Posted on 02/02/2007 9:50:11 AM PST by ml/nj
Do you mean a net gain in arctic ice from 1900 to 2000, and a net gain in Greenland ice for the same period?
That's looter guy. Always trying to help out.
Correct. Icebergs have been seen from the New Zealand coast for the first time in years. The explanation, in the article I read, was that ocean temperatures off New Zealand have cooled in recent years. This has allowed the icebergs to remain intact as they drift farther north rather than to melt as they normally do.
"The funny thing about it is that it really indicates that there is global cooling going on. That is, if the distance that the bears have to swim is increasing, that means the icebergs are surviving a longer trip from the land they separated from. This can only be (assuming ocean currents remain the same) that the icebergs start out colder, they start out bigger, and/or the ocean is cooler. All three of these possibilites would indicate colder, not warmer, weather."
No it doesn't. If it were getting cooler the ice wouldn't break off as much or maybe the pieces would be bigger or maybe there wouldn't be so much open water and the ice would reattach to other pieces before it could drift out to sea.
I think the evidence indicates that there has been warming. The key questions are: (1) what is the cause and (2) what to do about it.
There are multiple factors to consider, of which human influence is one. Even if human influence could be eliminated the warming might well go on.
Whether we should attempt to do anything about it is a matter for debate. Warmer might, on balance, be better than cooler. Or it might not. It is by no means clear that stopping the likely global warming would be a net benefit.
If we did decide we should try to stop or reverse global warming the question becomes what method should be used. The left quickly jumps on the idea of reversing industrialization and returning to a "more natural" lifestyle. However, this would cause great hardship and economic decline for the vast majority of humanity. Other methods appear less painful. On the one hand, we could try to offset greenhouse gases by increasing flora that will absorb more carbon dioxide. This is the "plant more trees" option. A potentially useful byproduct would be more forests and more wood products.
A second option would focus on reducing the temperature by deflecting/reflecting more sunlight. This wouldn't reduce the carbon dioxide--thus retaining the beneficial impacts on agriculture of higher CO2 (i.e., crops grow bigger faster). This is both technically feasible and economically less costly than the emissions reduction schemes touted by the Kyoto Treaty.
The temperature of the planet will continue to fluctuate over time. The wealth created by advanced capitalistic economies provides humans with the realistic option to modify natural fluctuations in ways that would be beneficial.
I have a question. How can anyone believe we can dump pounds and pounds of carbon monoxide and god knows what into the atmosphere without ANY negative effect? Even if you dont believe in global warming you must admit that pollution is a BAD thing right?
OMG! LOL
They are up there as high as they can be to better survey where their next meal is coming from. Those bears are well fed and not stranded.
"The left quickly jumps on the idea of reversing industrialization and returning to a "more natural" lifestyle."
Didn't Mao or Pol Pot try this? Back to the land at the point of a gun?
They sure are pushing this global warming BS though, and it's no wonder why. On the news just now, they are talking about conpensating poor countries unable to afford to make changes due to "global warming".
Gee, I wonder which way the "scientists" from those countries voted on the question of global warming, and if it is a concern.
Me, too, and for the same reasons. That was my first thought when I saw the picture - what did they crop to get the shot they wanted?
Where, oh where, will the polar bears give birth and raise their young?
They do that on dry land?
Never mind.
Air trends 'amplifying' warming
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website, in Vienna
Martin Wild
Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.
Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm
Here's a link on the New Zealand icebergs:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/11/18/iceberg-spotted-from-new-zealand-shore/
It's carbon dioxide not carbon monoxide. That would be funny if they said carbon monoxide in the Kyoto Treaty. Most of them wouldn't know the difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.