Global warming? No. Howabout Global ice age within the next 70 years

[seaninomaha]

Polar Ice Caps receive the least amount of solar radiation of any parts of the planet. The North pole tilts towards the sun when the earth is at its apogee (farthest from the sun) which gives the northern hemisphere its summer. When the earth is at Perigee (closest to the sun) that is when the southern hemisphere is in summer. Because of the way the earth is shaped (buldges at the middle) the equatorial regions receive the most amount of solar radiation on a year round basis. If you are looking at the Arctic ice then it receives much less solar radiation than the Antarctic ice due to the distance difference between when they hemispheres tilt towards the sun. When the North pole tilts towards the sun the solar radiation travels a farther distance causing the solar radiation to elongate, but disperse over a wider area of space. What does all of this mean? That the sun only plays one part and it may not be as great as some say it is in the melting of polar ice.

I personally believe the Planet is warming naturally, but that humans are giving it a push at the same time. Humans are not doing a good job of managing ourselves in this symbiotic relationship between us and the planet. It will not take much to wipe us all off the planet. These arguments based on ideology and the facts each side produce solve nothing and may end up putting us in a situation of realizing the truth to late to be a part of the solution. -Sean

 

[code1211]

If you repeat I lie like the one you just said, you can convince yourself it's the truth. Problem is, what if your wrong?

But what if you are wrong? Same consequences ... just different method for getting there. The only difference, at least we will be looking for the roots of the problems and not just want to change the symptoms.

If I'm wrong, then the climate goes back to what it was earlier in the century. If you and other deniers are wrong, well the consequences are going to be much more harmful, so I hope your right, problem is not much evidence is pointing toward you being right.

Eistein said something like no matter how beautiful the theory, eventually, you must show results. All of the models are wrong when compared to actual temperature change. We have leveled off in temperature over the last 7 or 8 years when CO2 continues to increase. The dire warnings of the AGW Proponents are not coming to pass.

What evidence are you referring to?

 

[FactFinder]

Sarcasm? Or are you not reading?


April 6, 2009
Arctic sea ice younger, thinner as melt season begins

March 2009 compared to past Marches

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal. The linear trend indicates that for the month of March, ice extent is declining by 2.7% per decade, an average of 43,000 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) of ice per year


Ice extent through the winter was similar to that of recent years, but lower than the 1979 to 2000 average. More importantly, the melt season has begun with a substantial amount of thin first-year ice, which is vulnerable to summer melt.

Of course it is younger and thinner. That younger and thinner part is the beginning of the recovery from record breaking solar maximums. Also they have discovered active volcanoes under the Artic and the melting years were highly effected by wind shifts.

Yes there is younger and thinner but there is more than last year and the base starting point is greater going into the melt season. As the planet continues its cooling off period due to the present extended solar minimum ( no sunspots) you can bet that the ice will recover more.

Did you miss this line?

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal.

So you tell me what their criteria for normal is. Certainly they are excluding previous warm periods in history. They change the scales to meet the definition they are seeking.

Now that we are in a cooling period the hype is incredulous. Downright disgusting even. One would think in a matter as important as this there would be a common quest for honesty. That statement is putrid in its spin.

 

[garyd]

The chief culprit at the beginning of the last little ice age was the Tambora volcanic eruption. The sun the moon and vulcanism play a far greater impact on the earths weather than does CO2, and climate is little more than weather averaged over time.

 

[garyd]

YOu do know that the Northwest passage was traversible in 1902 when Amundson sailed through it and again in 1945.

 

[k2skier]

Of course it is younger and thinner. That younger and thinner part is the beginning of the recovery from record breaking solar maximums. Also they have discovered active volcanoes under the Artic and the melting years were highly effected by wind shifts.

Yes there is younger and thinner but there is more than last year and the base starting point is greater going into the melt season. As the planet continues its cooling off period due to the present extended solar minimum ( no sunspots) you can bet that the ice will recover more.

Did you miss this line?

Including March 2009, the past six years have all had ice extent substantially lower than normal.

So you tell me what their criteria for normal is. Certainly they are excluding previous warm periods in history. They change the scales to meet the definition they are seeking.

Now that we are in a cooling period the hype is incredulous. Downright disgusting even. One would think in a matter as important as this there would be a common quest for honesty. That statement is putrid in its spin.

Trying to label our weather history as "normal" will lead to subjective responses. Our plants weather is dynamic the only sure thing is that it will constantly change.

One or two cool months, one or two cool winters does not constitute a trend, only time will tell.

Living sustainable, polluting less, and trying to leave a minimal impact on our only life support system, spaceship earth, is the only smart choice we have as an intelligent, moral species.

