Antarctic Ice Melts faster than expected..

[sun]

This is probably much worse than previously thought..here is most of the story..Hit the link for all of it.. This is likely to affect all of us in the next 10 to 20 years. Most of us will be around then. I hope we can try to prevent the worst of it............sun........



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/


Escalating ice loss found in Antarctica

Sheets melting in an area once thought to be unaffected by global warming

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080113/080113-antarctica-hmed-10p.hlarge.jpgLuigi De Frenza / AFP - Getty Images file
A blue iceberg towers out of the ice floe in the Southern Ocean in the Australian Antarctic Territory last March.




By Marc Kaufman
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/SITEWIDE/PartnerColorBoxLogos/WaPost_333_GCH.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/front.htm)updated 2:18 a.m. CT, Mon., Jan. 14, 2008

WASHINGTON - Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Antarctica?tid=informline) that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.
While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth's ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/South+America?tid=informline). In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years -- as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world.
"Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it's losing more," said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Nature+Publishing+Group?tid=informline) Geoscience.
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula.
The cause, Rignot said, may be changes in the flow of the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. Because of changed wind patterns and less-well-understood dynamics of the submerged current, its water is coming closer to land in some sectors and melting the edges of glaciers deep underwater.
"Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," said Rignot, a senior scientist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We believe it is related to global climate forcing."
Rignot said the tonnage of yearly ice loss in Antarctica is approaching that of Greenland (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Greenland?tid=informline), where ice sheets are known to be melting rapidly in some parts and where ancient glaciers have been in retreat. He said the change in Antarctica could become considerably more dramatic because the continent's western shelf, an expanse of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Texas?tid=informline), is largely below sea level and has broad and flat expanses of ice that could move quickly. Much of Greenland's ice flows through relatively narrow valleys in mountainous terrain, which slows its motion.
‘Frightening’ possibility
The new finding comes days after the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Intergovernmental+Panel+on+Climate+Change?tid=informline) said the group's next report should look at the "frightening" possibility that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could melt rapidly at the same time.
"Both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet are huge bodies of ice and snow, which are sitting on land," said Rajendra Pachauri (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Rajendra+Pachauri?tid=informline), chief of the IPCC, the United Nations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations?tid=informline)' scientific advisory group. "If, through a process of melting, they collapse and are submerged in the sea, then we really are talking about sea-level rises of several meters." (A meter is about a yard.) Last year, the IPCC tentatively estimated that sea levels would rise by eight inches to two feet by the end of the century, assuming no melting in West Antarctica.

The new Antarctic ice findings are based on mapping of 85 percent of the continent over the past decade using radar data from European, Japanese and Canadian weather satellites. Previous studies had detected the beginning of ice loss in West Antarctica and substantial loss along the peninsula, but the current research found significantly greater changes.
Rignot and his team found that East Antarctica, which holds a majority of the continent's ice, has not experienced the same kind of loss -- probably because most of the ice sits atop land rather than below sea level, as in the west. In several coastal areas of East Antarctica, however, small but similar losses have been detected, he said.
In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years.

[Lavenderpaw]

So basically we're all gonna be swept away by an icy wave towering thirty or more stories high in less then a hundred years from now?

Surf's up!Arctic tidal wave.KUWABUNGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soul]

Sounds like.. a day after tomorrow..

[Harvey Two Face]

I have to say that in truth humanity has no actual idea on what is causing climate change, for instance, it has been found through studies of ice cores that CO2 levels only rise after the temperature has risen, if you don't believe me go read this, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm, so I don't know why there has been all this worry over CO2, if you ask me, I would say that it's due to the sun, I mean think about it, we owe life to the sun.

[sun]

Weather extremes are proof that these icebergs melting cause global warming. It is already happening. Most scientist argue that because of CO2 increases, extreme weather patters are coming and going much faster. For example, on this page right now, there is a thread about it being 67 degrees in January..

That extreme temperature is far too warm in January. I would say that the average temperature in northern climates is about for a high 32,, 67 is 35 degrees above what it should be. If it were July, that would put the daily high in Michigan at 118 since the average daily high is about 83...That extreme is very dangerous.

Extreme weather patterns are a sign of global warming. A hurricane in the Texas area last summer came and went so fast that no one knew it was dangerous. Air pressure was extremely low. That is another indication of this problem. We need to be aware of this problem and deal with it as best we can. And we need to work on it now

[Zeonic Freak]

Funny, i had some lady at work last night tell me its too cold (it was like 30 something last night as my hands were about frozen handing people tickets for parking, i love winter) and im like "well it is winter, its how it should be". Then says something about how its global warming and i tell her "well if you want warmth, theres Florida". Then said im not into the whole Global Warming thing.

