 levels are lower, or that global warming isn't occuring rapidly. It's just suggesting that these circumstances might not be as dire as the 'Al Gore' Environmental campaign makes them out to be.
The alternative view suggests that the environmental panic and resulting criminalizing of CO2 provides the need for global energy regulation by a handful of helpful globalists.
I just ran across this site, so I can't vouch for it's integrity, but it presents a good overview of the alternative view of the current environmental crisis.
| Quote: |
For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature (see Figure I), environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming. In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for "carbon taxes," stating that "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants . . . is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world."
The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.
[...]
CO2 and Global Warming. Ground-level temperature measurements indicate that the earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1850, but human-generated carbon dioxide could have been only a small factor because most of the warming occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused CO2 emissions. Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.
[...]
Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.
This Brief Analysis was prepared by NCPA environmental analyst H. Sterling Burnett and NCPA vice president of domestic policy Merrill Matthews, Jr.
From: NCPA - BA #256 - Who's Afraid of CO2?
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html |
And I found this - a good overview of the conspiratorial corporate / political energy cartel angle:
| Quote: |
It's Not About the Science
The dirty secret is that global warming is driven more by the search for funding than the search for scientific truth. "Big science" was adrift in the early 1990s, like many other beneficiaries of the Cold War, and was desperate to sustain its federal funding. Global warming had all the key attributes of the next big cause. It could be used to frighten the politicians and the public, using threats of catastrophic consequences to extract billions of dollars for research to prevent it. The science was immature, and the door was wide open to all sorts of proposals and projects by scientists promising solutions. High-performance computers were the tools, and the projects promised to be long-term and career-sustaining. Getting funds was easy. As MIT Professor Lindzen has noted, "saving the planet" had a nice ring to it and seemed to portend big bucks at the end of the global warming rainbow.
[...]
Global warming fanatics found powerful allies in the Democratic Party, and especially then Senator Al Gore. Government control and public opinion were the levers needed to implement the global warming agenda. Activists would need to capture key policy jobs in those federal agencies with science portfolios, like the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NOAA. Once secured, these jobs would give activists control of the key levers of influence over the scientific community-research grants and federal funding of national labs and universities. They knew that they could always buy scientists who would turn out scientific studies and research reports that would help them shape and mold public opinion.
[...]
Over its two terms, the Clinton administration pumped nearly $20 billion into global warming science and technology initiatives. By 2002, the EPA website advertised that more than a billion dollars was still available for grants for the purpose of reducing greenhouse emissions.
Scaring The Public
As part of its campaign to mold public opinion, the EPA sponsored regional conferences throughout the United States to dramatize the potential impacts of climate change. In May 1999, for example, the EPA visited South Florida and the Florida Keys to warn local residents of the potential impacts for their region of global warming. Local EPA officials, area activists and outside speakers told attendees that global warming is real and that their area would be particularly hard hit. One local activist told the conference that global warming represents "the largest single threat to our planet that we know of, including a nuclear holocaust." A professor of environmental health from Columbia University predicted an outbreak of water-borne diseases like malaria as the sea level rises in the wake of global warming. A "hurricane expert" predicted a 50% increase in hurricanes in that year alone. (In fact, the number of hurricanes decreased in 1999 in comparison with past years.) Others predicted that the Everglades would disappear, as would safe drinking water and clean air.
[...]
The media have helped create the false impression that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a serious threat that calls for drastic action. Agreement with this seems to be a litmus tests for Times reporters covering science. One such reporter, Kenneth Chang, answered a question on the Times Internet site about global warming by saying that it's a complicated subject, but 97% of all scientists think it is real and is caused by CO2 emissions. He said there are uncer-tainties in the science, but he admitted that he tries to write his articles on global warming from the majority viewpoint. Nevertheless, he had a good article in the Times last April that corrected the impression given by an earlier story by another reporter that global warming was affecting Antarctica. Chang reported that the interior of Antarctica is actually cooling, and he gave credit to the satellites that provided this information. They are rarely mentioned by the Times and other media.
From: AIM Report: 2002 Report # 15 - SCIENCE FOR SALE: THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html |
I'll check out your links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another article from Robert Felix's site Not by Fire, but by Ice. Felix is referenced by David Bellamy, the guy Fintan interviewed on his 'Global Cooling' show.
| Quote: |
What’s the truth on global warming? Blame the sun
8 Jun 06 – “Ever since the 1970s,” says this weather service website, “we have
heard that burning fossil fuels is changing our climate. In the 1970s, we heard that
fossil fuels were creating dust in the atmosphere and therefore, blocking sun
energy. Now we are hearing that CO2 'traps' heat. This is true, CO2 does lead
to a warmer climate but because Earth is so complex we can not simply say X
amount of CO2 will result in X amount of warming. The media makes the problem
worse by only reporting on the extremists and their so called "research".
“There are many things that we do not understand as of yet. Solar activity is
probably the main source of the warming we have been seeing the past 100 years.
As solar activity rose in the late 1800s/early 1900s, so did the temperature.
Maybe we should have invented the automobile in the mid 1950s so we could
have seen that Earth was on a warming trend without cars. When one looks at
the 'hockey stick' temperature graph that was presented to the public, it looks
like fossil fuels must be the cause. [However], when we look at solar activity
and the global temperature, we can see that it follows very closely.
”We keep hearing reports that we have reached some sort of "tipping point".
No we haven't. If solar activity were to take a dive tomorrow, the temperatures
would cool significantly. Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has
had before, and it most likely will again. In fact, we should be more afraid of a
cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be
fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the
Earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar
minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming'
would have had.
“Its hard to find an article on global warming that doesn’t say "projected" or
another word that means projected. How can we possibly believe we can predict
the future using a climate model? We do not understand a lot of what goes on.
The answer is that we can not believe what we see in these models because a
lot of the variables are missing.
“I'm not saying that Earth won't continue to warm and that we are causing it,
but what I'm saying is that we can't be so sure. My personal belief is that solar
activity and other natural factors are the main cause and CO2 is only a small
part of this.
Update: The May temperature data is in. Globally, May was +.2C above normal.
Northern hemisphere was +.6C above normal and the southern hemisphere went
below normal for the first time in a few years, -.1C. The south pole averaged one
degree C below normal. It’s very strange that the northern hemisphere was so
warm, while the southern hemisphere was so cold. There are some signs that the
global temperature is about to follow the southern hemisphere in the next few
months.
See the full article at: http://www.climatecentral.org/
Climate Central.org is brought to you by The Weather Service, http://www.theweatherservice.com
From: Ocean_Warming
http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_Truth.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ormond
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1558
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As much as I've looked to confirm, it appears that the heighest temperature ever recorded for any part of Antartica was 59 degrees Farhenheit, 5 Jan 1974.
The reading was taken at the Vanda Station, Scott Coast, 49 ft above sea level.
The continent of Antartica has an average elevation of 7,080 ft, which is about 2x the elevation of any other continent. That's a lot of perma-ice.
I'm not a rocket scientist, but how is this massive melting occuring, anyway? Am I missing something?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html
Also, just for FUN, here's a trick question:
No polar bear has ever been known to eat a penquin, though polar bears are carniverous and penguins are quite edible (and tasty).
Why hasn't a polar bear ever eaten a penquin?
_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
