FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#950356 --- 01/05/09 01:27 PM Re: Global warming news. [Re: SkySoldier]
Teacher73 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/21/00
Posts: 1918
Loc: Seneca Falls, NY, Seneca
Points well taken. As more research gets focused on environmental issues, more complete and accurate information will emerge. That is a good thing, ya know?
Pollution of the canal and the lake were the first issues that began my lifelong support to improve and protect our environment and natural resources.
Environmental improvements are expensive. Traditional capitalist systems, such as ours, eats at business profits. Over time regulations, taxes, and such have been enacted at the expense of business interests for the clean up. As a result polluting factories have basically moved to spots that allow them to pollute and not have to pay for it. China stands out but also some states here in the U.S. are more lax. Follow the money, that's all.
Global warming has been on the radar for a long time. My sense has been that this is a concern too. Maybe modern day pollution is a factor, maybe not. Maybe this is a natural long term cyclic occurance hurling us toward warming and its inherent impacts, or are we headed for another ice age? Maybe we have a basic understanding, or possibly not. Too soon to tell.
Should we be concerned? Well, DUH. However as the process proceeds are various powerful interests are trying to spin the debate? Sure, that is possible. A lot of cash is up for grabs.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#950500 --- 01/05/09 06:43 PM Re: Global warming news. [Re: Teacher73]
Night prowler Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/31/06
Posts: 690
Loc: ny
Well Teacher, I agree with not polluting as much as possible. Keep in mind that (I believe it was MTBE?) was rushed to be added to our gasoline supply in the name of clean air ENVIRONMENTAL responsible for the good of the children feel good type legislation. It was rushed to be with out enough research and it ended up contaminating our ground water. Another thing that really burns me up is talk of a carbon tax to combat GLOBAL WARMING. This is another point that needs more research as I think it is in the better interest of mankind not to cause more hardship then need be. All politicians rush to CHANGE things and only end up making it worse in the long run typically. People need to be more wise on the MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE. 2008 is one of the coolest years on record from what I have heard, but I have not seen an official report on it yet. Also note that ice cap records have only been kept since 1972, hardly enough data to come to a conclusion for a 4 plus billion year old planet. Rather arrogant on the part of those who claim Global warming is man made.

Top
#950628 --- 01/05/09 10:18 PM Re: Global warming news. [Re: Night prowler]
Teacher73 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/21/00
Posts: 1918
Loc: Seneca Falls, NY, Seneca
I note your anger and know how you feel. I too am frustrated.

Top
#950697 --- 01/05/09 11:52 PM Re: Global warming news. [Re: Teacher73]
kimmer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 1403
Loc: here,there and back again
I love it when everyone argues whether global warming exists or not just because they don't like the messenger. It is my understanding that "global warming", I prefer "climate change", actually leads to cooler temperatures because of the amount of fresh water diminishing the salt content of the oceans thereby slowing the movement of temperate water. It's such a stupid argument whether it exists or not. Isn't it more important to realize that things are changing and to get pissed off that no one wants to do anything about it?

Does anyone doubt the truth about articles like the following?



Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?
By JIM CARLTON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 14, 2005

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.

While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.

The environmental group Greenpeace began airing a 30-second commercial yesterday in New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta and other cities showing an animated adult polar bear and a cub on a cracking ice floe. The two bears, nowhere near land, slip underneath the water. "Polar bears may soon be extinct because of global warming," the voice-over states. It ends with "Global Warming: It's the Real Thing," a takeoff of a Coca-Cola Co. commercial featuring polar bears.

Some experts say that climate change may indeed be shrinking the ice pack, but they dispute that emissions are the main culprit or that significantly cutting greenhouse gases would really make a difference. "Whether humans are responsible for some, most, or all of the current warming trend in the Arctic, there is no proposal on the table that would actually prevent continued warming or reverse present trends," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nongovernment organization based in Dallas. "The question is how to adapt to future changes in climate, regardless of the direction or the cause."

