Opponents of Global Warming on Thin Ice, again.

FromArctic Ice on Track for Another All-Time Low | WIRED

quote:

---

The Northwest Passage is about to be ice-free for the second year in the row, as seen on satellite images released today by the European Space Agency. The less direct Amundsen Northwest Passage has already been passable for about a month.

​

Last September scientists were very concerned when the Arctic ice pack shrunk to its smallest size since satellite measurements began almost 30 years ago. This year the ice has already claimed the title of second smallest ice pack with three weeks of its melting season left to go.

​

Usually at this point in the season he melting rate would begin to slow, said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Data Center in Boulder Colorado. Instead it sped up.

---

Whether we cause any portion of this is irrelevant to the fact that this is occurring.The real cause for concern, imho, is not that there is less ice, but that methane storage is becoming unstable:

quote:

---

An AP article on the recent UN climate meetings in Ghana quotes Bill Hare, Greenpeace Climate Policy Director, as saying that there have been "alarming" reports in the past few days of methane "burps" in the Arctic as well. These latest reports from a Russian research vessel in the Arctic sea are consistent with concerns voiced in previous papers about the danger of warming releasing methane stored in Arctic permafrost and undersea gas hydrates. Methane is 23-25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and is found in great abundance in frozen reserves in the Arctic.

---

Methane is also stored in hydrates along the east coast and elsewhere. Sudden release of any significant amount of methane could have a long term effect on weather, the atmosphere, and relative survival of species.In the News forum pleaseEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum. The Creation/Evolution In The News forum is for evolution/creationism issues. This topic is pretty far from such.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Add quote and comment.

---

Actually the global warming folks are quite quiet these days, its not about the residual effects of the last cycle of the sun but the fact that the sun has been quiet too long into this present solar cycle of the sun.P.S. Don't appear much reason to worry about global warming unless you have evidence that the sun has become active again. Where are all the television adds Gore promised us about global warming? Why say he is going to run 300 millions dollars in adds during the presidential election and not follow thru unless realizes the suns dead face, record snowfalls, early winter supports the republicans talk of global cooling. Record snow falls last winter here in Wisconsin going back a century. Are we moving to a mini ice age due to the inactivity of the sun? Perhaps the answer is to burn more less expensive fossil fuel (coal) not less? Global cooling sounds kind of expensive given the high cost of fuel, and that Co2, methane burping has proven incapable of giving us a warmer winter last year. Winter also hit early last year (and only one year into this present suns inactive cycle) presently approximately 2 years into the sun inactivity as we move into the November election. I kind of wonder how long it will take before Gore will flip flop and start pushing global cooling ? We had global cooling in the 1970's global warming in the 1990's and now global cooling 2007 to ?Granted the Oceans are bit warmer due were at the end of the warming solar cycle that peaked in 2001. The big question are we moving into a more serious mini ice age? like what happened 1650-1700 a 50 year cooling event in the middle of the mini ice age ?++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2008) ” The sun has been lying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites.The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why."It's a dead face," Tsuneta said of the sun's appearance.Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/06/080609124551.htmEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

it's statements like this one that cause man-made global warming proponents to be perceived as totalitarian jihadists by a large percentage of the general public.Of course it bloody matters whether we cause it or not, as we have a government here that tries to squeeze every ounce of money and liberty we have left in the name of 'saving the planet'.So, yes, we'd really really like to know if we're causing this and to what extent. Otherwise it becomes just a pretext, like the burning of the Reichstag or 9/11.Edited by Legend, : languageEdited by Legend, : grammar

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Curiously, imho, the relevant (pragmatic?) questions, irrespective of how much we have contributed are:(1) is global warming occurring?(2) if yes, then is the result going to affect humans\life adversely?(3) if yes, then is there anything we can do to prevent\slow down the process?My personal opinion is that it is happening, but that life and people will survive. Certainly things will change as a result, but it may be more appropriate to spend time and energy on adapting rather than prevention.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

But surely, what we can do about it may depend, to some degree, on whether we are contributing to it or not.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Think of it this way - the population of the world at the beginning of the 20th century was 1.65 billion, now is a bit above 6.5 billion. Had we stayed at 1.65 billion people, the global warming(if caused by us) wouldn't have been happening so soon(maybe not at all). Nobody has ever seriously put the question -
HOW MANY HUMAN BEINGS CAN THIS PLANET SUSTAIN?
Really - how many? 5 billion? 50 billion? 300 billion?
We have really stopped natural selection by our medicine, by our technology we have lots of food for almost everyone, we have no living natural enemy in nature to control our population numbers, we are fighting death on multiple fronts(just think of all the illnesses that are not killing people nowadays). So if evolution and natural selection are stoppped now that they have been in place for more than a billion years and our species grows uncontrollably in population, WHY DO WE EXPECT ANYTHING LESS THAN TOTAL DEVASTATION? Why is it such a surprise in light of the fact that we there were less than 2000 homo sapiens in Tanzania two hundred thousand years ago and there are 6 600 000 000 homo sapiens now? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I think most people are in agreement that global warming is indeed occurring. A more appropriate question should then be "is man-made global warming occurring?" and, if yes, to what extent?If human contributions to global warming are negligible then there's absolutely no need to keep sacrificing money and liberties on the altar of 'saving the planet'.Our resources and energy would then be fully focused -like you rightly point out- on adaptation instead of on ideological witch-hunts and enrichment opportunities for the few. But first, we need to clear any doubts -one way or another- about the extent of our contribution to global warming. If we don't it will keep being used as just another government pretext for money-making and control of the masses.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Many more than you would like to live with, which is another side of the issue. Yes all human problems are really overpopulation problems (government growth, failure of infrastructure, etc).Another question is how many humans can life survive?But this is about global warming. Personally I don't think we will like the result, and we will be socially incapable of dealing with it without resorting to old solutions (war).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I think you have not given enought thought on how serious a problem over-population is. For reference, population analysts put the numbers of all human beings that have ever lived on the planet(read for more than a million years) at just below 20 billion. Of those 20 billion, more than 6.6 billion are living now(that's one third), at this very moment. Over-population means all these things:1. More polution on land, air and sea(read eco catastrophe)
2. More deforestation and the subsequent loss of plant and animal species( possible global warming)
3. More fresh water consumption(becoming a severe problem)Current projections show that we will probably be 9 billion 40 years from now.
So to sum it up, nature has the following major tools as of now to control the growth of our population:1. HIV
2. Cancer
3. Femine
4. War
5. Earthquakes
6. Bird flu(or new pandemic)
7. Shortage of fresh waterThe first 2 seem to be the biggest contributors but likely nature will lose against us on those 2 fronts. But as a whole, I don't envision a bright future in front of us. If the planet survived in a relative equilibrium for more than a billion years through which it supported life, that was because there were no humans(and more importantly no species showed signs of over population). But we, with our intelligence as the most powerful weapon in the whole animal world, could fend off all enemies, even natural selection and grow uncontrollably in numbers. If two hundred thousand years ago the Earth was in equillibrium with 2000 homo sapiens, could it be with 9 billion in 2050? Or 12 billion in 2100?I wonder what the creationsts think on the matter? We often forget that they have a very different outlook on the world. What would they suggest we do, since their god banned the use of condoms(Islam and Christianity)?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.