14% less arctic permanent ice in 2005 then in 2004

Well according to PhysicsWorld magazine, whether human induced global warming is true or not is no longer open to debate.

You can't argue with Physicists.
 
Ah ****. Them bastard politicians should get their heads out of their arses before the whole world goes to hell.
 
ComradeBadger said:
Interesting reading:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1675/
Click to expand...

Spiked is just another incarnation of LM( Living Marxism), the magazine that also claimed there was no genocide in Bonsia and rewanda.
Here is a small WIKI on LM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Marxism

Here you can find more about LM and Spiked:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=124

And I have checked that it's the same spiked, since the link provided in the last link is wrong, I know it's the same spiked because the editor is Mick Hume.
 
That's an intriguing scenario.

"But sir! I'm too poor to fart!"
"Then that's too bad. The repo man will be stopping by to collect your anus within the week."
 
I bet the totalitarian governments of the future will do that! D:
 
Corrected, it's animals burping:

Livestock are a significant contributing factor to the greenhouse effect, accounting for around 20% of global methane emissions[14]. Less than 10% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from livestock is produced by animal flatulence; most is produced by animal burping. Livestock in New Zealand account for 60% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions[15]. Livestock in Australia contribute approximately 14% of that country's greenhouse gas emissions [16].
Click to expand...

We got 1.3 billion pieces of lifestock, that's a lot of methane.

I love that word btw, 'flatulence'. That's like trying to fit "bloody anal rape" into a fancy word.
 
Get a swim suit ready, you'll need it.

I just don't understand this debate. I don't care if there is no real way to prove 100% that this all caused by human polution (even though its a very strong theory). But how can anyone argue that spewing CO2 and other crap into our atmosphere by huge amounts is a good thing that shouldn't be regulated? Its the same argument those idiots made when they tried to sue tobacco companies for giving them cancer, gee, I didn't know inhaling smoke directly into my lungs was a bad thing. Give me a break.
 
^^ Especially us :( My country is 70% below sea-level wtf
We're well on our way in becoming the next Atlantis.. :(
 
id say its a little bit of both nature and human interference.
anyway its too late to cut back on greenhouse emmissions, the damage has already been done we need to think of ways to reverse it.
 
So what, losing arctic isn't a bad thing in itself. I've never been there. I don't care about it. Sure it might have some actual negative consequences that affect me, but show me those instead of facts about antarctica. For all I know the arctic could have turned into a giant colourful candyland with pixies and I wouldn't be bothered.
 
delusional said:
id say its a little bit of both nature and human interference.
anyway its too late to cut back on greenhouse emmissions, the damage has already been done we need to think of ways to reverse it.
Click to expand...


If we simply refrain from increasing our carbon output over the next fifty years, and rather we just sustained it, we can then begin to reduce overall carbon in the atmosphere. It will take at least fifty years, starting today, before we can even begin to make a difference.

If we wait fifty years, it will take us another 400 years after that to reduce carbon levels to that which they are today.

What we need to do right now is immediatley begin sequestering carbon underground, replacing several coal plants with nuclear plants, stop all deforestation, increase vehicle efficency by 80 per cent, increase hybrid automobiles to 30 percent of the market, increase renewables to 20 percent of energy produced, and vent off livestock methane. Only after all of this has been done, will we finally be able to see carbon levels maintain themselves at a constant rate, (rather than tripling every fifty years, as they do now).

Then, after those fifty years are up, we should be able to use hydrogen, fusion, and other major alternative energy sources like bio-engineered bacteria to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to 0 percent. Also, during that time we should actively sequester carbon underground.


It will cost trillions and trillions of dollars, spread out over 100 years, but it is much less costly than doing nothing. We will eventually have to deal with the carbon problem, and if we wait 50 years the costs and times will triple to quadruple to reduce carbon. If we do nothing at all, we will be battling the symptoms of global warming all the way to our demise.

