I think you're missing the point here, the IPCC's research shows that human activity HAS affected this dynamic equilbrium. No one is discounting the fact that there is a natural cycle.Quote by: Pale RIder
I think you're missing the point here, the IPCC's research shows that human activity HAS affected this dynamic equilbrium. No one is discounting the fact that there is a natural cycle.
[b]War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is strength
Things are changing. I am not the sort of person that will just assume that it work out for the best for humanity. Forewarned is forearmed.
Starboy
First, Greenland's glaciers generally flow directly into the ocean. Coastal ice build-up slows that flow through blockage. If coastal ice melts ... the glacier advances more quickly, i.e. it slides more quickly down its path. That does not mean that it is growing, merely that it's sliding faster, like an ice cube on a warm surface.
Second, yes the Gulf Stream may well be cut off, and if the your handle has an upper-case 'I' because you live in Rhode Island, you'd better hope this doesn't happen. If it does, though, it could happen very quickly indeed and would be perfectly in keeping with global warming since it would result from a massive flow of meltwater entering the North Atlantic from the Arctic and forming a layer over the warm (but much saltier and therefore heavier) Gulf Stream, thus arresting the "global thermohaline circulation" that keeps northern Europe (and eastern North America) so warm. This last happened 8,200 years ago precisely because of glacial melt. And it was fast and it was devastating.
As for the rest of your post, I don't know where you got most of this information from. For Switzerland you cite one (lone) glacier, the Silvretta. I know this glacier personally and it's shrinking, trust me. But no need to: as the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland's leading newspaper, reported last year, she's a-shrinkin' along with all the others. I can see this happening with my own eyes.
Your data on Norway is seven years old and states (as I suggested in my previous post) that the growth is due to increased local precipitation, which will make any glacier grow -- over the short term.
As for the rest of the world, Kilimanjaro's glacier has almost disappeared, etc. etc. etc. Yes, you can dredge up a few exceptions (that prove the rule...) but the idea that the world's glaciers aren't melting, or that a cut-off of the Gulf Stream would be anything other than the result of a warming climate is wishful thinking.
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne
Perhaps you are not aware of what was removed from the IPCC report after the peer review...perhaps you aren't aware that most of the signatories of the IPCC report withdrew their support after they learned that the report was altered after peer review...
Here is some of what was removed...
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, 'we do not know.'"
"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments upward or downward."
"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 1
"Changes to the "˜Summary for Policymakers' are only approved by a fraction of the lead and contributing authors, not the full body of authors of the WG1 report."
"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 5
"The "Summary for Policymakers" reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for uncertainty, and a stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policy makers on the document.
"Climate Change Science" Report, Page 5
Then there was an addition to chapter 8 after peer review...as follows..
"The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate."
Dr. Ben Santer, the lead author for the IPCC's Chapter 8, admits making the scientifically insupportable changes which reversed the chapter's meaning. He did it at the behest of senior State Department officials. (Read: Vice President Al Gore and former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth, then Undersecretary of State.) Santer was a U.S. government employee with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The IPCC's most recent published report (2001) wiped out a thousand years of the world's known climate history. It prominently published a temperature "history" welded together by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia that claimed the Medieval Warming (800 to1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850) never happened. Mann claimed that world temperatures had been virtually stable for the thousand years before 1900.
Two Canadian statistical experts who have studied Mann's original data say he illegitimately snipped off at least two key data series that undercut his case for temperature stability, and invented "fill" data. Correcting Mann's data unmasks a Medieval period warmer than today.
In short Pooeypants...the IPCC report, as represented by the UN is bogus...it is at best sloppy science, and if you ask me deliberate fraud is a better description..
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.
I'm guessing you posted that from an online source, link please? Also, can you tell me what reason is there for global warming to be promoted? Alot of big corporations would face losing money by having to adhere to strict gas emission allowances etc.
[b]War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is strength
Not a problem...
http://www.sepp.org/ipcccont/Item06.htm
http://www.his.com/~sepp/ipcccont/item05.htm
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...tered%22&hl=en
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../nov_18_03.htm
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publi...p/102/102b.pdf
This is not new, nor obscure knowledge...it has just never been picked up by the mainstream media..for obvious reasons. The full text of the original report and the report as altered for the policy makers is available...
