It is not that hard for you to use whatever intelligence you posses to actually look up some data. Previously the high latitudes were warmer and the mid latitudes were slightly cooler, but the average was still upward. Pretending that wherever you happen to live is representative is silly. I have been waiting to see if increased snowfall makes up for the lack of sea ice in the arctic ocean. Maybe it will end up a wash, or maybe the glaciers on greenland will get more snow on them. Who knows.
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
Of course they wouldn't, or not without regulation anyway, since commercial enterprises never care about much else than their next quarterly/annual profit report. The need to household with the earth's resources so that their grandchildren's grandchildren can also enjoy at least as good a life as themselves isn't something that they spend a lot of thought on.
Rather, it's grab it while you can, as much as you can, that's the order of the day.
corduroygt
Banned
There should never be any regulation on CO2 emissions, it's not a pollutant. I am all in favor of regulating actual pollutants of course. The high cost of fossil fuel energy is taking care of the CO2 "problem" anyway.
It is in fact a quite toxic gas. A few percent concentration, maybe tenths of a percent actually, and it'll kill you...
I'm not so sure I share that opinion. In any case, the CO2 cap-and-trade program used in some parts of the world is almost entirely bullshit and a smokescreen aimed at the public/media, so gov'ts can pretend they're actually doing something.
The cap is of course set high enough so big, important national industries will more or less pass under it without too much of a burden, which makes the whole program pointless.
And once again, you're showing your true colors as a denialist. You'll grasp on any excuse to just disregard the physical evidence, instead of taking the time to actually investigate it.
From what I've been reading, there has been a strong negative trend in almost every glacier on Earth. Both Greenland and Antarctica are rapidly losing ice (for the moment, Greenland is losing ice much more rapidly, though with the Antarctic peninsula melting at a rapid pace, Antarctica may not be far behind). It will still take a significant amount of time for these to melt (a couple hundred years, probably), but if both of them melt, we'll be talking about Florida being underwater, for instance.
It's ok, we can just build dikes around Florida.
-FUDie
Don't you mean dykes?
I thought Antarctica wasn't melting?
Anyway do you have a good source handy on the melting rates? All I have seen contradict each other.
I think you are wrong, the PR people will be able to put a value on the spin they can do by being green
I am well aware of that, however if precipitation significantly increases then things might change. Especially in Greenland. If the sea ice is gone, evaporation will increase and precipitation might increase as well.
Antarctica is different and will likely respond differently as well.
There are still a few places on earth where glaciers are growing, but it is b/c of increases in precipitation. These are alpine glaciers and very small compared to greenland, or ever other larger alpine glaciers like in the Himalayas and so on.
If it's so easy, then where is the peer reviewed research debunking AGW?
You get your results after you get your grants, not the other way around.
Pro tobacco lobby pours massive amounts of money into proving that nicotine is not addictive. Are you just as skeptical of the pro-tobacco "scientists"?
corduroygt
Banned
There isn't one. I'm not saying that there's no AGW, I'm just saying that we know very little about chaotic systems in general.
Not when the grants specify that you cannot be denying climate change to get them.
It's a lot easier to show the effects of tobacco on people than to predict a chaotic system.
Look, I use as little energy as possible anyway, since it makes economic sense. So yes, I have new, efficient appliances because I like new stuff, and I don't drive much, but I won't shut off my engine in below freezing temperatures until it warms up either, since I'd pay the extra 50 cents to not be discomforted in the cold.
What I won't do is increase my power bill so I get power from wind, it's got to be the same cost or cheaper for me to switch, and I won't pay a cent so some people in Africa or Asia won't get flooded. That's not my problem.
In other words, I don't really care about discussing whether AGW is valid or not. I care about not spending extra money than I have to.
corduroygt
Banned
Pretty much everything in high enough concentrations will kill you. Doesn't mean they're toxic.
corduroygt
Banned
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5294
By Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
There is some accumulation in the eastern region, but there is more loss in the western region, leading to an overall ice loss. The best measure of overall ice loss that I can see is the GRACE satellite. You can read a news release on the results for Antarctica here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101029083749.htm
The scientific paper can be accessed here, but requires a university subscription, unfortunately:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2008.10.001
Im not convinced
From: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html
Im personally not really seeing a warming trend here. Can anyone tell me what im missing here because it looks like the global temperatures are stagnating. I mean if most of the warmest years are in the same decade it just means that the temperatures are pretty much unchanged, right?
Anyway if the mods cared I would ask one of them to lock this thread as it looks like climate change is a problem we no longer have to worry about.
From: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html
Im personally not really seeing a warming trend here. Can anyone tell me what im missing here because it looks like the global temperatures are stagnating. I mean if most of the warmest years are in the same decade it just means that the temperatures are pretty much unchanged, right?
Anyway if the mods cared I would ask one of them to lock this thread as it looks like climate change is a problem we no longer have to worry about.
- Status
Similar threads
