The Great Arctic Thaw

[100meters]

[quote]John S. wrote:
What is it that every generation has to have some sort of world ending disaster that never ends up being true. Anyone want to do some research about what these experts where saying 40 years ago? Or anyone want to explain the Middle ages and how they had higher temps then we do know, was it all the SUV’s they where driving back then causing it?[/quote]

I’ll be glad to explain the Middle ages, but as to how they had higher temps than we do now… I’m obligated to point out…you made this up. Temps are higher now. (Hence the concern!?)

But god the suv joke would have been hilarious if you knew what you were talking about.

[100meters]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.

The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.

So you only see 2 options:
Either carbon emissions don’t have any effect AT ALL
OR, the slightest carbon emission has a devestating effect.

You don’t believe there’s a middle ground. You don’t believe we can reduce emissions to a level that can be sustained by nature.

That’s stupid, even by your standards.

And why do you pretend there is no middle ground?

Could it be that this is convenient? That it allows you to carry on? That it allows you to pretend that it can’t be helped?

Hmmmm ? ? ?

There is absolutely no middle ground in this. If global warming is due to human CO2 emissions we have to stop burning fossil fuels for 50 to 100 years in order to get the planet back in line. It may actually be too late if the alarmists are correct.

If global warming is not due to human CO2 emissions (or only a small amount) and we are seeing a natural cycle then we should not go through all the carbon tax nonsense.

If we deem warming is natural but is still a problem we could do any number of crazy schemes to cool the planet.

We should use different methods to encourage energy conservation etc.

Everything the politicians are discussing is feel good nonsense.

Basically either our house is on fire or it is not. If it is we have to take drastic action. If it is not then we don’t.

Sigh.

So silly, and so painful. Even though folks like Zap are the fringe it’s still so discouraging…

I think the drapes are on fire. If you pour your beer over it, it will drown the fire.

Why do you just sit there, sipping your beer?[/quote]

Fire has a liberal bias?
Curtains were on more fire in the Medieval period?
Fire doesn’t support the troops?
Have to pay tax to put out fire?

[Simon_Forsyth]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Simon Forsyth wrote:
For what its worth I think Global warming as a direct effect of human living is a crock of shit. Firstly our planet has a certain volume of water be it in liquid form or frozen. Now I remember when was in primary school we did an experiment in which we placed water and ice in a cup so that it was on the brink of overflowing (all it needed was one more drop). anyway we had some paper underneath the cup to catch any water that may have spilled and guess what … No water spilled over the edge of the glass.

No when I think back I also remember reading that the sun was always expanding and would eventually engulf the earth (I believe TC also touched on this in one of his columns) so could it be that the increase in the suns size, however small the increments, might be at least part of teh cause of the increasing temperature?

Carbon and that whole trend is starting to get beyond a joke here in Australia. There is a push to ban bottled water because of the carbon footprint being too big. If we are going to change the apparent Carbon Problem then a massive lifestyle change is needed but maybe we are too late (if you believe it anyway), I don’t think the world is ready for it…

Here is one question regarding Global Warming that no-one has answered for me… Why is it that Australia has a bigger hole in the ozone than china and America? Why is one of the biggest holes above Antarctica?

There are too many questions and no real solid proof in my opinion… Here is how it will pan out… The world will sort itself out kinda like the day after tomorrow minus Dennis Quaid.

Anyway I will write more on this and please if I am wrong then tell me. I am off to bed so I will get back to this in the morning.

I am sure the key to a good life is moderation not over indulgence anyway. I am comfortable with my theories so I don’t see that anyone will disprove them here but by all means try

How old are you, twelve? It’s a good thing when someone young wants to talk/grasp politics, but the issue is WAY over your head.[/quote]

Why do you think its over my head? because I make reference to a movie? or are you one of those sad individuals who actually believes that Global Warming is real? Besides I understand politics better than you think.

I understand that right now is a crucial time for Germany but seriously do not think that you know more than me or that this information is going over my heard.

I gave my own ideas, they were logical and they were different to what a lot of people would agree with but I said that they are my ideas and I dont see how my standing up and saying this is what I believe and its what I will continue to believe but please prove me wrong, shows you that I am too young and that it will go over my head. Its wont go over my head and thats because I understand whats going on around me.

You seem like the guy who wants to prove everyone wrong. Like I said try. For you Global Warming is a real thing but for me I dont see it as being logical at all. What if this is a cycle that every plant goes through then what? everything we are doing now is a waste of time?

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Further, someone tell me how the U.S. and Europe reducing, even at massive levels, will affect things if China, India, Brazil et al do not reduce and continue to increase at their current levels.

