There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

That paper didn't really say that at all.

So did it say that the gulf stream is entirely responsible for Europes mild climate and without it we europeans are going to freeze to death?

Cos thats what the popular press says.

Science is science, religion is religion, politics is politics, and the popular press is entertainment. Don't confuse the issue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

That paper didn't really say that at all.

So did it say that the gulf stream is entirely responsible for Europes mild climate and without it we europeans are going to freeze to death?

Cos thats what the popular press says.

If that's what the popular press, and my overstated assertion, implies then it's incorrect. The gulf stream won't likely totally "shut down" but it will slow significantly enough to drop temps by a degree or so, like it did from about 1200 to 1850 AD when the current decreased by about 10%. Apparently temps dropped by about 1 deg C. As for reference sources I'd stick to the peer reviewed stuff.

[Amazon 7]

Face it we are quickly entering a new geologic period.

The Pleistocene( Ice Age) follows the Pliocene epoch and is followed by the Holocene( current) epoch.

The new period will be known as the WeShouldHaveSeen.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How come YOU couldn't stick to MY topic of ARCTIC sea ice instread of going off on a tangent about Antarctica? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2568721#2568721

You mean your "Topic" that consisted of your post (which was itself off-tangent) and two whole replies??? My "off tangent" reply was a direct response to one of those replies.

Are you working on your thread nazi merit badge?

Ha ha - I see you had to clip YOUR post to which this was my response in order to avoid an irony score of 10.

That isn't a clever tactic in a forum where the entire thread is open for all to read.

Keep trying, you'll get the hang of it eventually.

I didn't include it because it was irrelevant to your nonsensical reply. Perhaps you could point out the actual irony here instead of making bullshit, hollow claims.

Speaking of irony - it is funny that you come after me for going off tangent from "your topic", which was off tangent itself.

How's that merit badge coming along?

[billvon 2,380]

>There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about what will actually
>happen. Good, bad, warmer or cooler.

No, there's really not (the warmer/cooler issue.) With a constant, unchanging forcing going on, things are going to get warmer. The only real question is how rapidly. This theory has already been tested and found valid - in the 15 years since the first IPCC assessement, the climate HAS warmed as predicted.

There are indeed questions about whether it will be 'good or bad.' If you live in northern Canada (but not on permafrost) it will likely end up being good. A lot of forests will die, but you'll have more cropland. If you live in Bangladesh, and rising sea levels mean you have to move, it will end up being bad.

We know now that these things CAN happen when the planet warms up, and there is little doubt that that is happening.

>If the planet warms, say by 5°c over the next century will it matter if
>we can reduce that warming by 0.2 °c?

Probably not. But if we can reduce it by 2.5C? Probably worth it.

>Why should we spend trillions on reducing CO2 emissions if the
>warming is coming from somewhere else?

Because right now most of it isn't - so we have the opportunity to make a change. If we wait until 2050, and the permafrost all melts and gives up its methane, it will be too late.

The planet will end up getting warmer for the simple fact that we can't end human's use of carbon-based fuels completely. If the planet's temperature goes up 5C in the next 100 years, that will cause us a lot of pain. If it goes up 5C over 500 years, that's a lot more manageable. Those are the sorts of decisions facing us now.

A lot of people are taking the position "we don't know exactly what's going to happen, so let's change the climate as fast as we can." I think this is a mistake, even if it does make some people very, very rich.

[billvon 2,380]

>The edges of the artic are pulling back while the center is getting thicker.

Here's some information on that from the US Navy, NASA and the ESA (european space agency.) Note that the "center" ice you refer to is the perennial, or permanent, ice.


-----------------------------
Tuesday, 16 November, 1999, 16:55 GMT
Arctic sea ice gets thinner

All areas appear to be thinning

There has been a "striking" decline in the thickness of Arctic sea ice according to scientists who have studied data gathered by US Navy submarines.

The researchers say the average draught of the sea ice in the region has declined by 1.3 metres (4.3 ft) compared with the 1960s and 1970s. By draught they mean the difference between the surface of the ocean and the bottom of the ice pack - just like the draught of a boat.