And weaning ourselves off of crude oil sooner than later (for moving our fat lazy American asses around) will only benefit all of mankind, the longer we wait the more it will cost and the more it will impact our lives.

 

[Sinatra]

YOu do know that the Northwest passage was traversible in 1902 when Amundson sailed through it and again in 1945.

Quiet you! No confusing them with historical data!

 

[Old Rocks]

YOu do know that the Northwest passage was traversible in 1902 when Amundson sailed through it and again in 1945.

Quiet you! No confusing them with historical data!

And you fellows are still ignorant as hell about the status of the Northwest Passage. Here is real information from a non-political source.

Will the Opening of the Northwest Passage Transform Global Shipping Anytime Soon?: Scientific American

 

[Old Rocks]

Now lets throw the one factor in that some say has direct cause for changing the climate, and some say have no effect on the climate. HUMANS. With over 6 billion of us on the planet I would be hard pressed to say we have no effect on the climate of this planet. How much I wont even try to guess at. We though will be caught up in the change whatever it may be. If the climate warms the Majority of humans will be without clean fresh water to drink within 100 years. If it cools we will be without enough food to eat because the growing seasons will be shortened, and if there is a big enough cooling that moves into the grain belt then food will be scarce.

For about 10,000 years we've had a remarkably stable climate. The increase and decrease of the globla temperature has occurred within about a 2 degree range. We are just about exactly in the middle of that range today. In the last 2000, the temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees. During the 5000 years prior to that, the temperature decreased by about, wait for it, by about 0.7 degrees. During the preceeding 3000 years, the temperature decreased by about a degree. Give or take.

The point is that the tempearature has vascillated over time. It is still vascillating. My guess is that it will continue to vascillate. Measuring geologic change on the time scales of man is a little silly, yet that is what we are trying to do with this.

Probably as a result of the collision of North and South America at Panama, ocean currents changed and this allowed the Milankovitch Cycles to trigger Ice Ages over the last Million or so years. No CO2 forcing and no humans to start them or end them. Just astronomy, geology and hydro and thermal dynamics.

Men having a notable impact on these things is not likely. If the race died out over night this weekend, in 200 years, very little of what we have done would be apparent. We are not all that. Climb out of swimming pool and look at the hole you leave in the water.

Your geology is correct. Your physics is screwball. Adding about 40% more CO2, as well as other GHGs cannot fail to warm the atmosphere. That is what we are seeing. The evidence, from glaciers to recent weather records all say that we are rapidly warming. Past episodes of rapid warming caused by GHGs, such as the PETM, tell us that this is a serious situation, and that we will soon reach a point that sustaining 7 billion humans will not be possible.

 

[KittenKoder]

YOu do know that the Northwest passage was traversible in 1902 when Amundson sailed through it and again in 1945.

Quiet you! No confusing them with historical data!

And you fellows are still ignorant as hell about the status of the Northwest Passage. Here is real information from a non-political source.

Will the Opening of the Northwest Passage Transform Global Shipping Anytime Soon?: Scientific American

LOL ... yeah ... non-political ...

 

[Chris]

Quiet you! No confusing them with historical data!

And you fellows are still ignorant as hell about the status of the Northwest Passage. Here is real information from a non-political source.

Will the Opening of the Northwest Passage Transform Global Shipping Anytime Soon?: Scientific American

LOL ... yeah ... non-political ...

Yes, non-political.

 

[KittenKoder]

And you fellows are still ignorant as hell about the status of the Northwest Passage. Here is real information from a non-political source.

Will the Opening of the Northwest Passage Transform Global Shipping Anytime Soon?: Scientific American

LOL ... yeah ... non-political ...

Yes, non-political.

If you believe that then have fun with it. Every article I have read in there is always so over simplified it was like reading a kindergärtners' report. They always take one angle and never consider all angles to anything ... yeah ... that's pretty non-political ...

 

[Chris]

I think they have great articles....

A Sex Chip? Targeting the Brain's Pleasure Center with Electrodes: Scientific American

 

[Gurdari]

No. Human involvement has added NO variables to our climate. Our weather is no different today than it would be had we invented no fossil fuels or anything that emits CO2 whatsoever. Global Warming is the biggest hoax since snake oil.

Hahaha, love it - snake oil...

Quacky sience-types, always after evidence and logical analysis - when will you ever learn?



More ice fell off the Antarctic, in related cooling news.

 

[Hayen Mill]

many proponents that man is causing global warming actually see the end road as the ice age, because of the "non-equilibrium" in the north atlantic currents, etc