100meters wrote:
I’d like for someone to tell me how sitting on hands will reduce anything?[/quote]

So, assuming arguendo that the warming trend in global temps is both accurately measured and has a substantial causation from human-generated CO2, better to sacrifice a lot to do something that won’t work than to do nothing at all?

[John_S1]

[quote]100meters wrote:
John S. wrote:
What is it that every generation has to have some sort of world ending disaster that never ends up being true. Anyone want to do some research about what these experts where saying 40 years ago? Or anyone want to explain the Middle ages and how they had higher temps then we do know, was it all the SUV’s they where driving back then causing it?

I’ll be glad to explain the Middle ages, but as to how they had higher temps than we do now… I’m obligated to point out…you made this up. Temps are higher now. (Hence the concern!?)

But god the suv joke would have been hilarious if you knew what you were talking about.

[/quote]

Actually douche bag if you knew what I was talking about then you would be shutting the fuck up like everyone else, the temps where higher back then. Read about it first bitch then come say some shit to me, I’m guessing I will never hear from your punk ass again.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
John S. wrote:
What is it that every generation has to have some sort of world ending disaster that never ends up being true. Anyone want to do some research about what these experts where saying 40 years ago? Or anyone want to explain the Middle ages and how they had higher temps then we do know, was it all the SUV’s they where driving back then causing it?

I’ll be glad to explain the Middle ages, but as to how they had higher temps than we do now… I’m obligated to point out…you made this up. Temps are higher now. (Hence the concern!?)

But god the suv joke would have been hilarious if you knew what you were talking about.

Actually douche bag if you knew what I was talking about then you would be shutting the fuck up like everyone else, the temps where higher back then. Read about it first bitch then come say some shit to me, I’m guessing I will never hear from your punk ass again.
[/quote]

The climate alarmists have decided the medieval warming period never happened because it doesn’t fit their climate models. Quite sad.

[tGunslinger]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sigh.

So silly, and so painful. Even though folks like Zap are the fringe it’s still so discouraging…[/quote]

Your smarmy, looking-down-your-nose-at-idiots routine would carry more weight if you ever actually said anything other than “sigh…”

[The_Mage]

[quote]Simon Forsyth wrote:
For what its worth I think Global warming as a direct effect of human living is a crock of shit. Firstly our planet has a certain volume of water be it in liquid form or frozen. Now I remember when was in primary school we did an experiment in which we placed water and ice in a cup so that it was on the brink of overflowing (all it needed was one more drop). anyway we had some paper underneath the cup to catch any water that may have spilled and guess what … No water spilled over the edge of the glass.[/quote]

Yes, any ice in the ocean that melts will have absolutely no effect on the levels of the oceans. But ice melting from land will have an effect. Ocean levels actually have been rising for the most part for thousands of years.

But it should be noted that no matter what, just by living we will have some impact on the environment.

No when I think back I also remember reading that the sun was always expanding and would eventually engulf the earth (I believe TC also touched on this in one of his columns) so could it be that the increase in the suns size, however small the increments, might be at least part of teh cause of the increasing temperature?

Actually the Sun will expand when it is running out of its primary source of fuel. An eventual expansion, not a continuous one.

But the Sun does have varied levels of energy output. One theory is that the little ice age may have been a result of a small reduction of energy output from the Sun.

Carbon and that whole trend is starting to get beyond a joke here in Australia. There is a push to ban bottled water because of the carbon footprint being too big. If we are going to change the apparent Carbon Problem then a massive lifestyle change is needed but maybe we are too late (if you believe it anyway), I don’t think the world is ready for it…

I do believe there really is only one way currently without devastating the economies of Earth. Start building modern nuke plants all over the place to produce cheap abundant energy. Switch to electric cars, and at the gas station have a system that simply replaces low batteries with full charged ones. Have metered plugs at all rest stops, restaurants, and parking meters.

Until batteries improve, a pluggable hybrid may have a big effect. (As opposed to the crappy ones out now.)

It is not environmentalism that makes todays refrigerators run at half the energy of the 1970 models, it is technology, and the consumers demanding it.

Here is one question regarding Global Warming that no-one has answered for me… Why is it that Australia has a bigger hole in the ozone than china and America? Why is one of the biggest holes above Antarctica?

Because the chlorofluorocarbons migrate there due to wind patterns, and the fact that they float to to upper atmosphere. But their use is practically nonexistent as far as I know. They left spray cans by the 80’s, and cars no longer use the old freon.

I do believe the case for CFC’s is pretty solid as opposed to global warming. Last report I read the holes were healing way faster then expected.