Dan said:
So what, losing arctic isn't a bad thing in itself. I've never been there. I don't care about it. Sure it might have some actual negative consequences that affect me, but show me those instead of facts about antarctica. For all I know the arctic could have turned into a giant colourful candyland with pixies and I wouldn't be bothered.
Click to expand...

the arctic melting has extreme consequences. For one, diluted freshwater into the ocean will cause severe global climate changes. Sea levels will also rise as more water melts. Rising sea levels and changing climate translate into flooded cities, famine and drought, mass migrations and extinctions of animals, and billions upon billions of your tax dollars to counteract the efffects.
 
theotherguy said:
the arctic melting has extreme consequences. For one, diluted freshwater into the ocean will cause severe global climate changes. Sea levels will also rise as more water melts. Rising sea levels and changing climate translate into flooded cities, famine and drought, mass migrations and extinctions of animals, and billions upon billions of your tax dollars to counteract the efffects.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so show me stories of global warming flooding cities and costing billions of tax dollars and I would start to care.

And that thing about fresh water diluting the ocean is ridiculous. Comparing the amount of water frozen in the arctic to the ocean is like holding a flashlight to the sun.

I'm not saying that I don't believe in global warming. I'm sure we're changing our environment. I'm just saying that I don't care about global warming in itself. If I see signs that New York is going under water, that I might care about.
 
Dan said:
Yeah, so show me stories of global warming flooding cities and costing billions of tax dollars and I would start to care.

And that thing about fresh water diluting the ocean is ridiculous. Comparing the amount of water frozen in the arctic to the ocean is like holding a flashlight to the sun.

I'm not saying that I don't believe in global warming. I'm sure we're changing our environment. I'm just saying that I don't care about global warming in itself. If I see signs that New York is going under water, that I might care about.
Click to expand...

1.7% of all the water on earth is frozen as ice at the poles. Assuming 10% of that melts into water, that gives an extra 0.17% water into the oceans. given that the oceans are an average of 3.5-4km deep, that means the water level will rise by 6-7 metres. That's not a negligible amount.
 
Dan said:
Yeah, so show me stories of global warming flooding cities and costing billions of tax dollars and I would start to care.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense.

"Nuclear war? Yeah, come back to me when all the major cities in my country have been reduced to rubble and 80% of the human race is dead. Then I'll care."
 
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/9/3/1

Climate change is a reality we must all face up to, and burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is the biggest contributor. Steve Furnival explains how capturing and burying the carbon dioxide produced could help avert disastrous global warming

The existence of climate change is no longer up for debate. The scientific consensus is that the Earth is warming due to human activity: the level of carbon dioxide – the principal "greenhouse gas" that traps solar radiation in the atmosphere – has risen by more than 50% since the industrial revolution (figure 1). Burning fossil fuels in power stations accounts for about 40% of all human carbon-dioxide generation, but with the insatiable demand for energy and desire for security of supply, many countries are sticking with coal and gas. Indeed, China has plans to build over 500 coal-fired power stations in the next 10 years, 100 more are planned in the US, while India intends to double its electricity-generating capacity by 2015.
Click to expand...
 
Evidence/reasons for thinking so, or ideology getting in the way of rational open-minded examination of the situation?
 
Dan said:
Yeah, so show me stories of global warming flooding cities and costing billions of tax dollars and I would start to care.
Click to expand...

Euh?....Kathrina. The fact that there are more hurricanes, typhoons, floods and landslides. The weather is going a bit cookoo :rolling: We had a record super hot juli and the wettest augustus ever. The extremes come bigger. And it's defenitly us. Check this out What do you think all those tonnes CO2 do in our atmosphere. Just chemistry. I'll get alot hotter and therefore wetter.
Wanna know where to buy inland today and live at seashore in 20 years???
-Click me-
 
Global Warming scares me. What must we do to prevent such adverse consequences? Can we prevent them?
 
Solaris said:
Global Warming scares me. What must we do to prevent such adverse consequences? Can we prevent them?
Click to expand...

Nope....

There's even a delay.
Now we have the sideFX of what has been dumped some 60 years ago.So I'm affraid we need to take the ride and stop shaking the cart.
 