This amounts to a 40% reduction, says Dr Andrew Rothrock of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, who report their findings in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

"We were very surprised by the amount of thinning," Dr Rothrock told BBC News Online. "We did not expect to see such a big signal."

Polar bears

The study fits with other work that has shown how the Arctic climate is changing. Research has already shown how Arctic ice is retreating and the impact this is having on wildlife. Only on Monday, Canadian scientists reported that the situation was threatening polar bears with starvation by shortening their hunting season.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NASA.gov:
Satellites See a Double-Texas Sized Loss In Arctic Sea Ice
09.28.05

Scientists using satellite data have confirmed that the amount of sea ice that floats in the chilly Arctic is much less than it used to be, and that's probably because of warmer Arctic temperatures.

Each year, during the month of September, the amount of sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean is typically at its lowest amount for the entire year. This year, and all the way back to 2002, the amount of sea ice has been 20 percent less than the average amount seen normally between 1979 and 2000.

. . .

For the perennial ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, especially during the summer period. This has not been the case over the last 20 years, as the satellite data show a warming trend in the Arctic, and it is not likely to be the case in the future, as climate models predict continued Arctic warming. Even if ice were to grow back in these areas, the new ice is often thinner and more susceptible to future melt, than the thick perennial ice that it replaces.

---------------------------------------------------------

from the ESA:
Svalbard area as seen by Envisat
Arctic summer ice anomaly shocks scientists

19 September 2006

Satellite images acquired from 23 to 25 August 2006 have shown for the first time dramatic openings – over a geographic extent larger than the size of the British Isles – in the Arctic’s perennial sea ice pack north of Svalbard, and extending into the Russian Arctic all the way to the North Pole.

Observing data from Envisat’s Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) instrument and the AMSR-E instrument aboard the EOS Aqua satellite, scientists were able to determine that around 5-10 percent of the Arctic’s perennial sea ice, which had survived the summer melt season, has been fragmented by late summer storms. The area between Spitzbergen, the North Pole and Severnaya Zemlya is confirmed by AMSR-E to have had much lower ice concentrations than witnessed during earlier years.

Mark Drinkwater of ESA’s Oceans/Ice Unit said: “This situation is unlike anything observed in previous record low ice seasons. It is highly imaginable that a ship could have passed from Spitzbergen or Northern Siberia through what is normally pack ice to reach the North Pole without difficulty.

"If this anomaly trend continues, the North-East Passage or ‘Northern Sea Route’ between Europe and Asia will be open over longer intervals of time, and it is conceivable we might see attempts at sailing around the world directly across the summer Arctic Ocean within the next 10-20 years."

During the last 25 years, satellites have been observing the Arctic and have witnessed reductions in the minimum ice extent – the lowest amount of ice recorded in the area annually – at the end of summer from around 8 million km² in the early 1980s to the historic minimum of less than 5.5 million km² in 2005, changes widely viewed as a consequence of greenhouse warming.

Satellite observations in the past couple of years have also shown that the extent of perennial ice is rapidly declining, but this strange condition in late August marks the first time the perennial ice pack appears to exhibit thinner and more mobile conditions in the European sector of the Central Arctic than in earlier years.
-----------------

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because by using clean renewable resources for power we will cut back on CO2 emissions AND all those things that are emitted with it, mercury being one of them.

I say why should we spend millions cutting back on CO2 ...
You answer, because we can cut back on CO2

Lets spend millions on cutting back on reality TV shows. Why? Because we can

I thought that the benefits of cutting back on baby stupifying heavy metal pollution (no, not Twisted Sister....which is really not metal but I digress) and increasing energy efficiency were obvious. Apparently not.
But I'm with you on the reality show idea. They're worse for your brain that mercury and we get no real benefit in return.

And I am with you on the mercury number. Even if it means we will never see Freddie again.

But CO2 has not harmed any babies that I know of.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How come YOU couldn't stick to MY topic of ARCTIC sea ice instread of going off on a tangent about Antarctica? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2568721#2568721

You mean your "Topic" that consisted of your post (which was itself off-tangent) and two whole replies??? My "off tangent" reply was a direct response to one of those replies.

Are you working on your thread nazi merit badge?

Ha ha - I see you had to clip YOUR post to which this was my response in order to avoid an irony score of 10.

