Global warming.

[jw1815]

Not one mention of the fact that Nansen sailed some two hundred miles further north before becoming ice bound passed his lips. Back in 1900 and something that was!
So what do you reckon?

Roy.

Not long before that, around the mid 19th C, is when the Mini Ice Age is considered to have really ended and the trend started reversing, although it was getting a little warmer before then. The Mini Ice Age is what froze the Vikings out of Greenland. Started around 1100 AD, felt first in the North Atlantic but spread.

What we're seeing now is, perhaps, a return to the pre Mini Ice Age climate. My bet is that it's one of many climate fluctuations the earth has gone through, probably not caused by human behavior, but perhaps accelerated by it.

Regardless of the cause, not only polar ice is disappearing, but also Alpine glaciers. And the Gulf Stream is becoming less saline, which could cool off western Europe if it continues.

Also, regardless of the cause, it's something we need to be aware of and prepared to deal with because of the consequences to coastal cities of rising sea levels. Future underwater archaeologists could be checking out what used to be NYC, Venice, and The Netherlands, where windmills will end up looking more like odd-shaped steamship paddle wheels.

I don't doubt that the earth is warming up, more so in some regions than others. I'm not sure of the cause and don't buy into all of the ideology that goes with it, but something's happening and I think we'd be foolish not to monitor it, consider some possible consequences, and prepare for them.

Trouble is, global climate has so many variables that accurate pin-pointing of the causes and consequences of changes is difficult and controversial.

[Digit]

You're preaching to the converted jw.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Even the choir needs work from time to time!

[kbs2244]

It has begun

http://www.seadiscovery.com/mt/mtStorie ... 1032612062

GLOBAL WARMING & PIRACY ISSUES
10/08/2009

The increased pace of polar ice melt, stresses the need to discuss essential strategic implications regarding national security, geopolitics, global trade, energy, shipping, fishery and the environment. In a week when the US CNO receives an official briefing on the US' intended policies, countries bordering the Arctic region (e.g. Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden) have all already laid claim - under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - to new sea routes and portions of the Arctic seabed outside their own continental shelves for shipping, fishery, tourism, and not the least the development of natural resources: the region’s huge undiscovered oil and natural-gas reserves (an estimated quarter of the world’s remaining deposits), copper, iron ore, cobalt, nickel, diamonds, gold, and high-grade manganese).

However, the prospects of regular Arctic operations are daunting (and expensive) for all players: Search-and-rescue operations and pollution control are particularly difficult given the area’s remoteness and lack of access to major ports.

Compared with the rest of the globe, the region remains essentially uncharted…for now: New navigable waterways in the region will bring about the largest shift in global sea routes in modern history and the ensuing increase in shipping, mining, and drilling activity will pose new environmental and safety risks.

“It’s no longer a matter of if but when the Arctic Ocean will be open to regular marine transportation and exploration” - Scott Borgerson, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, USA

With a significant increase in naval vessels and merchant ships plying Arctic waters over the past two years (mainly to support mining and cruise-ship operations) competition in the region is heating up: Russia has already planted its flag in the seabed beneath the North Pole, and Canada intends to build several Arctic patrol vessels, a deep-water port, and a cold-weather training center.

Numerous new national security implications are posed by the new Arctic situation, as countries involved increase their maritime presence to protect national interests in the region, and ensure international access to/rights of passage through the new waters (and prevent adversaries from intrusions into national areas of interest).

The lack of a broad legal structure for regional development makes the situation unsettled: a free-for-all in a vast water-and-land mass that is changing almost daily. Whilst the Law of the Sea Convention can tackle many of these issues, it is powerless to deal with others, from military activities to environmental problems. The situation eventually could descend into armed conflict — or at least an Arctic Cold War.

The MAST 2009 conference will address (in addition to established topics /themes on global cooperation towards maritime security and defence) The Arctic situation – new opportunities, new threats.

[Minimalist]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144729.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 15, 2009) — In a new study in the journal Ecological Monographs, ecologists estimate that Arctic lands and oceans are responsible for up to 25 percent of the global net sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Under current predictions of global warming, this Arctic sink could be diminished or reversed, potentially accelerating predicted rates of climate change.

[kbs2244]

Opps!!

Maybe you can artificially create a “consensus” after all.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... d=obinsite

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... d=obinsite


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ate03.html


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... =obnetwork


The first 3 are what passes a news story in the US these days.
The forth is at least identified as an editorial.

Note some of the comments.
Can you see the same religious fervor as in the “fundie” vs. the “evolutions” debate?

I guess Global Warming is and “End of Days” religion after all.

[Digit]

I think my signature explains what is happening over here now. It's amusing to watch the 'blame game' unfolding. One of the most vociferous disciples of man made glabal warming, the climate guru of the Guardian news paper,is demanding that heads should roll. I suspect his outrage is more to do with his being made to look a fool than any interest in science. Al Bore's reactions seem deafening as well.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Meanwhile, though, the ice caps continue to melt.

[Digit]

But that doesn't mean Man Made Global Warming does it Min? Neither does it strengthrn a case to be caught fidding the data. Even if GW is MMGW, this doesn't help.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

All I saw in those emails was one guy looking for ways to "strengthen the case." Considering that we have scads of people....some in the US Senate....who think that nothing should be done because 'jesus is coming back anyway' I agree with him that a much stronger case needs to be made. Would you be as upset if Exxon/Mobile put out a memo saying "we need to denigrate GW by buying scientists to write ads like we did when we wrote that pollution is good for people?" (They've done that in the past, btw.)

The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling. Never before has it had to deal with billions of people mucking things up at the same time.

[Digit]

We may have seen more of the E-mails than you have Min, the group is now the object of investigation by the UN and a Parliamentary group over here. Deliberate manipulation of the data seems to be on the cards, In Oz and NZ, where they have had access to the data, both have refused to sign up for any further protocols. We have had access refused with the data classified as a State Secret for Heaven's sake, something to hide?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

There are over six billion people on earth. If each of them farts once per day it will add to greenhouse gases.

[Digit]

Granted, so then you have to explain why temps have been falling in recent years as CO2 has continued to rise. On TV a few minutes ago we were treated to a series of photos taken since the 1940s of glaciers in Bolivia that have actually vanished, all down to man made global warming isn't it?
Not a word about reduced precipitation, and strangely GW states that raising temps should increase preciptation.
All glaciers must shrink if not fed, but how often do you see any figures of precipitation? Kilamanjaro's glacier is shrinking, and even the UN has stated that it is down to reduced precipitation.
That is my problem with 'warmists' Min, selective use and publication of data. Why should science based climate data be concealed from us, where truth cannot be ascertained, rumour will run rife. What are they hiding?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

You know, Dig, I'd have to look around for this, but my recollection is not that GW would produce more or less precipitation but rather weather patterns would change which could result in presently wet areas getting drier and vice versa.

I'll look around. I do know there was a very serious drought in the SE US which is normally a very wet area last summer.

[Digit]

That is indeed so Min, but total precipitation must increase, and increased precipitation lowers temps. The Andes has heights capable of sustaining glaciers throughout its length so if the precipitation belts move the glaciers should logically move with them. I have heard nothing to support that.
It's the secrecy etc that annoys me, for example, glaciers are receeding in the Himalayas, Man Made Global Warming they scream, even the UN admit that it is due to industrial atmospheric pollution from India and China.
If my dog had kittens some devotee would claim MMGW!
Let us see the data, not an unreasonable requirement is it?

Roy.