Climate change, melting Arctic clearly linked: study

The fact is not all are shrinking, and no 100% fact clearly conlcude that MAN is directly responsible for any of the shrinking vs. any other plausible cause/effect. That's the point of my post....nothing is conclusive when it comes to MAN's impact. The scientific community is clearly debating this back and forth.

 

anthropogenicalogically speaking

 

If you have the time to do so, please read the link from the site in Norway. It explains fairly well why a small percentage of their glaciers remained steady or grew slightly 4 years ago and why many are now receding.

 

Also, there is rarely anything in science considered to be 100%

 

Very true.

 

Me senses another inside joke in the magnitide of "Juan Huron", and "Thanks Section".

 

how is it known our climates are similar out of curiousity?

 

Not really. If there are say, 1000 glaciers, and 10 of them are growing, while 900 of them are shrinking, then following your logic, there's no problem, because 1000 out of 1000 are not shrinking.

I'd be really interested to see the books on the research that turns up "no problems" when it comes to the climate. Who's funding it?

But even if the research is legit, on both sides, then all we know for 100%, is that we (mankind) may or may not have an impact on the climate. Either way, isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

I really question the motives of the "against" side of this argument. The against side either values convenience or money over safety, and that stance has rarely ended well. Just take a dip in the Hudson.

 

forget the 100% that was for emphasis only.......there is zero (more emphasis) evidence that MAN's enfluence is the deciding factor here.

i just dont like the FOR side shouting the sky is falling either.

 

Actually, there appears to be at least some evidence. Global temperature rise can be charted against CO2 levels in the atmosphere.



http://earth.rice.edu/activities/earthupdate/activities/EU07_CO2andTemp.pdf

More information for you if you care to check it out:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html

 

Hardly.

Ask yourself why there's just as much research saying we are a factor, as there is that says we're not? To categorically deny we are a factor based on research that has equally compelling research against it, is a bit silly.

There is enough on both sides to at least merit consideration of both. Since that is the case, what the heck would it hurt to err on the side of caution?

 

By drilling out deep ice cores in areas like Greenland. Isotope concentrations in the ice layers can reconstruct temperatures, and the trapped air bubbles are essentially the air from that time period. Lots of other climate and geologic tell tales too.

 

Ya, sorry, I should have made myself more clear.. Didnt mean to give the impression that I was responding to your post directly.. Your comment just reminded me of some arguments that I was hearing on the radio that I have been wanting to respond to..

 

I'm not saying that you are wrong, although I feel you are, but given that our very small sampling compaired to the Earth's age doesn't give me goose bumps as to the accuracy of it. Plus when you realize that there are other things we can do which will have much more impact and improve our lives such as: getting off oil, housing for the poor, curing cancer, improve our school system, and on and on.

 

yeah I figured thats how, just misread you, I thought you were contradicting yourself. my mistake.

 

None of which will matter at all if we are living on waterworld in a few decades.. Or a better scenario, if the increasingly out of whack climate kills off certain important plant and wildlife (such as the bee... ala Einstein's attirbuted comment)..

I still don't understand the "benefit" of NOT erring on the side of caution on this issue.. Honestly, what is the benefit you receive from not taking measures to decrease our CO2 output?

 

That is factually not true.

Not even close to being true. "massive amounts"? come on. 0.117% is not a massive amount.

 

It is massive when you consider that CO2 levels in the atmosphere should not be that high. To put it into perspective, we are talking about ~ 6 BILLION METRIC tons a year that is not recycled by the biosphere, especially when you consider that is being added annually at the current rate.

 

To not debate what you or I may or may not consider "massive" or the fact that we do cause these levels of emissions...

BUT...

what do you think we can do about it that would be meaningful without destroying our economy and/or our way of life?

 

It takes one nano gram to tip the balance between life and death at some point so considering what is massive is moot, bro.

We can do much

-- we can find ways to reduce our carbon footprint

-- we can take personal responsibility for conserving energy

-- we can invest in carbon neutral energy such as wind, sun and nuclear energy

-- we can demand that coal plants recycle and scrub their CO2 waste

-- we can stop cutting down forests at a greater rate than is being replaced

You know all of this bro.


Potential sea level rises of 20+ feet will dramatically alter our way of life as will the release of hundreds of cubic miles of methane hydrate. If the ice sheets melt and sea temperature rise to a point where even a small percentage of methane hydrate is solubilized, there will be a catastrophic effect on life as we know it.

Not doing anything is just plain silly.

 

One of my favorite quotes on this issue......

 

Errrr on the side of caution argument is a slippery slope.....

Same side as the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS crowd, the Every Kid gets a TROPHY crowd, and on and on and on.

 

We can do all of that and will probably do all of that, and we would still not know if we can slow down Global Warming at all.

But I agree in the macro sense.

 

dont worry, it wont end, they will ask to do more, and more, and more, and more....and we still wont know!

But lets continue to demand to Errrrr!

 

No bro. It is the same side of the argument as "don't check your fuel level with a lit match". Granted, it may not blow up but why take the chance.

 

Funny line, but its nothing close to that!

P.S. the more I read what you wrote, it seems you really just dissed yourself and clarified what your side of the argument is! LOL....funny! (hahahaah...maybe I should agree with you with your comment)

 

Pardon?

I have not hidden the fact that I believe that there are risks that we are better off not taken. I do defend positions I offer.

Please, at least try to stick to the topic.

 

Huh??

I pointed out that I think the MAN is causing the Arctic to melt argument and those with likeminds is coming from the same crowd that demands POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and Every Kid gets a TROPHY crowd, and on and on and on.

You countered yet stated:

No bro. It is the same side of the argument as "don't check your fuel level with a lit match". Granted, it may not blow up but why take the chance.

Sorry, I found that funny and an enjoyable slip of the thought process. It implies an attempted correction yet a bigger diss against your own side.

Oh, well, it loses something when you have to break it down. Anyhow, no harm meant by me! Cant we all just get along?

 

It absolutely does not but thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

Whatever.

There's a huge chasm of difference between saying, "After looking at both sides, that each have facts, that it is better to err on the side of caution", then "Every kid deserves a trophy". So vast is this difference, it really calls into question your motivation for saying it.

Let me ask you, do you go inside when its lighting?

The odds of being struck by lightning are very small, especially, when compared to the history of humanity, and how many people have been struck. It can even be inconvenient, to go inside, when its lighting, because you might have been doing something you wanted to do at the time.

You also seem to be making the argument, that the side for man's interference, has something to gain by their claims. Which would imply, that your side doesn't. Hardly. Who's really making money off this issue, by making their stance? Me or Exxon/Mobile? Celtkin or BP/Hess?

 

Here are some excellent videos that explore global dimming that were aired on NOVA:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkJUJ5-PL-0[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsDNmDyPLDk[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC4PR24BIc8[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37SAFkvz6uY[/ame][ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37SAFkvz6uY"][/ame]

Sorry, the last part is missing but it covered the release of methane hydrate due to a rise in global temperatures by ~6 degrees Celsius.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow[/ame]

 

Sometimes you just have to remove the science from it all for it to make sense.