The effects so far of global warming

Chris

Gold Member
May 30, 2008
23,154
1,967
205
RISING SEAS: Sea levels have risen in tandem with global warming, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8mm (0.07 inches) per year, but accelerated from 1991 to 3.1mm (0.12 inches) per year. The IPCC estimated sea levels would rise 18-59 centimetres (7.2-23.2 inches) by 2100. But added runoff from melting land ice is accelerating. According to Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected. If emissions are not curbed, "it may well exceed one metre (3.25 feet)."

SHRINKING GLACIERS: Mountain glaciers and snow cover in both hemispheres have widely retreated in the past few decades. One of the most closely-observed sites, the Cook glacier on the southern Indian Ocean island of Kerguelen, has shrunk by a fifth in 40 years. Around 1.3 billion people depend on the water that flows down from Himalayan glaciers, which in some places are falling back at up to 70 metres (230 feet) per year. The snows capping Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa's tallest peak, could vanish entirely in 20 years, US experts reported this month.

SHIFTING SEASONS: Some species of birds and fish are shifting habitat in response to warmer temperatures. The range of 105 bird species in France moved north, on average, 91 kilometres (56.5 miles) from 1989 to 2006. Average temperatures, however, shifted northward 273 kilometres (170 miles) over the same period, nearly three times farther. Twenty-one out of 36 species of fish in the North Sea migrated northwards between 1962 and 2001 in search of cooler waters. Anecdotal evidence from commercial fishermen says once-exotic species of fish from warmer latitudes now inhabit southern British waters.

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: The acidity of the seas is rising as oceans absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2), with an impact on coral and micro-organisms, marine biologists say. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the protective calcium shell of amoeba-like organisms living in the Southern Ocean called foraminifera, a vital link in the food chain, has fallen in weight by a third. "Within decades," acidification could severely affect biodiversity and fisheries, 150 marine scientists jointly warned last January.

ARCTIC ICE: The Greenland ice sheet has lost 1,500 billion tonnes of ice since 2000, contributing 0.75 mm (0.03 inch) annually to sea levels, according to a study published this month. In 2009, the Arctic summer sea ice pack thawed to its third smallest size on record, confirming a shrinkage trend seen over the past 30 years. Some experts believe the Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years.

ANTARCTIC WARMING: The Antarctic peninsula has warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) in the last 50 years, around six times the global average. In the past 20 years, Antarctica has lost seven ice shelves -- huge floating ledges of ice, attached to the shore, that are fed by glaciers.

PERMAFROST RETREAT: Emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane were found to be soaring at sites investigated in 2006 by University of Alaska scientists at lakes in northern Siberia. The reason is thawing of the permafrost, causing the warmed soil to release gas that had been stored for thousands of years. Billions of tonnes of methane, which comes from natural sources such as decomposing vegetation and marshland, are stored in the frozen lands of Siberia, Canada and Alaska.

Climate change: How global warming is having an impact
 
Seems it also has the effect of making scientists want to fake evidence, browbeat publications that give equal time to opposing POV, destroy contrary evidence and evade FOIA laws.

The ice caps are melting, the glaciers are melting, and the temperatures are rising.

That is the evidence.

And the winters here in Virginia are radically different than they were 25 years ago. I remember a Super Bowl Sunday when it was 0 degrees. We never see weather like that anymore.
 
Seems it also has the effect of making scientists want to fake evidence, browbeat publications that give equal time to opposing POV, destroy contrary evidence and evade FOIA laws.

The ice caps are melting, the glaciers are melting, and the temperatures are rising.

That is the evidence.

And the winters here in Virginia are radically different than they were 25 years ago. I remember a Super Bowl Sunday when it was 0 degrees. We never see weather like that anymore.


You are an absolute liar - just like most the global warmers apparently...


Lynchburg breaks 84-year cold record
March 7, 2009





By Dave Thompson Lynchburg News & Advance


roanoke,va – Lynchburg broke an 84-year record Tuesday morning, posting the first single-digit temperature for that date since records have been kept.[/B] The low came in at 5 degrees, according to the National Weather Service in Blacksburg. The previous mark was 11 degrees, set in 1925. The frigid temperatures followed a heavy snowfall that blanketed Central Virginia overnight Sunday and into Monday. Lynchburg saw 10 inches of snow and some areas in the region saw up to 14 inches. The storm’s worst may be over, but the cold temperatures and possibility of icy conditions kept residents on their toes through Tuesday and into today, when this morning’s low temperature was expected to hit 7 degrees.Public schools in the counties of Appomattox, Bedford and Campbell all announced cancellations for today, and Nelson County will work on a 1-hour delay, due to a chance of icy roads. Lynchburg City Schools officials said last night they expected school to be open today. A slew of outages in Appomattox County was trimmed down. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative reported 232 outages with another 19 listed from a combined substation covering both Appomattox and Buckingham counties, as of 10 p.m. Tuesday. Greg Kelly, spokesperson for CVEC, said he didn’t know when power would be restored to all the customers, and stopped short of predicting full recovery by midnight Tuesday. Doug Eggleston, emergency services coordinator with the Historic Virginia Chapter of the American Red Cross, said demand for Red Cross assistance has been low. An emergency shelter established in Appomattox County due to the widespread outages was closed shortly after opening on Monday because, Eggleston said, only one family showed up. That family and another Appomattox County family that contacted the Red Cross were relocated to other homes. Relief from the cold and wintry weather is on its way.According to the National Weather Service’s forecast Tuesday night, temperature today should reach the lower 40s before dipping into the mid 20s tonight. Thursday is forecast to get even warmer, with highs in the mid-50s and lows near 40 degrees


Virginia « Where’s my Global Warming Dude? By Global Freeze

Furthermore...


The average mean temp for December 15 - March 3, 2008 - 2009 in Richmond Virginia was 40 degrees.

Go back 25 years when you say Virginia used to have cold winters. The average mean temp for December 15 - March 3 in 1984-1985 was...40 degrees.

Go back 35 years - the average temperature was...41 degrees.

Go back 45 years - the average temperature was...40 degrees.

Go back 55 years - the average temperatures was...41 degrees.

Check out the historical data on weather underground pard.

Chris, you are either a complete moron, or an outright liar - maybe both.

Either way, you are unworthy to speak on this topic any longer...
 
No, you are the moron.

I live in Va. Beach, not Lynchburg!

And it was 1987 or 86 somewhere in there, so it was probably more like 22 years.

And we never have snow or winters like we used to here.

It hasn't come close to 0 degrees here in a long while.
 
Anyone else smell the rancid flop-sweat stench of the panicked environazis out there trying desperately to save their empire of lies?

How many threads tonight that make for you on this topic, Chris? 6?
 
Last edited:
It was January 20, 1985, so it will be 25 years in January....

January 20-22, 1985: An arctic cold front swept across the state ushering in extreme cold and high winds. Wind chill temperatures plunged well below zero. Winds knocked out power compounding the effects of the cold. Pipes froze and burst. Fresh snow of 4 inches with the front helped temperatures across the entire state fall below zero. New records were set at several locations in the south including Roanoke with -11°F and Norfolk with -3°F. Cable television lines were damaged by shrinkage caused by the extreme cold. On January 22, Mountain Lake recorded the coldest temperature ever in the state with -30°F.

VAEmergency.com > Newsroom & Archives > Virginia Winter History
 
When people post insults, it's because they have no facts.

Thanks for admitting defeat, eots.

You're the best!
 
I've but this left to say:

You've been de-limbed

%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CTYV15084lg.jpg
 
So THAT's where all the cold is going! Satan turned on the A/C in hell, and so we're getting it's exhaust port up here on Earth!

It NOW makes sense! I'M FINE NOWWWWW!!!!!!

:bowdown::woohoo::happy-1::woohoo::bowdown:
 
Chris, don't let anyone who doesn't understand the difference between global climate and local weather get you stuck in a discussion based solely on if one individual city is getting warmer or cooler.

The gulf stream is an ocean current most folks know.

Same with the geography of the North Atlantic near England.

The gulf stream keeps England warmer than other equally far north locations. Mess up the gulf stream with man or other caused climate change and poof, London and Liverpool both get colder.

Your first post was all about things happening on a global scale none of which can be denied so someone deflected your post.

The discussion should be about the cause or how these things are happening while the earth is "getting cooler" according to some posts. The latter has my attention. I'm looking for older records of glacial retreat. Like 1600's type records, see if this is a longer term situation which it could be.

Let me provide the other view with a talking point on your topic, "glaciers have been retreating for 10k years, here's proof from the year 1000, 1500, 1750, and so on from x, x, and y British and Russian observations"
 
Chris, don't let anyone who doesn't understand the difference between global climate and local weather get you stuck in a discussion based solely on if one individual city is getting warmer or cooler.

The gulf stream is an ocean current most folks know.