Im sure she said as a joke and being serious. Apperently people in NC dont know cold weather if it were to literally came and slapped them upside the head, then shoved them in a freezer.

Yea, last night i felt my body shiver, which it hasnt done that in a while now...

[Captain Zechs]

Honestly. There is nothing we can do to stop Global Warming, it is a natural process, and the Polar Ice Caps on Mars are melting, yet there are no humans.

Why do we need to bring this topic up every other week?

[Lavenderpaw]

So,what everyone is implying is...

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.AHHHHHHHHHH!


If that's the case,I suggest underground shelters.

[veemonjosh]

Isn't it obvious what's going on? First Venus was destroyed and Earth became inhabited, and now Earth is going to be destroyed and Mars will sprout life. It's all in a pattern.

In somewhat seriousness, though, I suggest we either start growing gills or go move to the soon-to-be-iceless Antarctica.

However, in complete seriousness, we're all going to drown and there's not a damn thing we can do by this point.

[James]

Honestly. There is nothing we can do to stop Global Warming, it is a natural process, and the Polar Ice Caps on Mars are melting, yet there are no humans.

It's not a natural process so far as it's been generated by artificial human factors.


Why do we need to bring this topic up every other week?

And as I've said on previous weeks, you see next door's window is broken you don't presume it's the exact same cause, especially when there is very specific evidence that your window's damage was inflicted by one of your family.

Just because something is happening somewhere else where people can find similarities by no means logically follows that its all the same cause.

Bottomline is the more pressure people put on to make a difference, the more chance we have of - at least - slowing the process. To sit back and wash your hands of a problem that will affect your children and their children on the basis that "nothing can be done" is utterly illogical. If there is nothing that can be done, there is no harm in trying is there? In all problems I'd like to feel I've done my best to tackle it with the power at my disposal than sat back and given up - at least I can say I've tried.

The less people with your ideology Mr Zechs, the more chance we have at doing something. And a chance is better than nothing.

[Captain Zechs]

I guess it sucks then that there are a lot of people with my sentiments...

If we can solve the problem, great, but hey, if we can't, oh well, Extinction is a natural process also.

[I.R Joey]

It's not a natural process so far as it's been generated by artificial human factors.



And as I've said on previous weeks, you see next door's window is broken you don't presume it's the exact same cause, especially when there is very specific evidence that your window's damage was inflicted by one of your family.

Just because something is happening somewhere else where people can find similarities by no means logically follows that its all the same cause.

Bottomline is the more pressure people put on to make a difference, the more chance we have of - at least - slowing the process. To sit back and wash your hands of a problem that will affect your children and their children on the basis that "nothing can be done" is utterly illogical. If there is nothing that can be done, there is no harm in trying is there? In all problems I'd like to feel I've done my best to tackle it with the power at my disposal than sat back and given up - at least I can say I've tried.

The less people with your ideology Mr Zechs, the more chance we have at doing something. And a chance is better than nothing.

Very true my friend.

From where I stand global warming is perhaps the preminant issue of our time, not the countless small political squables that jump up ever couple of years (here in the U.S anyway.) We're talking about the world our grandchildren are going to inherit. I mean we all know what's happening to all this melted ice at the poles right? It's going into the ocean, and raising sea levels.

The worst thing about the discussion of this issue is that it's become a left vs. right issue when it's so much bigger than that. Skirting Toonzone's ban on political threads I'll say this, global warming will affect people no matter what your politics are.

[Harvey Two Face]

So,what everyone is implying is...

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.AHHHHHHHHHH!


If that's the case,I suggest underground shelters.


I agree with that whole heartedly, sorry for the pessimistic out look guys.

[Lavenderpaw]

sorry for the pessimistic out look guys.

Right,and sorry for the bolded,exaggerative text.:D

[Dudley]

How come they can't build a dam around our shores to keep the rising sea levels from flooding the county?

[Rasputin]

How come they can't build a dam around our shores to keep the rising sea levels from flooding the county?