In addition to documenting polar-bear deaths, the Minerals Management Service researchers, Chuck Monnett, Jeffrey Gleason and Lisa Rotterman, also found a striking shift in the bears' habits. From 1979 to 1991, 87% of the bears spotted were found mostly on sea ice. From 1992 to 2004, the percentage dropped to 33%. Most of the remaining bears have been found either in the ocean or on beaches, congregating around carcasses of whales butchered by hunters. In the past, polar bears were rarely seen at such kill sites, because they spent their time hunting their favorite meal -- seals -- on sea ice.

Marine experts consider the findings -- to be presented at a marine-mammal conference this week in San Diego -- an ominous sign. Some have warned for years that a rapid thawing of the Arctic from global warming could endanger species like the polar bear. Already, a warmer Alaska over the past half-century has been linked to increased erosion of rivers and streams, insect infestations and the undermining of pipelines and roads as the permafrost thaws.

Alarmed by the swift changes, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, a consortium of the state's tribes, earlier this month passed a resolution urging that the U.S. government enact a mandatory program to reduce global warming.

Some scientists predict polar bears could become extinct within the next century because they have adapted over the millennia to only hunting on ice. If they try to swim in disappearing ice conditions to catch seals, more are likely to tire and drown, scientists say. Polar bears that stay onshore aren't adapted to hunting land animals like caribou, which are preyed upon by more-aggressive grizzly bears. Polar bears also require more fat intake than most food on land offers them, experts say.

"As the sea ice goes, that will direct to a very great extent what happens to polar bears," said Steven Amstrup, a polar-bear specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Anchorage, Alaska.

Another study set to be released at the marine-mammal conference shows what might happen to the Alaskan polar bears over time. Researchers from the USGS, the University of Wyoming and the Canadian Wildlife Service found that the population of polar bears in Canada's western Hudson Bay -- near the southernmost habitat for the bears in the world -- fell to 935 in 2004 from 1,194 in 1987, a 22% drop. Researchers said the decline -- the first recorded for these bears -- came in tandem with an extension by nearly a full month in the time it takes for Hudson Bay to ice over after the summer.

"Our findings may foreshadow how more northerly populations will respond to projected warming in the Arctic ecosystem," wrote Mr. Amstrup, a co-author of the report.

Previous studies by the U.S. and Canadian governments support a link between the decline in sea ice in the Arctic and the ways polar bears try to adapt to their surroundings. For example, researchers say polar bears in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska and Canada used to spend most of their lives jumping from ice floe to ice floe in pursuit of seals. Only pregnant bears would occasionally wander onto the mainland, in search of a den.

But weekly aerial surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that, over the past five years, an unusually large number of bears have congregated along the beaches. Between the coastal town of Barrow, Alaska and the Canadian border, about 300 miles east, researchers counted as many as 200 bears on land, said Scott Schliebe, director of the Fish and Wildlife's polar-bear project. Many bears could be seen gathered around whale carcasses near villages like Kaktovik, which lies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where the Bush administration is pushing for drilling.

Scientists measured the distances from where the bears were gathered to the nearest ice sheets at sea and found this correlation: The farther the ice was from shore, the larger the number of bears were found on land.

Scientists estimate there are 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears world-wide, including about 2,000 that frequent the Beaufort Sea off Alaska. The latest population study by federal officials, in 1997, suggested the Alaskan bear population wasn't endangered. An update is expected by the end of next year.

Write to Jim Carlton at jim.carlton@wsj.com1

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113452435089621905.html


Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:jim.carlton@wsj.com
_________________________
Why is it so hard for some to properly use your and you're??

Top
#950705 --- 01/06/09 12:01 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: Teacher73]
SkySoldier Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 08/18/01
Posts: 25300
Loc: Finger Lakes National Forest, ...
I hear ya Teacher73. And I share the same fears for this planet as you.