Why would global warming be promoted?..is that a real question? There are hundreds of thousands of people (quite possibly millions) across the globe, who earn their daily bread by the fact that you are afraid that it is happening, and we have something to do with it. The left is quick to point to evil corporations, but the promotion of global warming is an enormous, highly profitable, global industry. Much larger in fact that any single corporation, and larger than the top 8 or 10 combined...now, you tell me why the global warming community would not want to create as much anxiety over global warming as possible...the more anxiety, the more money...
Last edited by Pale RIder; 24th February 2005 at 06:22 AM.
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.
Why are his references from 1995 and 1996?
Also 1996.
This one is 1998. I thought you were talking about the 2001 reports? I've not paid attention to the older 1996 version.
Slightly more up to date. I see no references made to scientific papers/journals, nor references to a reliable news source. mmm, still, you got to give the guy some credit;SourceWhile he readily draws on published research, Avery is known to be fast and loose with the facts¾ distorting them to fit his positions. This was abundantly clear in February's 20/20 debacle where he claimed organic agriculture had no research to back its claims and that it was simply "bad for the environment." (Avery made specific mention of conventional agriculture's usage of synthetic nitrogen, touting it as an "environment saving miracle."
S Fred Singer again, same guy as that wrote the first few sources based on the older 1996 IPCC report.
Err, I see a couple of guys making same claims without much evidence. Even if they were correct and report was edited, it does not refute the hundreds of independently submitted scientific papers which had concluded that Global Warming is artificially affected.
That reminds me of the Global Terrorism situation...
However, I'd like to see your claims presented in more depth. Which companies are benefitting, do they really rival that of all the Oil energy companies out there? Come on, let's have some reason up to date sources on this.
[b]War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is strength
Yes, humour us, PR, by being a tad more specific about those hundreds of thousands so gainfully employed in this gargantuan industry. How does it work exactly? (Honestly, I have no idea.)
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne
You might start with every NGO involved in global warming that operates on either grant money, or donations by scared/concerned private citizens...those people's daily bread depends upon maintaining a certain level of anxiety.
Then you can start looking at scientists, scientist's staff, scientist's book keepers, etc, who depend upon grant money, either government or private for their daily bread...
Are you asking me to actually give you a list of names?..if so, is it because you aren't familiar with standard research techniques, or is it because you are just too lazy to look for yourself?
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.
Too lazy to look myself, naturally. :p
Also, I'm familiar with the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the oil companies, the auto companies, etc. etc. etc. and the huge armies of scientists they employ to publish "their" findings, just like the tobacco companies of old. Of course, sucking on the corporate tit, well, that's science, ain't it?
So, PR, who do you suppose has the resources to out-lobby whom?
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne
PR is being disingenuous. He has admitted that the earth is warming. When the house is on fire that is not the time to try to figure out who started it. You do your best to put it out. All I can say is that the environmentalists have way more credibility than their detractors. It is only recently that those detractors have started admitting that anything is happening at all. They have been in either deep self denial or deception. They have established that their self interests are counter productive to the well being of the planet.
Starboy
What is the matter with you Global Warming Worriers?
Hasn’t science clearly demonstrated that Earth’s temperature undergoes continual variations?
Evidence now indicates that the world has warmed a little over the last century…
SO WHAT?…If it wasn’t heating up it would be cooling down.
Why do you interpret this particular variation as being due to human activity when human activity has clearly had no role in all the earlier variations? It’s not as if something strange is happening now.
Earth must have buffer mechanisms that prevent lethal extremes of hot and cold. If it didn’t, then life would have become extinct at some stage during the last 4,500,000,000 years, and we wouldn’t be here discussing it now.
As I pointed out in a previous post, massive quantities of carbon dioxide have been emitted by volcanoes throughout history., but very little of this CO2 has stayed in the air.
Where did it go?…The answer is that you are it!!
Carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants and converted into vegetation . Animals eat the vegetation and the carbon becomes animal matter. Molluscs and plankton convert CO2 into calcium carbonate. When every living thing craps or dies, it leaves some solid carbon in the earth..
Life greedily sucks up CO2 from the air, and this is why it’s concentration in the air is so low.
There is no reason I can think of why this should suddenly stop. The current emissions of CO2 will therefore be quickly absorbed by expanding populations, and become flesh,, vegetation, shells etc.
CO2 emission will therefore lead to life becoming more abundant, and to me, this seems good.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks