Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Charles he is hopeless, he ignores that the artic temperature remains unchanged since 1938. He ignores that droughts are on the decrease in the last 100 years....and the denial goes on and on and on....
Some alarmist proclaimed global cooling in the 70's...More Kirk denial
Every single scientist next year could come out tommorow and say that AGW was politically motivated and Kirk would say that they are mistaken....
Melting glaciers and rising CO2 are "politically motivated."
Right.....
Speaking of politically motivated, Dick Cheney and his oil company buddies are hard at work....
3rd UPDATE:Many In Bush Administration Reversed On Greenhouse Gases
Now Kirk, what does that have to do with the science of global warming? Absolutely nothing...
I do notice you still deny the facts in my previous post you just further prove my point....Thank you
Now Kirk, what does that have to do with the science of global warming? Absolutely nothing...
I do notice you still deny the facts in my previous post you just further prove my point....Thank you
So you would be alarmed if the North Pole melted? I am glad you admit it. Here's a report from a scientist on the scene...
Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen
National Geographic News
June 20, 2008
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.
"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.
RELATED
Shrinking Arctic Sea Ice Thinner, More Vulnerable (March 18, 2008)
Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.
Such ice is much more prone to melting during the summer months than perennial, or multiyear, ice, which is thick and dense ice that has lasted through multiple cycles of thawing and refreezing.
"I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility," Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado, said by email.
Charles he is hopeless, he ignores that the artic temperature remains unchanged since 1938. He ignores that droughts are on the decrease in the last 100 years....and the denial goes on and on and on....
Some alarmist proclaimed global cooling in the 70's...More Kirk denial
Every single scientist next year could come out tommorow and say that AGW was politically motivated and Kirk would say that they are mistaken....
I know, I just was taking great pleasure in using his own links to blow holes in his doom and gloom ideas.
I see several posts below this one that i quoted where he is making fun of you saying AGW could be politically motivated. While I am not even going to bother reading them tonight, I will say that you are not wrong. One only has to read about the carbon credit trading plans to see that it clearly could be politically motivated. Not to mention that AGW could be used as a very clever way to bring government control into nearly every aspect of our lives. From how much we drive, how much power we use, to how much we breath for gods sake.
The fact that he laughs his off only shows his ignorance to the ways of the world, and the politics of the far left.
Scientists surprised by midwinter collapse of massive ice shelf
Email Print Normal font Large font Andrew Darby Hobart
July 12, 2008
Advertisement
EVEN the depths of winter are proving unable to halt the climate change-induced collapse of an Antarctic ice shelf.
When the Wilkins shelf began a runaway disintegration at the end of last summer, scientists thought it unlikely the collapse would continue through the pole's coldest months.
But satellite images show losses growing in recent days, so that at last sight, only a thin and fractured ice bridge held the bulk of the giant shelf in place. Its loss would put the rest of the 14,500- square-kilometre ice shelf at risk, the European Space Agency said.
The British Antarctic Survey's David Vaughan said the rate of break-up showed scientists were too conservative in the early 1990s when they predicted Wilkins would be lost in 30 years.
"The truth is it's going more quickly than we guessed," Dr Vaughan said.
The Wilkins is the largest of seven shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula to surrender their ice because of increased temperatures. Across the peninsula air temperature has risen an average of 2.5 degrees in 50 years, the greatest rise in the world.
The best-known ice shelf collapse so far was of Larsen B on the peninsula's east coast. Like all floating ice shelves, its 3250- square-kilometre loss did not raise sea level, but did unleash land-bound glacial ice behind.
A meeting of the international Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research in St Petersburg this week heard that 87% of the glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula were in retreat.
The Wilkins is also located much further south towards the great West Antarctic ice sheet than Larsen B. The loss of the West sheet would raise global sea level by five metres, and the St Petersburg meeting heard that one key glacier there is moving 40% faster than in the 1970s.
Scientists have been closely watching the unstable Wilkins for the past decade, and the initial loss of 570 square kilometres in a few days last February raised the alarm again.
US National Snow and Ice Data Centre research scientist Walter Meier forecast then that other weakened areas of the Wilkins would go, but said: "Things are freezing up, so that will probably be it for the year."
Commenting on the winter collapse, Australian glaciologist Neil Young said: "I wouldn't have predicted this. But these days I expect to be surprised."
ESA scientists said their images of a further 160 square kilometres breaking off in May were the first ever to document the phenomenon in winter. By this week, the images showed that 1350 square kilometres of the Wilkins had shattered into smaller floating ice pieces.
Dr Young, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC in Hobart, said summer melt water trickling down through the ice could be a cause, but also pointed to reduced sea ice and a later onset of ice cover.
"These are subtle differences in temperature," he said, "but the volumes of water are so great there is a large transport of heat."
Scientists surprised by midwinter collapse of massive ice shelf | theage.com.au
Yes, it's politics that are warming the earth.
Yes, it's politics that are warming the earth.
Sure thats what I said. NOT!! Man your deflections get more and more childish by the second. I think you are just trying to bury my post underneath as many posts as you can so nobody sees them. I also think you do not even read other peoples posts, and when you read your own links you pick and chose what you want to hear. You are really starting to look like a fool bud, Maybe it is past your bed time?
Politics....
Environmentalists believe that greenhouse emissions will cause global warming. The most important such gas is carbon dioxideproduced by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The U.S. delegation went to Kyoto pledging to cut these emissions to 1990 levels, but we soon yielded to environmental fanaticism by accepting an even stricter standard. (Al Gore and the U.S. press called this flexibility, showing how important control of the rhetoric really is.) Now we are committed to reducing gases to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012. Developing countries wisely did not sign on. If complied with immediately, the treaty would plunge the United States into a depression. Its drastic curbs on energy useperhaps reducing it by as much as one-thirdwould throw millions of people out of work. The real goal of the treaty is to give the federal government an excuse to raise taxes and to set stricter appliance and auto efficiency standards.
Its said that the Senate wont ratify, so dont worry. Indeed, before the conference the Senate voted unanimously that developing countries must sign on if the treaty is to be acceptable. But 130 countries did not do so, and, together, they are expected to cause over half the global emissions within a few years. In seeking peace with the environmentalists, then, the Clinton administration yielded to extremism, and after Kyoto it was difficult to find any politician on the record as supporting the treaty. It has the beneficial effect of reconstituting the old Reagan anticommunist coalition, including libertarians, labor rank and file, and conservatives of both neo and paleo stripe. Even Dick Gephardt refused to endorse the treaty as it stands. Its a work in progress, he said.
In brief, the science shows that most greenhouse gases are the work of nature, not of man; most of the tiny recorded rise in temperature in this century took place before World War II and contradicts current global warming theory.
Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - The Politics behind Global Warming
Gasp!
The "left" wants to control your life. They want you to drive a cleaner, more fuel efficient car.
Bastards!!!
Ah, I see you still will only deflect and make jokes. Yep a troll indeed. Keep posting BS I am sure you will succeed in burying everyones post but your own.
You view the attempt to control global warming as an attempt by "the left" to control your life. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.
You view the attempt to control global warming as an attempt by "the left" to control your life. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.
LOL, you are so good at deciding what I think from things I said, which are not at all what you say I think. I said there could be political reasons for people to support AGW views, I did not say I think that is the only reason, I only allowed for the possibility.
More pointless deflection from Kirk. Shocker.
You have still done nothing to dispute the Facts I posted about Ice Coverage at the north pole. Don't worry I wont hold my breath waiting for an actually post of substance from you.