Very little pristene areas of this world left. The rain forest are being reduced at astonishing rates for no good reason other than greed.

With the worlds' population well over 6.2 billion and set to double that midway through this century, humanities impact on this ecologically fragile rock hurtling through the void can only get worse.

"The population of the world was 1 billion in 1830, 2 billion in 1930, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1975, five billion in 1987, and 6 billion in 1997. Today there are over 6.2 billion people in the world, and at current birth rates the population of world could double to over 12 billion by 2060."

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/population_habitat/intro.html

I nremember when raw sewage was dumped by ALL communities along the canal and waves along the shore of Cayuga and Seneca lake were filled with feces and toilet paper from spring to Fall.

Waste water plants and laws requiring boaters to properly diospose of their waste has helped.

But just look at the mountain that wasn't there before ... ( Mt trashmore) and talk to those who have sailed the seas ... Garbage is floating everywhere in our oceans and the chemicals seeping out of the layers of shale and rock of the Niagara Gorge are every bit as toxic as they were when dumped by fat cat businessmen a century ago ... And there is NO cleaning up that mess. Even Mother Nature cannot do it until it has all seeped through and gone elsewhere ... like the sediments of the ocean but even that "fix" will take 500 to one thousand years.

I don't see any way out of this situation humans have wrought on the Earth.


I put hope in future advancements in technology; but ...

Maybe we should go the way of the Dinosaurs ... Just one astroid half a mile wide and 2 miles long oughtta do it ...

Then let the rains and volcanoes clean up the mess.
_________________________
America has problems.

We can fix that.

America is not THE problem.

Next time. Vote for the AMERICAN.


Top
#950749 --- 01/06/09 12:40 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: SkySoldier]
Scottie2Hottie Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 16463
Loc: aka Brightside
Ask Past Tense if she is worried about Global Warming with her -49 degree weather in Alaska LMAO!
_________________________
No Mullet...NO Glory!!

Top
#950754 --- 01/06/09 12:44 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: SkySoldier]
Teacher73 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/21/00
Posts: 1918
Loc: Seneca Falls, NY, Seneca
Thanks for the apocalyptic vision but no thanks. There is what there is that is bad news, like the Niagara Gorge. Never heard that before but it certainly makes sense.
Mt. Trashmore's legacy is strictly a local political inheritance. Back when the SF Hospital started losing money and before the state closed or consolidated hospitals, SF got help from the Town financially. The dump provided the cash through dumping fees and the rest is local and geologic history.
Kinda always assumed nuclear holocaust would take us but an asteroid works, just not ready to buy that chili is all. Makes live for today seem all the more worthwhile doesn't it?

Top
#950756 --- 01/06/09 12:46 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: SkySoldier]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
Population is 6.752 billion. Try to keep up:-)

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#950882 --- 01/06/09 02:10 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: VM Smith]
SkySoldier Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 08/18/01
Posts: 25300
Loc: Finger Lakes National Forest, ...
tell it to the audubon people VM. LOL Maybe they need to update their material.

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/population_habitat/intro.html
"Fast Facts

The population of the world was 1 billion in 1830, 2 billion in 1930, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1975, five billion in 1987, and 6 billion in 1997. Today there are over 6.2 billion people in the world, and at current birth rates the population of world could double to over 12 billion by 2060."


And Teacher73, I agree that is an apolitic vision that I am not eagerly awaiting either.

About the Niagara gorge, the chemicals are leaching down the walls, fact ... and is the reason the advisory for eating fish caught in Lake Ontario is "EAT NONE".


I'm hoping the human race will wake up and realize this stone isn't big enough for all the hate, all the waste, all the wars.


Maybe it will. Someday .... in the not so distant future.


One can only hope.

_________________________
America has problems.

We can fix that.

America is not THE problem.

Next time. Vote for the AMERICAN.


