- Joined
- 3 February 2008
- Posts
- 91
- Reactions
- 0
warming schwarming....
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...er-the-northern-sea-ice-is-back-corcoran.aspxI seem to recall that the ice sheet is back to normal this year. (IIRC, no links)
wayneThey're wh ores because they disagree with the AGW religion?
Can you substantiate the PB plight with science rather than here-say?
I seem to recall that the ice sheet is back to normal this year. (IIRC, no links)
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.
There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
Can we trust the science?
• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Is the sun to blame?
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It’s all down to cosmic rays
Does CO2 cause warming?
• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
What happened in the past?
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
What is happening now?
• Mars and Pluto are warming too
• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• Polar bear numbers are increasing
• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
• The oceans are cooling
What is going to happen?
• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Why should I worry?
• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• We can't do anything about climate change
Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
17:00 16 May 2007
Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive.
Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.
The two populations that are increasing, both in north-eastern Canada, were severely reduced by hunting in the past and are recovering thanks to the protection they and their prey now enjoy.
The best-studied population, in Canada’s western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska’s north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.
A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The World Conservation Union projects the bears' numbers will drop by 30% by 2050 (pdf) due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.
Strongly agreed. Public concern over the environment tends to peak when the economy peaks in my observation.Apparently there is a teeny-weeny possibility that the US financial markets could melt within the next 50 months (the way it is going) thus taking the rest of the world down with 'em. If that happens, environmental & ecological considerations will go right out the back door
Strongly agreed. Public concern over the environment tends to peak when the economy peaks in my observation.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2191015.htmand coming to work . I heard that the ice was melting faster as well (ABC's AM )
Glaciers shrinking at record rate:
AM - Monday, 17 March , 2008 08:10:00
Reporter: Barbara Miller
TONY EASTLEY: In what it describes as a disturbing finding, the United Nations says new data shows the world's glaciers are melting at a far faster rate than previously thought.
According to the figures, glaciers shrank on average by one-and-a-half metres in 2006, compared with just over half a metre just a year earlier.
The UN Environment Programme says if efforts to cut global greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically accelerated, many of the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by the year 2030.
etc .
Barbara Miller reportsBARBARA MILLER: This is one of a seemingly never-ending series of studies warning of the dire consequences of climate change.
And the United Nations Environment Programme says it can't be ignored:
NICK NUTTALL: This is actually not a sort of scientific finding that is meant to paralyse the international community and say we can do nothing. It is actually meant to be one of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of wake-up calls to get moving on dealing with the greenhouse gas emission problem.
BARBARA MILLER: Nick Nuttall is the UNEP spokesman.
He says the latest figures show the world's glaciers are melting far faster than many people had thought:
NICK NUTTALL: The latest figures are from 2006 and they're basically showing that in 2006 we had a record melting away of the glaciers equivalent to 1.5m of ice on average across the glaciers that are recorded by the scientists.
BARBARA MILLER: Were you disturbed, surprised by these figures?
NICK NUTTALL: Surprised maybe not. Disturbed yes, though by the sheer pace and scale of changes.
Glaciers aren't just blocks of ice which sit on top of the mountains that some people ski down. I mean they are the water storage facilities for, you know, countless numbers of the world's major river systems and if we carry on pumping these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Himalayan glaciers for example, could be gone by 2030 - or large numbers of them.
That challenges whole economies, it challenges the whole way that society has actually built up their livelihood.
BARBARA MILLER: There are also dramatic figures from Europe's glaciers.
In 2006 the Breidalblikkbrea glacier in Norway, for example, thinned by 3.1m, compared with just 0.3m a year earlier.
The UN says although the news is alarming, if action to cut greenhouse gas emissions was taken now it would be possible to stop the rapid shrinking of the world's glaciers.
NICK NUTTALL: We have a window of opportunity in the coming 10 or 15 or 20 years where we can reverse the build up of greenhouse gases.
The cost of that was calculated at something like 0.1 per cent of 1 per cent of global GDP, possibly 0.2 per cent of 1 per cent of global GDP each year for 30 years and it's probably the bargain of the century.
TONY EASTLEY: Nick Nuttall, the spokesman for the UN Environment Programme, speaking to AM from UNEP headquarters in Kenya. Barbara Miller the reporter.
The problem is that only the pro-warming stuff makes its way into the media. Any scientist or report or study that questions the theory is not given equal airtime.... no airtime would be closer to it. And there are PLENTY of scientists who have serious reservations about the whole GW debate.
Worse - Any AGW dissent is treat as a religious heresy. It doesn't do much for the science at all.
I don't know why, but I keep thinking of Goebbels' remarks of a few years ago.
what the hell
will you blokes please admit that we (as the human species) can at least try to reduce our impact on the planet.
but you are such confused gentlemen, I think I'm wasting my breath
PS They should legislate alternative energy options like this.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080207-power-walking.html
and yet again ferretI cant help but notice that you seem to put down people who don't agree with you. "Scientist *****s".. "confused gentlemen". No mate. We have our own opinions.
Whilst I dont agree with yours, I fully respect your right to have them. Please respect our right to have ours.
Not the current point. I have made that point repeatedly in this thread and is not at issuewhat the hell
will you blokes please admit that we (as the human species) can at least try to reduce our impact on the planet.
Ad hominem. Shows a weakness of argument.but you are such confused gentlemen, I think I'm wasting my breath
Again, not the point at all. The current issue is whether the plight (or not as the case may be) is due to AGW. This seems to be in doubt and the waters have been muddied by preposterous sensationalism by the likes of Al Bore.PS They should legislate alternative energy options like this.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080207-power-walking.html
PS wayne, I mean why are you asking me to prove anything about the plight of PB's - you should already know.
for a card carrying greenie wayne, it would seem that you could give a damn about the PBs.
....DESPITE the totally illogical resistance from the likes of you....
I'm ok !Illogical to you, maybe. Just as your views are illogical to me. However, I respect your right to your views.... I don't get angry because not everyone agrees with me.... thats life. You need to "cool down" a bit
I'm ok !
and I'll continue to work for a planet that is 0.001 degree cooler for your grandkids - WHETHER OR NOT it is manmade..
btw, I'll let you explain to your grandkids why you weren't even prepared to try to reduce man made effects on the environment .
and wayne OBVIOUSLY sheesh
you will also clean up other pollution.
What's your objection to giving it the benefit of the doubt. ?
seriously - no deflection of the argument - just give it a go ok.
You seem to jeer when the world applauds Bali for instance.
a worldwide movement to recognise that man is exploiting this planet in an unsustainable manner ..?
To me that makes you (and ferret etc) extremely confused.
PS try listening to David Attenborough ( oh that's right he's confused in YOUR eyes)
or David Suzuki (who you put up as a model, but then withdraw your support when you find he wants to put politicians in jail for NOT recogising the risk of global warming )
or Carl Sagan
or etc
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?