They could, but building a dam around every area of low-lying coast-line on the planet is going to be a fairly extreme expense, isn't it? Think of what's happening to Bangladesh. The entire country is expected to disappear if things go as predicted. The expense of building a gigantic dam around the whole country is likely going to constitute a massive chunk of their GDP. On top of that, the change in weather patterns as a result of rising temperatures will likely severely disrupt farming and food supply in the Global South, and there's no building a dam around that. Better to deal with the root cause and not have to worry about such problems.

It stands to reason that if humankind created this problem then humankind can fix it. There's nothing 'inevitable' about it.

[Angilasman]

Why do I feel that the human race would have lasted longer if we'd stayed hunter gatherers?

[sun]

Why do I feel that the human race would have lasted longer if we'd stayed hunter gatherers?

But..we are not done yet, often humans show promise. Perhaps we will survive this one too.

[EinBebop]

I'm doing my part to slow global warming by keeping my air conditioner running constantly in the summer.

[Captain Zechs]

But..we are not done yet, often humans show promise. Perhaps we will survive this one too.

It will take us out somewhere down the line, you can't stop Global Warming, it is a natural process, the best we can do is slow it down, or in this case, don't speed it up.

But honestly, if not driving is the solution to stopping our influence on Global Warming, I'll pass and take my chances.

[Zach]

Other planets in our solar system are heating up, so global warming is not something that humans are actively causing. The warming and cooling of planets is a natural cycle that the Earth goes through (remember the first ice age? There wasn't a chance that humans caused it), and all we can do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

[Punisher]

It will take us out somewhere down the line, you can't stop Global Warming, it is a natural process, the best we can do is slow it down, or in this case, don't speed it up.That's the problem. People are speeding the whole process up. The lack of seriousness we always see in these threads is troubling.

[Rasputin]

Other planets in our solar system are heating up, so global warming is not something that humans are actively causing. The warming and cooling of planets is a natural cycle that the Earth goes through (remember the first ice age? There wasn't a chance that humans caused it), and all we can do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

Exactly how often has the Earth's average temperature jumped a degree inside a century? These changes tend to take thousands of years, and yet we're seeing rapid change within our lifetimes. That's just not normal.

And I'm getting a bit sick of this 'ice caps melting on Mars means climate change isn't our fault!' non sequitur that's been taken as an article of faith recently. Here's some elucidation here: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200706140001 A sudden shift in the size of Mars' ice caps is fairly easily explained when one takes into account the lack of a large moon nearby. In the case of Earth, our large moon ensures that our planet spins on a stable axis with little cyclical tilt. Mars, on the other hand, has no such large counter-balancing moon, making its tilts far more erratic. The planet's tilt has simply gone through a cyclical shift.

Climate change proponents are not claiming that every atmospheric change is humanity's fault. All they're claiming is that this particular atmospheric change is humanity's fault.

Climate change theory is divided into three interlocking hypotheses:

1. Average temperatures are on an inexorable and historically dramatic rising trend.
This is indisputable and can be demonstrated with raw data. The Earth's temperature has increased by on average 0.6 degrees celcius over the 20th century, and the ice caps are melting in a thoroughly dramatic fashion.

2. This temperature increase is primarily caused by increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In the past, admittedly, the closest correlation with temperature levels has been solar radiation intensity, and CO2 levels have followed rises and falls in temperatures (as demonstrated in ice core samples) but this time CO2 levels are rising before the temperature rise, and while the long-term trend in the thousands-year-long ice core record for CO2 levels was between 180 and 280 parts per million, levels today are over 380 parts per million. CO2 level is the only factor that fits recent temperature change like a glove. Solar radiation intensity has been tailing off since the mid-1970s (see graph 1) so while according to the historical record temperatures should be falling right now, instead they're rising. Cosmic ray levels correlate so badly that it's a joke (see graph 2) and taking all factors into consideration, the rise in CO2 emissions is the only change in atmospheric behaviour that seems to correlate with rising temperatures.

Graph 1
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1356/cycletng3.png

Graph 2:
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6526/thechillingstarsyn3.jpg

3. The rise in CO2 levels is human-caused.
There's no sudden rise in volcanic activity, no abrupt shift in daylight hours, and nothing out of the ordinary geologically that would explain this rise in CO2 emissions, especially since it's so abrupt and out of alignment with the rest of the ice core record. Turning to major shifts in the eco-system and a biologically-based cause, and one can find a certain animal that has contributed more than any other to a sudden and abrupt shift in the ecological make-up of planet Earth...us. We puny humans have turned wide swathes of wood into farmland and forest into desert, turned wilderness into concrete and the sludgy remains of fossils into automotive power. We've gone into space, split the atom and contributed to an extinction rate 1,000 times in excess of normal 'background' extinction levels. We are an utterly bizarre and unprecedented product of the eco-system, and to deny that we're having an impact on the planet is to deny the evidence of your own eyes. You don't need to travel to Brazil...a quick look around your room should be evidence enough.

For more info, the Royal Society is a good source. It's an impartial, age-old organisation of scientists and other researchers, before claims of 'bias' start creeping in: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761&gclid=CMSU78qOhpECFQKVMAodJAIqAw

[Lavenderpaw]

^I'll get rid of everything I own and become a cave dweller who stays alive on twigs and berries,gets warmth from campfires and bathes in icy cold streams if you will. ;)

PEOPLE,STOP getting so freaking paranoid!Rapid weather changes happen sometimes.Recycle,don't make any bond fires,use less tissue paper and submit to more fuel efficient means of getting around.

[Rasputin]

^I'll get rid of everything I own and become a cave dweller who stays alive on twigs and berries,gets warmth from campfires and bathes in icy cold streams if you will. ;)

I'm not saying that. Quite the opposite, really. The basic gist of what I've been saying is that humanity is an extraordinary species, and saying we can't have an effect on the environment is just as silly as saying there's nothing we can do about it. Humanity is unique in having imagination, verve, and the ability to think beyond themselves. Let's not sell ourselves short, shall we? Especially when faced with something as dire as this. It won't be easy, but since when did humans do things the easy way?

[Lavenderpaw]

It won't be easy, but since when did humans do things the easy way?

What does easy have to do with it?We need to do things the right way.

[Wanted]

And, since when have humans done things the right way?

[sun]

It will take us out somewhere down the line, you can't stop Global Warming, it is a natural process, the best we can do is slow it down, or in this case, don't speed it up.

But honestly, if not driving is the solution to stopping our influence on Global Warming, I'll pass and take my chances.

In the early 1900s, there was a natural process going on in what is now the Panama Canal Zone. The U.S. Government wanted to build a canal. But the natural process of ..."yellow fever" ..killed off many of the workers. So they eradicated, did away with it, by draining places where the mosquitoes bred. The natural process was stopped.

In a similar way, we could certainly slow down the rate of increase in global warming to a point that we can manage. But that can only happen with world wide cooperation. That probably is the most difficult of tasks. Certainly, it can be achieved, but it will take a different view of how we get along with each other. Perhaps the younger generation could lead the way. After all, we need hope for a better world. It is no mistake that the last word down at the bottom of this post after the quote from Dr. King..............is ............ Hope.

[Antiyonder]

PEOPLE,STOP getting so freaking paranoid!Rapid weather changes happen sometimes.Recycle,don't make any bond fires,use less tissue paper and submit to more fuel efficient means of getting around.


As I've brought up in previous threads on global warming, cutting back on driving your (I'm not talking to you specifically Lavenderpaw) own vehicle would be one most beneficial ways to slow down the process. Besides slowing down gw lack of vehicles on the road would also:

- Cut down on traffic jams (Cut down on fuel usage, speed up traffic sounds like a satisfactory tradeoff to me).
- Lowers the chances of accidents.

Besides, I believe global warming or not, traffic will increase so much that public transportation will have to be enforced, so it's better to use PT when you have the choice rather than being forced to do it.

Now my comment isn't against all drivers in general, just the ones who own their own vehicle as compensation. Those people in particular choose to drive rather taking public transportation do so because driving around in your own car/truck makes you look cool whereas to them, riding the bus, carpooling or taking a monorail makes you look like you're in poverty.

[Zach]

Exactly how often has the Earth's average temperature jumped a degree inside a century? These changes tend to take thousands of years, and yet we're seeing rapid change within our lifetimes. That's just not normal.


The temperature has increased by a single degree in one century. 1934 was the hottest year ever in Earth's history. It snowed in Iraq for the first time in a century and in Iran the temperature recently hit a record-smashing -11 degrees. We are not causing global warming.

[Lavenderpaw]

The temperature has increased by a single degree in one century. 1934 was the hottest year ever in Earth's history. It snowed in Iraq for the first time in a century and in Iran the temperature recently hit a record-smashing -11 degrees. We are not causing global warming.