Top
#951159 --- 01/06/09 12:33 PM Re: Global warming news. [Re: Samuel]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
Originally Posted By: Samuel
Thanks for a dose of reality. I never believed a bit of the global warming myth. Al Gore better turn in his award.


February 1999



Behavior of World's Glaciers Fails to Prove Global Warming Theory

by John Carlisle


Global warming theory proponents have resorted to the politics of fear to drive their point home. They argue that man-made greenhouse gases are already causing the world's glaciers to melt, causing sea levels to rise and threatening humanity with a multitude of economic and environmental calamities. A recent Smithsonian Institution exhibit on climate change, for instance, included a depiction of the Washington Monument partially submerged in the Atlantic Ocean, leaving visitors with the distinct impression that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions now if we want our descendants to be able to visit the famous monument. But such scenarios belong in the realm of science fiction, not science fact.



Glaciers Are Inaccurate Barometers of Climate Change

Global warming theorists argue that examples of receding glaciers, primarily those located in the mid-latitude regions of the planet, provide evidence that climate change caused by human activities is underway. But glaciers are poor barometers of global climate change.

Glaciers are influenced by a variety of local and regional natural phenomena that scientists do not fully comprehend. Besides temperature changes, glaciers also respond to changes in the amount and type of precipitation, changes in sea level and changes in ocean circulation patterns.1 As a result, glaciers do not necessarily advance during colder weather and retreat during warmer weather.

A major obstacle to linking glacial behavior to global warming is that mountain glaciers, the types of glaciers found in places like Switzerland and the United States, are especially difficult to understand due to the complex topography of mountain areas. Furthermore, Global Climate Circulation Models (GCMs) used by global warming theory proponents to forecast future climate, including the climate's effect on glaciers, have been notoriously inaccurate. NASA scientist James Hansen, the man who helped ignite the global warming debate in the United States in the late 1980s, admitted last year that it was impossible to come up with reliable climate models because there is too much about the climate that scientists don't understand.2

Those same inaccurate GCMs have been even less reliable when it comes to assessing the impact of warming on mountain glaciers. According to Professor Martin Beniston of the Institute of Geography at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, "Numerous climatological details of mountains are overlooked by the climate models." This makes it difficult to predict the consequences of global warming on glaciers. Beniston says it is "difficult to estimate the exact response of glaciers to global warming, because glacier dynamics are influenced by numerous factors other than climate, even though temperature and cloudiness may be the dominant controlling factors. According to the size, exposure and altitude of glaciers, different response times can be expected for the same climatic forcing."

That may explain why there are several Swiss glaciers that are advancing even though Switzerland has experienced a decade of mild winters, warmer summers and less rainfall.3

Other scientists agree that it is unwise to look to glaciers for evidence of global warming. Keith Echelmeyer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute, says, "To make a case that glaciers are retreating, and that the problem is global warming, is very hard to do... The physics are very complex. There is much more involved than just the climate response." Echelmeyer points out that in Alaska there are large glaciers advancing in the very same areas where others are retreating.4

Dr. Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University agrees that the response of glaciers to global temperatures can be difficult to predict. "Glaciers do odd things sometimes," observes Alley. "They flow fast, then slow down... You could anthropomorphize [apply human characteristics to] them and say they have a mind of their own."

Vice President Al Gore would have done well to remember this point before he held a major press conference in 1997 announcing that the century-long retreat of the Grinnel Glacier in Montana's Glacier National Park was caused by global warming.

Size appears to be one of the most significant determinants in the response time of glaciers to climate change. Basically, the larger a glacier, the longer it takes to be affected by climate change. For example, it would take a polar ice sheet 10,000-100,000 years to respond to any global warming that might be occurring now. A large mountain glacier would take 1,000 to 10,000 years to respond to warming today, while a small mountain glacier would take 100 to 1,000 years to respond.5 Thus, one explanation for some glaciers retreating today is that they are responding to natural warming that occurred either during the Medieval Warm Period in the 11th century or to an even warmer period that occurred 6,000 years ago.

Global warming theory proponents point to the retreat of glaciers in the mid-latitude regions of the planet - areas where the United States, Europe and Africa are located - as evidence of human-induced global warming. As mentioned above, these mid-latitude glaciers cannot be used as reliable indicators of global climate change given that they are affected by a complex mixture of local and regional phenomena. By focusing so much attention on these glaciers, however, one gets the distinct impression that global warming theory proponents are deliberately picking glaciers to analyze that support their thesis that global warming is underway while ignoring those glaciers that don't support their theory.

In May 1998, for example, scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder released a study purporting to show that glaciers are in headlong retreat due to global warming. According to one of the study's authors, Professor Mark Meier: "In the last century, there has been a significant decrease in the area and volume of glaciers, especially at mid- and low-latitudes... The disappearance of glacier ice is more pronounced than we previously had thought." To support this claim, Meier noted that Africa's Mount Kenya had lost 92% of its mass over the last 100 years while Spain's glaciers had fallen in number from 27 in 1980 to just 13 today.6

Because glaciers respond to a variety of phenomena and glaciers in warmer regions tend to be more susceptible to these phenomena, it is unwise to point to a loss of ice volume in vulnerable mid-latitude glaciers to draw ambitious conclusions about alleged warming worldwide.

More important, any melting of mid-latitude glaciers that has occurred has had little effect on sea levels. This is because mid-latitude glaciers represent a mere 6% of the world's total ice mass while Antarctica and Greenland glaciers represent the other 94% of the ice mass. As even the University of Colorado study noted, there is no evidence that

the glacial ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are melting. Nevertheless, the study suggested that alleged melting of the mid-latitude ice was enough to cause a major sea level increase because the water from mid-latitude glaciers would be "recycled more quickly" than water from polar glaciers.7 This conclusion is suspect, however, since some of the glaciers in the mid-latitude region are advancing and glaciers currently in retreat could very easily start advancing again. The fact that mid-latitude glaciers are not uniformly retreating coupled with the fact that they represent only 6% of the world's glacial ice strongly argues against the claim that these glaciers are contributing to a rise in sea level. If there is going to be any major sea level increase, it is going to have to come from the melting of the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets.



Antarctica

Although the Colorado study did not allege that the Antarctic ice sheets are in retreat, other global warming proponents have made such claims. This is understandable from their perspective since a theoretical meltdown of the world's ice caps has the potential to scare the public into supporting major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Study, a project of the National Science Foundation, if all of the world's ice melted, the sea level would rise by 235 feet.8 NOVA, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's science program, estimates that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheets alone would raise the oceans by 187 feet. One hundred seventy feet of this rise would be caused by the melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet while just 17 feet of this rise would be caused by melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. But the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is considered stable and not threatened by warming because it rests on land above sea level, making any significant sea level rise unlikely.9 The West Antarctic Ice

Sheet, however, has attracted the attention of global warming theory proponents because it rests mostly below sea level where it is allegedly more sensitive to any global warming that may occur.10 The balance of scientific evidence suggests that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet isn't melting either.

To begin with, the Antarctic is extremely cold with a high average temperature of just -56°F. Even if the Antarctic temperatures did rise a few degrees, they wouldn't be high enough to melt the glaciers as the temperatures would still be well below - 87°F below - freezing. The latest GCMs predict warming of just 1-3°F by 2100, still leaving the Antarctic bitterly cold. Furthermore, the Antarctic ice sheet is very large, and thus it takes a long time for the ice sheet to respond to warming. For instance, it would take the West Antarctic Ice Sheet 50,000 years to react to any warming that may be occurring now - so the world is not in any imminent danger of a catastrophic flood.11

So what does the scientific evidence say about a human-induced shrinking of the Antarctic today?

In December 1998, an international team of scientists announced that after analyzing five years of satellite radar measurements, they concluded that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not melting rapidly. The scientists determined that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has actually been stable for the last 100 years - precisely when global warming theory proponents insist human-induced warming should have been causing the glaciers to retreat. Dr. C.K Shum, an Ohio State University professor who participated in the study, said that while the team assumed that global warming was underway, they found no evidence that this purported warming was affecting the Antarctic ice sheet.12

In October 1998, the British Antarctic Survey also announced that it had found no evidence of global warming on the continent. The study noted that it did find 3-4°F of warming on the Antarctic Peninsula over the last 50 years, but that there was no evidence that this localized warming was the result of global warming. The scientists believed it more likely that the origins of the warming "could be found in regional mechanisms."

The survey also analyzed the behavior of two major ice shelves, the Ross and Filchner-Ronne shelves, for any retreat. Again, the study concluded that "it is no longer clear that the small warming that is predicted to result from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is likely to cause a retreat" of those ice shelves. On the more vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet, scientists likewise concluded that the "dramatic vision of a rapid collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet resulting from atmospheric warming is becoming less acceptable."13

The Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, a scientific union of the Australian Antarctic Division, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Geological Survey Organization, and the University of Tasmania, released a position statement in April 1997 announcing that it is "very unlikely" that the Antarctic ice sheet will melt enough to cause a significant rise in sea level. Even more interesting, the report stated that over the next one to two centuries, "it is probable that greater snowfall on Antarctica" will outweigh any loss of ice due to warmer ocean water - thus causing the Antarctic ice sheet to expand.14

The prospect that the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding was also noted by the British Antarctic Survey. The British scientists concluded that it is possible that the Antarctic expansion was actually counteracting a rise in sea level.15 Indeed, many other scientists have concluded that even if the world continues to get warmer, whether human-induced or naturally, the Antarctic ice sheet would grow because warming increases the amount of precipitation which leads to increased snowfall in the polar regions.

Indeed, it seems that historically the Antarctic glaciers have frequently expanded during warm conditions. A study by E.W. Domack, A.J.T. Jull and S. Nakao on the history of glacial expansions in Antarctica found that over the past 10,000 years, several glaciers expanded during conditions that were a lot warmer than today.

This uncomfortable fact has not escaped the attention of environmentalists, some of whom are now arguing that glacial expansion supports the global warming theory. Greenpeace's Climate Impacts Database now cites the Domack study in an effort to link the expansion of the Antarctic ice cap with man-made global warming. The summation of the study notes that "the new data suggest strongly that Antarctica's response to future warming will be an increase in mass balance."16 Of course, now they can't claim that the sea level is rising since expansion lowers the level. Nevertheless, environmental groups still make contradictory claims about apocalyptic sea level rises in their haste to mobilize public opinion to stop greenhouse gas emissions.



Greenland

Like the Antarctic, the Greenland ice sheets show no evidence of receding due to alleged global warming. The record shows that the Arctic region where Greenland is located is cooling despite the fact that, under global warming models, it should be the first area of the planet to show significant temperature increases. According to these models, the polar regions should have warmed 2-5°F since 1940. But between 1955 and 1990, the Arctic cooled by 1°F and Greenland's glaciers actually expanded. According to the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters, the West Greenland Ice Sheet, the largest mass of polar ice in the Northern Hemisphere, has thickened by up to seven feet since 1980.17

Furthermore, some scientists believe that atmospheric circulation, not temperature, has been the greatest influence on the accumulation of snow and ice in central Greenland for the past 18,000 years. In an article that appeared in Nature magazine in 1995, the authors explained that changes in the way storms move across the island play the key role in how glaciers will thicken or recede.18



Conclusion

There is no indication that the world's glaciers are melting significantly due to global warming and, thus, there is little to fear from sea level rises in coming decades. Proponents of the global warming theory have been irresponsible in attempting to use glaciers as barometers of global temperatures since glaciers respond to a range of natural phenomena that have nothing to do with global temperature changes. In addition, the advance of the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers, which contain more than 90% of the world's glacial ice, completely contradicts previous predictions that warming would cause these glaciers to retreat. Far from providing scientific proof of global warming, the behavior of glaciers represents yet another powerful indictment of the already controversial global warming theory.





