|Ward Hunt Ice Shelf RIP||PdxMark|
Sep 23, 2003 12:45 AM
|Here's the recent news about the break-up of the ice shelf:
And here's an interesting USGS article with some historical context.
Apparently, it's not all that big an ice shelf (a floating glacier attached to land) compared to the giant antarctic ones (which are also breaking up), but it's interesting to watch the fabled Northwest Passage begin to open up our lifetimes.
There can is no scientific debate about the world getting warmer. Of course, we can quibble about whether CO2 emissions are having much of an effect. So let's study the issue for a few more years as GW BuSh suggests so that we can eliminate all possible (creationist) doubt about whether CO2 emissions have an effect. With a little more BuSh scientific inquiry, they might even be able to determine whether smoking causes cancer.
|Cancer is caused by the genetic pre-disposition to smoke...||rwbadley|
Sep 23, 2003 12:29 PM
|I saw that on Fox news the other day...|
|Ahhh, those RJR execs testifying to Congress WERE right... nm||PdxMark|
Sep 23, 2003 3:29 PM
|What is it about this country?||Fr Ted Crilly|
Sep 23, 2003 4:44 PM
|Is it only in the U.S. that there is a sizable number of people who don't link global warming and CO2 emissions?
I'm not aware of any Brits or Irish, (the two countries I'm familiar with), and who don't link the two. That's not to say that there aren't any Brits or Irish who refuse to accept this notion, but the vast majority of people do link the two and want something done about it. What is it about this country, (the U.S.) that so many want to see irrefutable proof before they will accept something has to be done? Does the belief in cheap gas and economic growth over-rule absolutely everything else?
|Good point and I am consistantly amazed by many...||rwbadley|
Sep 23, 2003 9:11 PM
|of the views and opinions expressed by folks.
The link would appear to be irrefutable, yet there are those that will state we need more study until every remaining alternate reason for climate change is exhausted.
While not taking our freedoms here for granted, I take issue with the particular statement of "It's my money, if I want to use it to buy a huge resource wasting mode of transport, it's my right" This always pains me.
I maintain the US is setting an example of global enviro-terrorism and should be issued a citation of warning, followed by time in the stockade for further non-compliance.
We imagine ourselves doing a favor to all by creating aspirations to attain the effluent lifestyle on a global scale. We have more autos than people here in the States...wait 'til the world is the proud owner of seven billion Fords.
|There's knowing there's a link, and there's caring about it...||TJeanloz|
Sep 24, 2003 5:23 AM
|I don't deny that there's a link between CO2 and global warming. I just don't care. I believe it is just as perposterous to try to maintain the Earth's climate in some static range as it is to unwittingly change it. The climate on the Earth has changed many times over the eons, and it will continue to change.
I really couldn't care less about global warming, because I don't see its negative outcomes.
|ahh the voice of reason||MJ|
Sep 24, 2003 5:37 AM
|with that kind of logic just think of all the ridiculous things you could justify
please grab hold of the reigns the horses seemed to have escaped
|Proove the link and perhaps more people will embrace it||Kristin|
Sep 24, 2003 5:47 AM
|I have not seen one truly conclusive peice of evidence that CO2 Emmisions are affecting anything more than a few hundred feet up. They suspect it yes, but have not demonstrated it yet. It is not foolishness to be skeptical of something that is only theory. It has nothing to do with religious belief--it has to do with intelligence.
The vast majority of geologists agree that the earth experiences warming and cooling trends. We call the cooling trends "Ice Ages." There is evidence of several of those, correct? And so far, no one knows what causes these trends. Perhaps all the machines that they were running on the planet during the last idusturial revolution sparked a global warming event that wiped out the entire planets enhabitance? Okay. If that happened, then evidently, the earth was able to heal itself. Global warming is still a theory. I'm waiting for something more conclusive before I treat it as fact, panic and stop using plastic.
|Here's what NOAA says...||PdxMark|
Sep 24, 2003 9:37 AM
|Part of the trick clearly is to distinguish natural warming trends form man-made ones. Not to say that this applies to you, but sceptics about global warming, like creationists in discussions about evolution, or tobacco executives in discussions about cancer from smoking, like to hang onto a responsible acknowledgement of possible uncertainty as a refutation of massive consistent data.
Most Republicans dismiss global warming as being CO2 related not because they've considered the conflicting studies, but rather because it's part of the GOP platform. Proof is not the issue. Political posturing for special interests is.
Here is some info from NOAA. It identifies a significant warming trend within the past 1000 years as occurring since the 1920's, and acknowledges that the world is not the warmest it's been over tens of thousands of years. The problem with the current trend is that they can't explain it based on solely natural effects. Identifying a correlation between an incongruous warming trend and an increase in CO2 emmissions is one way to show proof of the connection.
Dramatic global warming has occurred since the 19th century.
The recent record warm temperatures in the 1990's are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years.
The latest peer-reviewed paleoclimatic studies appear to confirm that the global warmth of the 20th century may not necessarily be the warmest time in Earth's history, what is unique is that the warmth is global and cannot be explained by natural forcing mechanisms.
|But 1,000 years is a speck of the earths history,||TJeanloz|
Sep 24, 2003 9:54 AM
|In the context of something a couple of billion years old, taking 1,000 years of data doesn't really seem reasonable to me. You're talking about data that encompasses a tiny fraction of the earth's history, and isn't even normally distributed. It doesn't even cover all of human history. I find it hard to believe that climactic changes can be entirely encompassed in a 1,000 year segment.|
|The second link discusses climate events 125K & 120M yrs ago||PdxMark|
Sep 24, 2003 12:19 PM
|in trying to distinguish short term (1000 yr) and longer term (millions of yrs) issues. Of course, the earth is a few billion yrs old, but people have been here for just 2-3 million yrs. (Or 10,000 according to some scholars.) I think an incongruous swing in climate over an 80 yr span of the 3 million year history of our species is something worth serious consideration.|| |