That isn't a clever tactic in a forum where the entire thread is open for all to read.

Keep trying, you'll get the hang of it eventually.

I didn't include it because it was irrelevant to your nonsensical reply. Perhaps you could point out the actual irony here instead of making bullshit, hollow claims.

Speaking of irony - it is funny that you come after me for going off tangent from "your topic", which was off tangent itself.

How's that merit badge coming along?

OK let's explain in simpler terms. In several threads now (this one included) you have complained about people going off on tangents to YOUR posts. However, you are just as much an offender as anyone else. So I just gave you some of your own back.

It's easy, really, you'll get the hang of it in the end.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

OK let's explain in simpler terms. In several threads now (this one included) you have complained about people going off on tangents to YOUR posts. However, you are just as much an offender as anyone else. So I just gave you some of your own back.

It's easy, really, you'll get the hang of it in the end.

Is this the college teacher version of "I know you are but what am I"?

I notice you didn't offer anything to support your silly claim involving my clipping a post. Could it be that your claim was bullshit?

You say I complained about people going off tangent to my posts in this thread. Where?

What seems to be a lack of understanding between normal thread drift versus various forms of red herrings and other diversions is really sad.

[rushmc 18]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

This relates to many of your posts.


Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

See also:
The Gods must be laughing
A sample of experts’ comments about the science of “An Inconvenient Truth”:
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,380]

From the article:

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."

Simply untrue. See attached.

"In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

True. The greenhouse effect from all that CO2 is what reversed the "snowball earth" we had for tens of thousands of years. The fact that volcanic CO2 emissions reversed what otherwise would have been a permanent deep freeze is one of the strongest arguments that CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.

"The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier. In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Of course. In this case, an entire ice shelf broke off. Naturally scientists didn't have much in the way of warning, so there's no video of the event.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

True. And newer studies show the same warming trend. In 2006, the permanent ice at the North Pole itself melted for the first time. That's one of the problems with making claims like "the arctic ice isn't melting all that much" - with the planet getting steadily warmer, it's just a matter of time before you are proven wrong.

But if you don't believe the evil secular liberal scientist from NASA/the US Navy/the European Space Agency, just ask the residents of Barrow or Shishmaref, Alaska, who may soon have to move because their coast is no longer protected by ice most of the year.

That's why the deniers are bound to fail in the end. Not because people listen to scientists instead of politicans and activists, but because they believe what they see when they look out their windows.

"Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean. . ."

This is precisely what you'd expect to happen as the planet warms. Circulation patterns change; ocean currents shift. Some places get warmer, some places get cooler. Some places see more rain, some see less. Overall, the planet gets warmer, but local variations can be _much_ higher.

"Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual." "

This ignores the fact that the AVERAGE was higher. That's what's important.

"Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism."

That's funny coming from him! He's the guy who:

1. claimed global warming stopped in 1998 (he's the guy you copied your thread title from) and that average global surface temperature has been falling for the last 6 years.

2. then after 2005 proved him wrong, claimed that the planet may be warming, but it's a good thing since it will help plants grow

3. now admits that "there is indeed a small, statistically significant trend."

4. is a member of the Institute for Public Affairs, an activist group funded by Exxon-Mobil.

One of the two is certainly a well-funded activist for a major industry.

The paper states "We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change." If they really believe that, we should surely ignore geologists like Bob Carter, and instead listen to climatologists.

[rushmc 18]

Look, I know you and will not agree on this one yet. My point is however is this is not a done deal I believe the jury will be back in on this one in the next 2 to 4 years. I will keep reading and learning. You are keenly aware that I lean toward not believing man has the impact some say, but I can change my mind.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

As for the cow farts, we could always eat less beef.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE a good tenderloin, but I do know that I could and should eat less of it. I need to eat more veggies, they're better for you and they take up much less energy to produce than a steak. I think it takes about 16 lbs of veggies to produce 1 lb of steak and that doesn't take into account the amount of water or fossile fuels involved in producing/delivering the meat. Small collective changes in lifestyle can make a big difference.

Let us know when you get on board!