John K. Carlisle is director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#952071 --- 01/07/09 10:31 PM Re: Global warming news. [Re: VM Smith]
Samuel Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/07/08
Posts: 4495
Loc: Potter, NY
Thanks VM !! I am burning my coal stove with a big smile on. Trying to increase my carbon footprint and get ready for Algore's new personal carbon tax. I scoff at the crap science and proof that the world is heating up.

Top
#952728 --- 01/08/09 07:28 PM Re: Global warming news. [Re: Samuel]
wildman69 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/20/07
Posts: 909
Loc: Cheney's Basement
I use a coal furnace burning almost 5 ton a year and a pellet/corn stove. I can see space in the middle of the day from the whole in the o-zone above my house.
_________________________
Gov't big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have
T.Jefferson

Top
#953165 --- 01/09/09 03:15 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: wildman69]
LaughinWillow Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/12/01
Posts: 1950
Loc: State of Emergency
Can anyone tell me why it really matters if global warming is real or not? What about all the other measurable, clearly real evidence of damage to our ecosystem due to not just the burning of fossil fuels, but overconsumption, soil erosion, pollution, etc? And the fact that all of this is not just bad for some ephemeral "environment," but for human beings? We require clean air, water, and soil to be healthy.

I mean, I guess if the only issue is just the principle of fighting the idea of a carbon tax based on science that can't be positively confirmed, I get that. But otherwise, I just don't see what difference it makes. The ecosystem is screwed up, and if we don't do something about it, pretty much all the large mammals are going to disappear in the next 100 years. And we, friends, are a large mammal. I don't care if it's a "carbon tax" or a "overconsumption tax" or what, but something needs to be done to dissuade people from this way of life. And it seems like people in this country - and probably everywhere else on earth - are only motivated by money. So if anyone has a better suggestion than making overconsumption and pollution economically unpleasant, I'd love to hear it.
_________________________
War with civilization begins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxBizeiL3s

Top
#953178 --- 01/09/09 03:21 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: LaughinWillow]
HarleyBobT Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/22/08
Posts: 5106
Loc: Walloon Freedom Fighter
You make me want to go back to burning tires.
_________________________
Kristin Davis for NY State Governor,a hard working girl and the hottest candidate NY has ever seen.

Top
#953180 --- 01/09/09 03:23 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: LaughinWillow]
boxer Offline
Member

Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 468
Loc: Seneca Falls
The impact of an astroid 2 miles long and a hlaf mile wide should tidy up things on the planet quite nicely in the galactic scheme of things.


It would not, however, bode well for the survial of most life forms, including Homo sapiens.


Sure would clean the place up though.
_________________________
Youth IS wasted on the Young, for good reason.

Me.



Top
#953219 --- 01/09/09 04:12 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: HarleyBobT]
LaughinWillow Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/12/01
Posts: 1950
Loc: State of Emergency
Originally Posted By: HarleyBobT
You make me want to go back to burning tires.


Hey, there are a bunch of towns that have tire fires that won't go out - maybe you could move to one of those!
_________________________
War with civilization begins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxBizeiL3s

Top
#953226 --- 01/09/09 04:15 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: boxer]
LaughinWillow Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/12/01
Posts: 1950
Loc: State of Emergency
Originally Posted By: boxer
The impact of an astroid 2 miles long and a hlaf mile wide should tidy up things on the planet quite nicely in the galactic scheme of things.


It would not, however, bode well for the survial of most life forms, including Homo sapiens.