[quote]There are too many questions and no real solid proof in my opinion… Here is how it will pan out… The world will sort itself out kinda like the day after tomorrow minus Dennis Quaid.

Anyway I will write more on this and please if I am wrong then tell me. I am off to bed so I will get back to this in the morning.

I am sure the key to a good life is moderation not over indulgence anyway. I am comfortable with my theories so I don’t see that anyone will disprove them here but by all means try[/quote]

The day after tomorrow was a work of fiction, but was supposed to be based on events that actually have happened in the past. The movie version was turned into a political event, completely ignoring the fact that it was fiction.

But it was based on another book written by Art Bell, (the former host of Coast to Coast am, who talks to ghost hunters, witches, psychics, and conspiracy nuts,) and Whitley Streiber. (The guy who was abducted by aliens and wrote the book Communion about it.)

[lucasa]

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:

There was no mention of fixing global warming. There was a very clearly defined goal of developing a cleaner, more efficient energy source (i.e. sustainable).[/quote]

The term used was “(re)affecting”. I took that to mean reversing the effect (i.e. fixing). Mitigating is the utmost we can do and to me, (re)affecting is no more synonymous with mitigating than ‘reverse’ is with slow down.

[lucasa]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

I agree with you that a direct comparison is hard to find. Apollo was different like you say. But it is spot on in essence because a whole nation pursued and achieved a non militaristic scientific breakthrough, which ultimately served mankind.
It certainly is a pity that researching GW won’t produce any laser weapons.[/quote]

Most of the nation didn’t pursue a non-militaristic scientific breakthrough. NASA did. The vast majority of the nation sat and watched the landing.

[quote]Like I said before, it is largely uninteresting if it is our fault (which is VERY probable) that it is getting warmer, it will get warmer and water levels will rise.
It’s debatable if it’s gonna be 3° or 6° Celsius in seventy years, or it’s 3 or 7 meters of water and that is where most scientists don’t agree.[/quote]

James ‘The Climate God’ Hansen’s newest data puts the upper limit at 25 meters. Which is three-fold higher than the IPCC’s upper estimate, which is more than 80-fold higher than the upper estimate of rise seen over the last hundred years and 50-fold than the last decade. On top of that, exponential rises in CO2 emissions have corresponded to a linear rise in sea level. Even the consensus isn’t a consensus, and if it were, the story is still far from any algorithmic X amount of carbon emissions corresponds to Y rise in sea level.

[lucasa]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

The climate alarmists have decided the medieval warming period never happened because it doesn’t fit their climate models. Quite sad.[/quote]

It’s more convenient than the gray “It happened but we can’t explain it” scenario.

[Simon_Forsyth]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Simon Forsyth wrote:
For what its worth I think Global warming as a direct effect of human living is a crock of shit. Firstly our planet has a certain volume of water be it in liquid form or frozen. Now I remember when was in primary school we did an experiment in which we placed water and ice in a cup so that it was on the brink of overflowing (all it needed was one more drop). anyway we had some paper underneath the cup to catch any water that may have spilled and guess what … No water spilled over the edge of the glass.

Yes, any ice in the ocean that melts will have absolutely no effect on the levels of the oceans. But ice melting from land will have an effect. Ocean levels actually have been rising for the most part for thousands of years.

But it should be noted that no matter what, just by living we will have some impact on the environment.

No when I think back I also remember reading that the sun was always expanding and would eventually engulf the earth (I believe TC also touched on this in one of his columns) so could it be that the increase in the suns size, however small the increments, might be at least part of teh cause of the increasing temperature?

Actually the Sun will expand when it is running out of its primary source of fuel. An eventual expansion, not a continuous one.

But the Sun does have varied levels of energy output. One theory is that the little ice age may have been a result of a small reduction of energy output from the Sun.

Carbon and that whole trend is starting to get beyond a joke here in Australia. There is a push to ban bottled water because of the carbon footprint being too big. If we are going to change the apparent Carbon Problem then a massive lifestyle change is needed but maybe we are too late (if you believe it anyway), I don’t think the world is ready for it…

I do believe there really is only one way currently without devastating the economies of Earth. Start building modern nuke plants all over the place to produce cheap abundant energy. Switch to electric cars, and at the gas station have a system that simply replaces low batteries with full charged ones. Have metered plugs at all rest stops, restaurants, and parking meters.

Until batteries improve, a pluggable hybrid may have a big effect. (As opposed to the crappy ones out now.)

It is not environmentalism that makes todays refrigerators run at half the energy of the 1970 models, it is technology, and the consumers demanding it.

Here is one question regarding Global Warming that no-one has answered for me… Why is it that Australia has a bigger hole in the ozone than china and America? Why is one of the biggest holes above Antarctica?

Because the chlorofluorocarbons migrate there due to wind patterns, and the fact that they float to to upper atmosphere. But their use is practically nonexistent as far as I know. They left spray cans by the 80’s, and cars no longer use the old freon.

I do believe the case for CFC’s is pretty solid as opposed to global warming. Last report I read the holes were healing way faster then expected.

There are too many questions and no real solid proof in my opinion… Here is how it will pan out… The world will sort itself out kinda like the day after tomorrow minus Dennis Quaid.

Anyway I will write more on this and please if I am wrong then tell me. I am off to bed so I will get back to this in the morning.

I am sure the key to a good life is moderation not over indulgence anyway. I am comfortable with my theories so I don’t see that anyone will disprove them here but by all means try

The day after tomorrow was a work of fiction, but was supposed to be based on events that actually have happened in the past. The movie version was turned into a political event, completely ignoring the fact that it was fiction.

But it was based on another book written by Art Bell, (the former host of Coast to Coast am, who talks to ghost hunters, witches, psychics, and conspiracy nuts,) and Whitley Streiber. (The guy who was abducted by aliens and wrote the book Communion about it.)[/quote]

I appreciate the answer man I have some questions and comments for you but I am smashed right now so when I get up I will ask.

[lucasa]

[quote]The Mage wrote:

Here is one question regarding Global Warming that no-one has answered for me… Why is it that Australia has a bigger hole in the ozone than china and America? Why is one of the biggest holes above Antarctica?

Because the chlorofluorocarbons migrate there due to wind patterns, and the fact that they float to to upper atmosphere. But their use is practically nonexistent as far as I know. They left spray cans by the 80’s, and cars no longer use the old freon.

I do believe the case for CFC’s is pretty solid as opposed to global warming. Last report I read the holes were healing way faster then expected.[/quote]

Ozone recovery won’t be detectable for at least another decade and supposedly won’t recover fully until 2050 or later (that number has changed as well) assuming GW has nothing to do with it.

[SkyzykS]

I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.

Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.

[100meters]

[quote]John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
John S. wrote:
What is it that every generation has to have some sort of world ending disaster that never ends up being true. Anyone want to do some research about what these experts where saying 40 years ago? Or anyone want to explain the Middle ages and how they had higher temps then we do know, was it all the SUV’s they where driving back then causing it?

I’ll be glad to explain the Middle ages, but as to how they had higher temps than we do now… I’m obligated to point out…you made this up. Temps are higher now. (Hence the concern!?)

But god the suv joke would have been hilarious if you knew what you were talking about.

Actually douche bag if you knew what I was talking about then you would be shutting the fuck up like everyone else, the temps where higher back then. Read about it first bitch then come say some shit to me, I’m guessing I will never hear from your punk ass again.
[/quote]

What part of “you made this up” did you not understand.
Temps weren’t higher than now in the Middle Ages (I assume you mean Medieval Warming Period) They were higher than the previous norm in some areas, but likely weren’t globally higher than now.

Now take your balls out of your purse and buck up for the apology you so clearly owe me.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]100meters wrote:
…

Now take your balls out of your purse and buck up for the apology you so clearly owe me.
[/quote]

While you are waiting for him why don’t you explain to me how we can reverse the global warming trend if we merely emit less CO2 into the air?

If the alarmists are correct we have been piling blankets on the bed at a pretty fast rate. Even if we slow the rate we are still getting warmer.

The only real solution is to STOP piling the blankets on and let nature remove the ones we already put on. This should take 50 to 100 years after we put the last blanket on.

[100meters]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.

Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.

[/quote]

And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.

[John_S1]

[quote]100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.

Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.

And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.

[/quote]

Wow you are one stupid mother fucker, They are higher temps then today, Thats why you never hear the alarmist talking about it because it proves they are retarded hacks. Read up on it you then come talk to me.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.

Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.

And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.

[/quote]

Sure they can. Thing is- my idea of people who know what they are talking about are the ones that BB quoted. Global warming alarmists idea of people who know what they are talking about is Al Gore, Woody from Cheers, and a bunch of hippie who use the “I feel” perspective way too freakin much, and mistake it for fact.

[unbending]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.[/quote]

Well, its either that or its going to keep heating up until the sea level rises and all sorts of nasty plagues and shit spread all over the place.

This is the environment atmosphere for invasive species, and nasty bugs (bacteria, viruses… etc.)