[billvon 2,380]

>My point is however is this is not a done deal I believe the jury
>will be back in on this one in the next 2 to 4 years.

Perhaps. The first IPCC made its predictions 15 years ago; they've come true. Will the trend reverse itself in the next 2 to 4 years? It would be great news if it did - but I suspect it won't. I guess we will wait and see.

Question for you - if the next 2 to 4 years shows similar increases in CO2 (i.e. 4ppm per year or so) similar warming trends (i.e. .2C/decade) and similar environmental effects (i.e. continued melting of the arctic icecap) would you then agree that this is a problem we should consider working on?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>My point is however is this is not a done deal I believe the jury
>will be back in on this one in the next 2 to 4 years.

Perhaps. The first IPCC made its predictions 15 years ago; they've come true. Will the trend reverse itself in the next 2 to 4 years? It would be great news if it did - but I suspect it won't. I guess we will wait and see.

Question for you - if the next 2 to 4 years shows similar increases in CO2 (i.e. 4ppm per year or so) similar warming trends (i.e. .2C/decade) and similar environmental effects (i.e. continued melting of the arctic icecap) would you then agree that this is a problem we should consider working on?

First of all I don't believe the ice is melting as you say today ( I know it is melting in places but the cause and affect are being exagerated IMO) That being said howerver, I will consider anything. But I will need more info than the flawed models used today can provide. I admit it would be a tought change for me, but not impossible.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[speedy 0]

Quote

In 2006, the permanent ice at the North Pole itself melted for the first time.

Really? First time?

See attached.

There seems to be quite a bit of water there.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 18]

Hhmmm, more bad news for the GW alarmists??

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/avery121606.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,380]

Look at how easy it was to kick over those global warming alarmist straw men! There wasn't much to them at all.

A few points from the article:

"The big Goddard Space Institute climate model found that without melt-water from the huge mile-thick ice sheets that covered Canada and Northern Europe during the Ice Age, the Atlantic currents showed a safe and sane linear response to further warming."

That's like saying "if you assume no earthquakes, fires or pollution, studies show living in California is safer than living anywhere else in the US."

The problem IS meltwater. Without it there's no problem; he agrees with most climatologists on that issue. Unfortunately, that dang greenland ice won't stay frozen for some reason.

"Remember, too, that hundreds of research studies in recent decades have found a moderate, natural 1500-year climate cycle that explains the earth’s pre-industrial 0.5 degree C warming from 1850 to 1940, and may also explain much of the very modest 0.2 degree C net warming since 1940."

Wow, sounds like global warming isn't much to worry about after all! Except that the earth has actully warmed by .45C from 1940 to 2005. (see attached.) But if you ignore that - all is well.

Some background on the author:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery

[Andy9o8 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html

Quote

Ancient ice shelf snaps, breaks free from Canadian Arctic

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.

The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north.

Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers)

Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.

"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.

In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html

Quote

Ancient ice shelf snaps, breaks free from Canadian Arctic

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.

The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north.

Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers)

Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.

"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.

In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.

Once again, my postition is not one stating the climate in not changing. The climate changes continually. My position is man is not the cause.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Cattle farts are a major contributor to global warming.

-

[livendive 8]

Quote

Cattle farts are a major contributor to global warming.

That is true. And do you think there'd be as many cattle in the world if we didn't raise them for food?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Cattle farts are a major contributor to global warming.

That is true. And do you think there'd be as many cattle in the world if we didn't raise them for food?

Blues,
Dave

I'm not sure. I'd have to compare the cubic ft. per year of methane from cattle farts to those of buffalo.

-

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cattle farts are a major contributor to global warming.

That is true. And do you think there'd be as many cattle in the world if we didn't raise them for food?

Blues,
Dave

I'm not sure. I'd have to compare the cubic ft. per year of methane from cattle farts to those of buffalo. -

I've been in Buffalo. It's pretty shitty. No shortage of methane there.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html

Quote

Ancient ice shelf snaps, breaks free from Canadian Arctic

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.

The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north.

Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers)

Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.

"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.

In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.

Once again, my postition is not one stating the climate in not changing. The climate changes continually. My position is man is not the cause.

Do you think human activity had anything to do with the ozone "hole" over he Antarctic?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.