Sure would clean the place up though.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4939078184096254535
Cool show from the history channel...
_________________________
War with civilization begins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxBizeiL3s

Top
#953249 --- 01/09/09 04:42 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: LaughinWillow]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
"Can anyone tell me why it really matters if global warming is real or not? What about all the other measurable, clearly real evidence of damage to our ecosystem due to not just the burning of fossil fuels, but overconsumption, soil erosion, pollution, etc? And the fact that all of this is not just bad for some ephemeral "environment," but for human beings? We require clean air, water, and soil to be healthy."

Any money, talent and time wasted trying to fix climate change, which may not be changing in the direction many think, which is probably not mostly human-induced, and which may be unstoppable anyway, is money, talent, and time which aren't available to address the other issues you raise, as well as problems you didn't mention.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#953271 --- 01/09/09 05:19 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: LaughinWillow]
boxer Offline
Member

Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 468
Loc: Seneca Falls
Originally Posted By: LaughinWillow
Originally Posted By: boxer
The impact of an astroid 2 miles long and a hlaf mile wide should tidy up things on the planet quite nicely in the galactic scheme of things.


It would not, however, bode well for the survial of most life forms, including Homo sapiens.


Sure would clean the place up though.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4939078184096254535
Cool show from the history channel...


VERY COOL SHOW!

I paused it to tell you that. I am only 12 minutes into an hour nad twenty eight minute film. ;-) It's after midnight and I am hooked.

Though I do find it ( the movie ) to be very limited in it's scope of possibility.

One usually thinks ofgreat violance destroying life on earth, not life on earth untouched, completely sans humans, with nature stepping into mans shoes.

Only a pandemic could do that ... but they don't hint at that ...Just a documnetary as to how our ifastruture and the planet itself would decayand revert to few traces that we ever were here and some other critter would become the new "master".

"Life After Man".

Almost "rwilight zone" in its presentation and mesmerizing in its effects.

There's no diecpt here, just pure science; but still...

the nagging question of what happend to the people?

Everything else alive, from plantlife to house pets, is absolutely intact.

If that's the point, and it does appear to be just that,
"If man just up and left THIS is what would happen.",

is unimpeachable but ... that isn't going to happen.

But they have (seriously) been measuring thousands of tiny quakes beneath Yellowstone this week, the site of a "super volcano" that goes off every 600,000, give or take a few thou. years.

And the magna beneath it ( the cauldara at Yellowstone is 60 MILES across) has been causing the land to rise for the past 50 years.

Whole lakes are now tilted and the forest at the base of them is dead. Drowned trees go on for miles.

If that volcano goes off again ... Kansas will melt. Nuclear winter would last a thousand years.

The last time it went off was just over 600,000 years ago.

Ah! I'm heading back to the show!


Edited by boxer (01/09/09 05:24 AM)
_________________________
Youth IS wasted on the Young, for good reason.

Me.



Top
#953273 --- 01/09/09 05:23 AM Re: Global warming news. [Re: VM Smith]
LaughinWillow Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/12/01
Posts: 1950
Loc: State of Emergency
I guess I believe we do have the money, talent, and time to reverse at least some of what our way of life has done to our ecosystem. But perhaps it would take a consciousness that we don't have. Certainly, though, if we consciously, for example, wanted to reverse the pollution of our waterways, and were willing to change our way of life in order to do so, it could happen. It's so incredibly sad that we opt for short-term fulfillment (if you want to call plastic crap from china fulfilling) over the vast possibility of what we could become as a species in the long-term. Sometimes I imagine a planet of human caretakers, living in simple luxury, working together in small consensus governing bodies with compassion, gentleness, and logic as the spiritual basis for all decisions... War, gone. Pollution, gone. Hunger, gone. Class stratification, gone. But ah well, we'll wait for 2012 and see if those folks are right...one can dream, I suppose...
_________________________
War with civilization begins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxBizeiL3s

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >