As I was scrapping the ice off my windshield this morning....

[dearhunter]

Let my mitochondria GO!!!!

..............and the last time I checked, ice displaced more volumn than water.....................and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by dearhunter

.....................and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The tip is all that is left "of the iceberg."

The rest has melted!

[nervousnewbie]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I was wondering if there was anyone left who still buys into man made Global Warming.

Well the Cap and Traitors crowd certainly wants us all to buy into it...

[Guest021010-2]

From the Washington Post, March 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030201712.html

"The ice sheet is losing mass at a significant rate," said Isabella Velicogna, the study's lead author and a research scientist at Colorado University at Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. "It's a good indicator of how the climate is changing. It tells us we have to pay attention."
ad_icon

Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said.

But Alley called the study significant and "a bit surprising" because a major international scientific panel predicted five years ago that the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass this century as higher temperatures led to increased snowfall.

"It looks like the ice sheets are ahead of schedule" in terms of melting, Alley said. "That's a wake-up call. We better figure out what's going on
."

Velicogna and her co-author, University of Colorado at Boulder physics professor John Wahr, based their measurements on data from the two GRACE satellites that circle the world more than a dozen times a day at an altitude of 310 miles. The satellites measure variations in Earth's mass and gravitational pull: Increases or decreases in the Antarctic ice sheet's mass change the distance between the satellites as they fly over the region.

"The strength of GRACE is that we were able to assess the entire Antarctic region in one fell swoop to determine if it was gaining or losing mass," Wahr said.

Admittedly, not all scientists are on board with these conclusions. From the same article I read,
"But some scientists remain unconvinced. Oregon state climatologist George Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict otherwise.

"The Antarctic is really a puzzle," said Taylor, who writes for the Web site TSCDaily, which is partly financed by fossil fuel companies that oppose curbs on greenhouse gases linked to climate change. "A lot more research is needed to understand the degree of climate and ice trends in and around the Antarctic."

But the coincidence of increasing droughts, expansion of major deserts on every continent, and the loss of primordial ice packs and shelfs occurring with the increased carbon emmissions in the last century ought not to be ignored.

The article concludes as follows:

"At the other end of the temperature spectrum, two South African researchers are reporting today in Science that their computer models indicate that by 2100 climate change may rob the south and west of Africa and areas in the upper Nile region of a significant portion of their current water supply. Warming may reduce the rainfall needed to replenish up to 25 percent of Africa's surface water, said Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz at the University of Cape Town in Rondebosch, South Africa.

"Water is essential to human survival," they wrote, "and changes in its supply can potentially have devastating implications, particularly in Africa, where much of the population relies on local rivers for water."

Photo surveys show that:
The snow has melted from Kilimanjaro.
The Greenland glaciers are retreating,
as are the snows of Yosemite, the Cascades, and how many other mountain ranges around the world.

All this is attributed to a mere 2-3d.F increase in the globe's atmosphere over the last century due to carbon emissions.

Warming is continuing. Things are not going to get better while this warming trend continues.

I would not advise buying coastal properties.

[dearhunter]

Originally Posted by bigtex

The tip is all that is left "of the iceberg."

The rest has melted!

Then someone needs to tell everyone the water level is dropping.

Where is all that damned ice at............didn't it cover half of our country not too long ago?

Wait, did it recede to what we have today?

Those asshole cavemen..........they must have been passing gas.

[Guest021010-2]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...ice/index.html
Scientists say the western Antarctic peninsula -- the piece of the continent that stretches toward South America -- has warmed more than any other place on Earth over the past 50 years, rising by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit each decade.
Scambos said the poles will be the leading edge of what's happening in the rest of the world as global warming continues. "Even though they seem far away, changes in the polar regions could have an impact on both hemispheres, with sea level rise and changes in climate patterns," he said.
News of the Wilkins ice shelf's impending breakup came less than two weeks after the United Nations Environment Program reported that the world's glaciers are melting away and that they show "record" losses. "Data from close to 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges indicate that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning more than doubled," the UNEP said March 16. The most severe glacial shrinking occurred in Europe, with Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier, UNEP said. That glacier thinned by about 10 feet in 2006, compared with less than a foot the year before, it said.”

I wonder how long people will continue to ignore the evidences?
I think I understand why some do. It is easier to hope it is a hoax or hyperbole.
It is daunting to consider the about face of lifestyles and economies and industry required worldwide if these disasters are to be averted.

It is not that the sky is falling.
The sky is slowly warming.
And the effects are becoming evident on every continent and in the oceans.
The changes and rate of change are not uniform everywhere, but generally increasing, accelerating.

But, the worst of it may not come in our lifetime (I am almost 60).

So, "What? Me worry?" -- Alfred E. Newman, c.1960

And friend, the tip of the iceburg visible above the waterline is the top 10-20%. The remaining mountain of ice is submerged. The 'burg that sank the Titanic ripped a hundred foot gash through its steel plate hull about 20 feet below the waterline, discovered in recent years by Bob Ballard and crew.

But I shall quit for the night, and for this thread.
I resign from the battlefield for the evening.
I have said too much for one night (and I can hear many AMENs).
There will be plenty of opportunities to reflect on events as they occur.

"Say Good night, Gracie." -- Geo. Burns
"Good night, Gracie." -- Gracie Allen (Mrs Geo. Burns)

rr

[dearhunter]

useless thread

Besides, who ever heard of "scrapping ice"?

[nervousnewbie]

And now for the other side of the story....

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...1-a92b4ebbccbf

The media is once again hyping an allegedly dire consequence of man-made global warming. This time the media is promoting the ice loss of one tiny fraction of the giant ice-covered continent and completely ignoring the current record ice growth on Antarctica. Contrary to media hype, the vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area. (LINK)



Former Weather Channel Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo rejected the hype surrounding the recent Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse in Western Antarctica. “The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. (LINK) “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.



Climate scientist Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, stated, “It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what's happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ‘no change’ or ‘cooling’ over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.”

I wonder how long the AGW proponents will continue to ignore the evidence.
I think I understand why some do. It's much easier to blame man than admit that it might just be natural earth cycles effecting temperature change.

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by nervousnewbie

I wonder how long the AGW proponents will continue to ignore the evidence.

for as long as the only places it appears are like Jim Inhofe's senate page

[Guest021010-2]

Good morning!
This has been fun.
"Say Good night, Gracie." -- Geo. Burns
"Good night, Gracie." -- Gracie Allen (Mrs Geo. Burns)

LTGTR!

rr

[dearhunter]

You keep saying that........................bu t, then you don't.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by nervousnewbie

And now for the other side of the story....




I wonder how long the AGW proponents will continue to ignore the evidence.
I think I understand why some do. It's much easier to blame man than admit that it might just be natural earth cycles effecting temperature change.

Actually, it's harder to raise taxes on natural earth cycles than it is to cap & tax the evil industrialists.

I don't know what the answer truly is, NOR do I believe that ANYONE else has conclusive scientific proof one way or the other. For every theory I hear there is one on the other side to contradict it and I don't understand 99% of what they are talking about anyway so I stay confused. But, I think they want it that way.

A few questions come to mind. If Krakatoa caused a year without summer then why did the Tunguska event cause temperatures to increase? They both filled the atmosphere with contaminants. Why would leading scientists in the field of GW put their reputations on the line by "cooking the books" regarding actual global temperatures. How warm was it between the "little ice age and the big one? Is it possible that the effects of global warming will bring about global cooling? That it really is cyclical? Will the dissappearance of the polar ice cap by 2050 really matter if we are hit by an asteroid in 2025?
Maybe that next celestial event will change everything and bring about the next major ice age.

Call me cynical, or in denial but I have a hard time accepting anyone's theories on this "crisis". Why? Follow the money?
Scientists are getting huge funding grants to both confirm and deny these theories. Large enough that it supports them and entire teams of scientists. Are they going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Not likely. So what do they do? Perpetuate the crisis or myth, as it were. Galileo, Capurnicus, Isaac Newton and even our buddy Ben Franklin would be turning over in their graves if they saw their passion being used to further political agendas.

Politicians and Scientists do not make good Bed Fellows.

[nervousnewbie]

Originally Posted by boardman

Actually, it's harder to raise taxes on natural earth cycles than it is to cap & tax the evil industrialists.

I don't know what the answer truly is, NOR do I believe that ANYONE else has conclusive scientific proof one way or the other. For every theory I hear there is one on the other side to contradict it and I don't understand 99% of what they are talking about anyway so I stay confused. But, I think they want it that way.

A few questions come to mind. If Krakatoa caused a year without summer then why did the Tunguska event cause temperatures to increase? They both filled the atmosphere with contaminants. Why would leading scientists in the field of GW put their reputations on the line by "cooking the books" regarding actual global temperatures. How warm was it between the "little ice age and the big one? Is it possible that the effects of global warming will bring about global cooling? That it really is cyclical? Will the dissappearance of the polar ice cap by 2050 really matter if we are hit by an asteroid in 2025?
Maybe that next celestial event will change everything and bring about the next major ice age.

Call me cynical, or in denial but I have a hard time accepting anyone's theories on this "crisis". Why? Follow the money?
Scientists are getting huge funding grants to both confirm and deny these theories. Large enough that it supports them and entire teams of scientists. Are they going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Not likely. So what do they do? Perpetuate the crisis or myth, as it were. Galileo, Capurnicus, Isaac Newton and even our buddy Ben Franklin would be turning over in their graves if they saw their passion being used to further political agendas.

Politicians and Scientists do not make good Bed Fellows.

Exactly the point. Nobody really knows these days whether it's man made or not and to take a Harum Scarum approach as the cap and traitors do is simply being far to premature in making informed decisions.

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by dearhunter

You keep saying that........................bu t, then you don't.

I know for damn sure RR LTGTR last tuesday w/ Miss Olivia!

[Guest013110-2]

Originally Posted by boardman

Scientists are getting huge funding grants to both confirm and deny these theories.

Politicians like Inhofe are getting larger political contributions from oil & gas, coal, utilities & the auto industry

Politicians and Scientists do not make good Bed Fellows.

indeed.

and a majority of politicians (at least in this country) are global warming deniers and the vast majority of scientists worldwide affirm the fact of global warming, the green house effect & human activity in causing it.