Dan said:
So what, losing arctic isn't a bad thing in itself. I've never been there. I don't care about it. Sure it might have some actual negative consequences that affect me, but show me those instead of facts about antarctica. For all I know the arctic could have turned into a giant colourful candyland with pixies and I wouldn't be bothered.
Click to expand...

SELFISH PEOPLE ARE THE BEST!

or is that SHELLFISH PEOPLE? I don't know ;(
 
Euh?....Kathrina. The fact that there are more hurricanes, typhoons, floods and landslides. The weather is going a bit cookoo We had a record super hot juli and the wettest augustus ever. The extremes come bigger. And it's defenitly us. Check this out What do you think all those tonnes CO2 do in our atmosphere. Just chemistry. I'll get alot hotter and therefore wetter.
Wanna know where to buy inland today and live at seashore in 20 years???
Click to expand...

I dont think that matters are that clear cut. I used to think that all such stuff was due to human activity and greenhouse gas emissions. But i recently read a so-called -thriller by Michael Crichton ( of all people) called State of Fear in which the basic premise is that many of the popular beliefs about rising ocean levels ,rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels etc are wrong......its sometime since i read the book and i dont remember the details.It seems the rise in temperature recordings in some areas are actually due to urbanisation and not due to co2 emission...and that in some places the temperatures are actually dropping.He quotes a lot of sources in his book...which i'm too lazy to check out!! I think i'll leave it to Apos or someone.

The book is an alright read( if you forget the actual "action thriller" part) as it offers an alternative point of view on climate change.

Dont tear me apart for believing a novel!!!.I dont.
 
hari66 said:
I dont think that matters are that clear cut. I used to think that all such stuff was due to human activity and greenhouse gas emissions. But i recently read a so-called -thriller by Michael Crichton ( of all people) called State of Fear in which the basic premise is that many of the popular beliefs about rising ocean levels ,rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels etc are wrong......its sometime since i read the book and i dont remember the details.It seems the rise in temperature recordings in some areas are actually due to urbanisation and not due to co2 emission...and that in some places the temperatures are actually dropping.He quotes a lot of sources in his book...which i'm too lazy to check out!! I think i'll leave it to Apos or someone.

The book is an alright read( if you forget the actual "action thriller" part) as it offers an alternative point of view on climate change.

Dont tear me apart for believing a novel!!!.I dont.
Click to expand...
But there is also a lot of genuine critisizm on that book. And though I like Michael Crichton as an author, I believe he is painting a wrong picture just to make his book more exiting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
 
hari66 said:
.It seems the rise in temperature recordings in some areas are actually due to urbanisation and not due to co2 emission...and that in some places the temperatures are actually dropping.He quotes a lot of sources in his book...
Click to expand...

Just like Dan Brown quoted a lot of sources in the Da Vinci Code???

Humanity and industrilisation has an impact on our eco-system. There's no doubt about it. The Co2 emission has risen the last 2 centuries and this chemical element has a direct effect on our climate. No question about it.
Is it us? Yes...Will it become colder, hotter??? First I't ll heat up, then the gulfstream will stall and even change directions. This will be the beginning of an another ice-age for Europe. Climate is actually a system that keeps correcting itself. The problem is that it can overcorrect and then the extremes become bigger and the systemcan go haywire....Like venus or Mars

Need more explanation? Read this book
 
I dunno about you guys, but I could use some global warming right about now, it got kinda chilly today
 
Icarusintel said:
I dunno about you guys, but I could use some global warming right about now, it got kinda chilly today
Click to expand...

But global warming is going to stop the the gulfstream which brings warm water from the tropics to our cold northern hemisphere. Which in Turn wil mean extremer klimates, meaning superhot summers, and especially super cold winters. All in all the temperature for us is going to fall.
 
Just like Dan Brown quoted a lot of sources in the Da Vinci Code???
Click to expand...
Heh heh.
Not exactly.
He gives references to research papers published in reputed journals on climate and geology,including the issue and page no.There are also links to weather data recorded from various weather stations and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Top20 Gaming Lows of 2004
Replies
20
Views
2K
Bad^Hat
Bad^Hat
Back
Top