Thank God,a golden ray of positive thinking.:)

[Harvey Two Face]

We are very much responsible for Global Warming do not kid yourself there, and also, the weather cannot be predicted by observing sun spots and the state of the sun, yes the sun is getting hotter and that is a contributing factor. Also the environment around us is contributing about as much as we are, methane is realeased from swamps, bogs, wetlands and farming areas which in its amount is massive, ozone that protects us from UV contributes to absorbing radiation from the sun thus warming the planet further, CFCs released from aerosol cans are 10,000 times more effective at trapping radiation than CO2, please do not doubt human intervention, and also READ THIS I INSIST!!!!http://www.aip.org/history/climate/othergas.htm trust me read this and all your questions will be answered.

[Rasputin]

The temperature has increased by a single degree in one century. 1934 was the hottest year ever in Earth's history. It snowed in Iraq for the first time in a century and in Iran the temperature recently hit a record-smashing -11 degrees. We are not causing global warming.

1934 was the warmest year in American history. The history of the 48 contiguous states to be more specific. The warmest year in world history is 2005: http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/08/1934_warmest_year_on_record_1.php

1934 is ahead of 1998 in America by a matter of 0.02 degrees celcius. And 1998 was unusually warm because of the unusually strong El Nino effect that year (probably the same cause of the 1934 warming). Globally, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record were within the last 12 years. The one that wasn't was 1990.

It snowed in Iraq and froze in Iran. Here, I'll give you some more cooling incidents: heavier snowfall in Eastern Antarctica, a spate of freezing in Western US earlier this year. And just for fun, some isolated warming incidents: heavier hurricane activity due to increased ocean temperatures, drought in Australia, glaciers receding in Greenland. You can't look at isolated incidents and cite them as definitive proof one way or another, and that goes for climate change proponents too (I'm pretty sick of people taking a warm spell or a flash flood and citing it as 'proof', but the thing about the story of 'the boy who cried wolf' that people tend to forget is that, in the end, there is actually a wolf).

It's called a trend for a reason. There will be regional anomalous spikes, and some years may be out of alignment with others, but they're all small parts of a larger whole, and if you piece the parts together and take a step back you can get an idea of the larger pattern. And the pattern has been up. Very, very, most definitively up. And unusually up at that. A single degree sounds small, but it only takes 5 degrees of cooling to bring on an ice age. Take a look at the solar radiation graph and tell me that doesn't strike you as weird.

1934 was an anomalous spike that was restricted to the Continental United States. I'm sure if you looked at 1933 and 1935 they'd prove completely unremarkable. In fact, you can look at the whole decade and conclude that it was completely unremarkable. See the graph above? It got a bit warmer, then as solar radiation dimmed in 1940 it began falling away again. If CO2 hadn't been swelling during this time the rest of century probably would have been like this...rising, falling, rising again, falling again. In fact, it should be pretty chilly right now.

But it's not. It's far, far warmer than natural factors account for, and the rise is atypically consistent. 9 of the 10 warmest years. Right next to each other. And no satisfactory explanation except rising CO2 levels. And no satisfactory explanation for rising CO2 levels except human activity. Occam's Razor. You're never going to find absolute proof of global warming, because you're never going to find absolute proof of anything. But when the majority of evidence points to something, it's safe bet that it's probably the case. It's statistically possible that it's untrue, but then it's statistically possible that I'm dreaming and you're all figments of my demented imagination, so more often than not it's best to operate on the assumption that what's probably right is right.

It takes human ingenuity to look the obvious straight in the face and decide it's not true. I love this species, honestly.

[I.R Joey]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Earth doesn't go through natural warming and cooling cycles. I think the issue is that the overwhelming consensus of the peer reviewed (IE non-corporate) scientific community is that it's accelerating directly because of humanity.

I mean we're finding Ice Core samples in Antartica that show a rise in greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere directly corresponding to the start of the Industrial revolution. Why do people think that's just a coincidence?

The thing that bugs me is that many coroprations in the energy buisness have put scientest on their payroll to basically tell them, and the public that their actions are not contributing to climate change.

[Zach]

I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Earth doesn't go through natural warming and cooling cycles. I think the issue is that the overwhelming consensus of the peer reviewed (IE non-corporate) scientific community is that it's accelerating directly because of humanity.


No, there isn't a consensus among the scientific community about man-made global warming. In fact, there are over 400 prominent scientists who dispute such. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)


(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)

[I.R Joey]

No, there isn't a consensus among the scientific community about man-made global warming. In fact, there are over 400 prominent scientists who dispute such. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)





Well the overwhelming majority.

[James]

No, there isn't a consensus among the scientific community about man-made global warming. In fact, there are over 400 prominent scientists who dispute such. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)


(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)

From what I've read the list carries a whole wealth of "scientists" from a breadth of fields utterly unrelated to climate studies, based on a political - and not impartial - report. Sort of like someone skilled in fine art lecturing on CAD software.

And given this odd mix of 400 names really doesn't compare to the wealth of natural science academies and institutions across the world which - surprisingly - believe that an influx of fossil fuel burning and CO2 gas from the last couple of centuries might somehow relate to the beyond natural increase in warming via a scientific conclusion. The question of this report's relevance really does pale in significance to the overwhelming body of researchers who are non political and field relevant scientists.

It doesn't take a scientist to see how a balanced ecosphere being subjected to artificial outputs will be bound to change. The basic premise alone is sound enough for concern. Take any naturally maintained infrastructure and start playing with the variables outside of that system and you will see changes.

[Angilasman]

The funny (and by funny I mean sad) thing about this is that the stuff they want us to do to prevent/slow down climate change is stuff we should have already been doing if we had had good sense. It's a shame we live on such a beautiful planet, evolved from it, and all we do is kill the animals, destroy the enviroment, and then kill each other just for good measure.

I'm not saying we should go back to being cavemen, but I think we seriously need to scale back and realise most of these luxuries are uneccesary and harmful (sort of like smoking, but on a planetary scale).

[Desensitized]

And, since when have humans done things the right way?
Not in a long, long, long, long, long, looonnnnnnng time. Sorry for being pessimistic, but I don't believe in the human race one iota.

Nothing will be done about it, something bad will happen, and then someone will scream 'WE DIDN'T LISTEN!' while no one still does anything about it.

[Rasputin]

No, there isn't a consensus among the scientific community about man-made global warming. In fact, there are over 400 prominent scientists who dispute such. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)





Arguments from authority only really work if the authority is indisputable. And since almost no authority is 'indisputable', I'd hesitate before I pull the 'I believe this and lots of people with degrees agree with me!' card, especially when climate change proponents have an incalculably bigger hand than sceptics.

But lets not dismiss these people as 'quacks'. It's entirely possible that a minority of well-trained scientists can look at a body of evidence and the macro-trends they imply and come to completely contrary conclusions. Science is not a body of belief in anything except the principles of Empiricism and Popperian falsifiability...there's no 'dogma' you need to subscribe to. And since...like I explained before...there's no way to get absolute proof of anything, you're always going to get some people who disagree with the consensus.

I just want to quash once and for all the fantasy that climate change sceptics are Fearless, Controversial Mavericks fighting against The System. It was only a generation ago that climate change theory was a fringe hypothesis itself, and that it can move from the fringes of science to the mainstream in such a short period of time speaks volumes about its scientific soundness. Frankly, having only 400 scientists with a differing opinion to tens of thousands of humanity's brightest minds is a fairly impressive testament to its validity as a concept. I doubt even quantum physics is that well-accepted.

Scientists do not work in opposition to each other. There are rivalries, to be sure, but only insofar as they each seek to better our understanding of things and gain plaudits for doing so. They all work on the same body of evidence, and when one makes an error it's the job of another to spot it and correct it, until the theory they're basing the work on is proven demonstratively false, at which point it's discarded in favour of something that better fits the facts. Climate change theory fits the facts beautifully, and is worked on all the time precisely because it's the best explanation for environmental factors at work. People need to step out of the idea that just because an isolated scientist disagrees with the consensus doesn't mean they're Galileo.

[sun]

Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Published: Thursday January 24, 2008

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.

Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Climate_change_significant... (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Climate_change_significantly_worse__01242008.html)

[Harvey Two Face]

I find it so funny that even though we know that it is Greenhouse Gases like CO2, Methane and CFCs are contributing to global warming, yet we are still arguing over it's authenticity just because some ignorant scientists and ignorant people who have no relevance to climate studies can somehow state that it's natural.

[Zach]

I find it so funny that even though we know that it is Greenhouse Gases like CO2, Methane and CFCs are contributing to global warming, yet we are still arguing over it's authenticity just because some ignorant scientists and ignorant people who have no relevance to climate studies can somehow state that it's natural.

Actually, there are plenty of climatologists disputing man-made global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/19/90805.shtml
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html

I'm not trying to use this to prove my position, I'm just pointing out that it's more than just "ignorant" people and scientists in different fields disputing this. There are climatologists on both sides of the issue.

[I.R Joey]

Actually, there are plenty of climatologists disputing man-made global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/19/90805.shtml
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html

I'm not trying to use this to prove my position, I'm just pointing out that it's more than just "ignorant" people and scientists in different fields disputing this. There are climatologists on both sides of the issue.

Yes but the question is how many of them are on the payrolls of large energy companies, and people who might take a hit financially if they were forced to be more Eco-conscious.

[Rasputin]

Actually, there are plenty of climatologists disputing man-made global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/19/90805.shtml
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html

I'm not trying to use this to prove my position, I'm just pointing out that it's more than just "ignorant" people and scientists in different fields disputing this. There are climatologists on both sides of the issue.


Yes but the question is how many of them are on the payrolls of large energy companies, and people who might take a hit financially if they were forced to be more Eco-conscious.

...that's what I get for posting walls of text. No one ever reads it...

It's perfectly possible for a reputable scientist with proper degrees to look at evidence and come to a wrong conclusion. This isn't a 'debate' with 'sides'. Science operates on Humeian and Popperian principles, not Socratic. Science attempts to find absolute truth, and in the absence of absolute truth it operates on best guesses and continually works to tweak them and investigate them.

Climate change is the best guess we have that explains the happenings in global temperatures, and in the absence of absolute proof (which can never really be given for anything) you're always going to get a minority of contrarians who fervently believe something else is true. It doesn't mean they're in the pay of someone else (even if it might be the case), it just means they're doing what scientists do, exploring avenues and experimenting with different theories, even if they're shooting themselves in the foot by discarding the far larger empirical groundwork achieved by their climate change-supporting colleagues.

Attacks on the idea of 'consensus' or on the character of the contrarians are both ad hominem attacks that don't do anything except deepen divisions and poison the atmosphere. Let's leave aside the arguers and stick to the argument, shall we?

[sun]

Does it matter?

..This idea of scientist arguing about the obvious is not new. Just who are you going to believe? and why?

I will give you some history of this concept. In the 60s (you can look this up)
a report was issued that said that there is no doubt that smoking is damaging to your health. It was the.. Surgeon General's Report
..Before that, some scientists argued that cigarette smoking was not damaging to your health, and that many healthy people smoked and did not get sick.
..Cigarette Companies had hundred of ads showing healthy people smoking...Ads were everywhere, TV, radio, billboards..ets.
... This argument went on even after the Surgeon Generals report was issued..

People who wanted to believe that this just wasn't true, argued that the Surgeon General (top doctor of U.S Government) didn't know what he was talking about, and the he was wrong for issuing such a report..Further, they would go on smoking no matter what. Which they did..

Opponents of smoking continued their research and found out that even second hand smoke was damaging to other peoples health..

That too was argued endlessly. It couldn't be true. Back and forth the arguments went...over and over again......
Look up ..what I have written, ..go ahead....but it is all true.

So here it is again..same old stuff. all over again...It would be funny if it weren't so sad and if all our lives were not at stake.....sun.

[I.R Joey]

...that's what I get for posting walls of text. No one ever reads it...

It's perfectly possible for a reputable scientist with proper degrees to look at evidence and come to a wrong conclusion. This isn't a 'debate' with 'sides'. Science operates on Humeian and Popperian principles, not Socratic. Science attempts to find absolute truth, and in the absence of absolute truth it operates on best guesses and continually works to tweak them and investigate them.

Climate change is the best guess we have that explains the happenings in global temperatures, and in the absence of absolute proof (which can never really be given for anything) you're always going to get a minority of contrarians who fervently believe something else is true. It doesn't mean they're in the pay of someone else (even if it might be the case), it just means they're doing what scientists do, exploring avenues and experimenting with different theories, even if they're shooting themselves in the foot by discarding the far larger empirical groundwork achieved by their climate change-supporting colleagues.

Attacks on the idea of 'consensus' or on the character of the contrarians are both ad hominem attacks that don't do anything except deepen divisions and poison the atmosphere. Let's leave aside the arguers and stick to the argument, shall we?

I don't have a problem with researchers legitimatly having doubts about the consensus of the rest of the scientific community. My problem is with the idea that some big companies are hiring scientest to "spin" the data we have available. In other words attempting to fit the science to their already determined positions and actions rather than the other way around.