Same with the geography of the North Atlantic near England.

The gulf stream keeps England warmer than other equally far north locations. Mess up the gulf stream with man or other caused climate change and poof, London and Liverpool both get colder.

Your first post was all about things happening on a global scale none of which can be denied so someone deflected your post.

The discussion should be about the cause or how these things are happening while the earth is "getting cooler" according to some posts. The latter has my attention. I'm looking for older records of glacial retreat. Like 1600's type records, see if this is a longer term situation which it could be.

Let me provide the other view with a talking point on your topic, "glaciers have been retreating for 10k years, here's proof from the year 1000, 1500, 1750, and so on from x, x, and y British and Russian observations"
Then we're also back to this one very salient point. Since climate changes naturally, and it is NOT the cause of mankind (pollution is not climatological, it's waste management) why should we do anything about it except adapt?

Why must there be upheavals of societies so great it can destroy them for the sake of a crisis that has nothing to do with us and any solution we create will not affect us?

The science that is the basis for this is now flat out fraudulent or very much in question because it is basing itself on many assumptions that may not be true and contrary evidence to mankind's role in it all keeps rolling in, unabated.

That one blinding point is the point of contention for me at least.
 
Why must there be upheavals of societies so great it can destroy them for the sake of a crisis that has nothing to do with us and any solution we create will not affect us?

I am in no means suggesting anything that exciting by means of pollution control. Heck, I'm even willing to say we have to be certain we don't sacrifice too much of our ability to compete militarily/economically with the Chinese.

Climate DOES change naturally.

Greenhouse gasses DO modify their environment.

We aren't dead certain which way any of this is going but why push our luck.

Probably the worst thing I would do is tweak the CAFE standard for passenger vehicle fuel efficiency more aggressively, keep up movements towards cleaner Coal & even :gasp: nuclear power, and figure out some way of hurrying the developing world up to our standards.
 
Fitz, if we were in Congress I imagine me asking you to come up with a financially viable plan to limit our pollution at this point or you telling me what parts of my plan need scaled back or replaced with another.
 
We aren't dead certain which way any of this is going but why push our luck.

Because often doing something is worse than doing nothing. Err on the side of economy and freedom. Mother nature's a tough bitch. She can take care of herself.
 
Tis possible. But I also have major problems in how most environmental law is pushed around these days. I know we need an organization like the EPA, but the whole thing has to be torn down and rebuilt from the roots almost. It's gone rotten.

I also amicably refuse to agree that global warming has anything to do with pollution. I'm more inclined to deal with an international partnership to clean up trash in the pacific than I am to regulate global warming.

I've similar issues with non-point pollution. My stance goes back to common law where you must show harm and from whom the harm came. Non-point pollution can show neither really. The hardest part is showing harm. That's one test that any climate change believer has never passed. They can't point to one person, or one business or one city and say that they personally are harming them directly. Known forms of pollution are more the case.

A good case in point is the Fox River Superfund Project cleaning up PCBs found in river sediments. They were put there by raw papermill sewage dumping into the river. PCBs are known carcinogen and environmental threat. THey have to come out. They are also easily traced to sources and therefore direct source and victims can be shown. Unfortunately, the area where things get grey is how to prove that your cancer (assuming you contract it) was caused directly from the PCBs. Currently we can't even do that with cigarettes. We can only guess and assume it was not another source.

This thaumaturgically explains my issue with assigning blame for climate change on mankind as well. No proof has been truly made that it is unequivocally man's fault. Nor can anyone prove anyone worldwide has conclusively suffered direct harm. Oh we can say it's happened due to scientific models and what not, but those are models, not truth, and models are often showed to be quite wrong when you are dealing with such complexities as climate and the like. There are too many factors and not enough proof that I'd consider even close to standing up in court.

Too often, those who believe in this stuff start making a mix in their head and include them all together. They make AGW part of pollution, over-fishing, over-logging, garbage disposal, acid rain, particulates in the atmosphere and fertilizer on the fields. When you attack one part of any of it, they assume you're attacking the whole, as they can no longer see the difference between spreading cow shit on a field and not recycling aluminum cans or burning oil. These have nothing to do with each other, but yet, they defend the whole polyglot with the ferocity of a zealot defending the holy land. That is an even bigger problem when it comes to considering all things green. The miasma effect.

So although it'd be an interesting discussion, I think you'd walk away dissatisfied. Protect freedom and economies first, environments need to show proof they need protection.
 

Forum List

Back
Top