Global Warming- It's too late to stop now... So

welsh

Junkmaster
Back in 2000, W said, "Global Warming. Not sure. Not enough science. Got to do more study."

In 2005, W said, "Global Warming, Not sure. Not enough science, Got to more study."

So again he went to his two sources of wisdom.
(1) The Bible
(2) The Oil Industry crony he hired to study global warming.

Meanwhile, less cocaine-fried brains have been studying this issue and what did they say?

Thanks to PA media for spotting this-

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=46230
Global warming 'past the point of no return'

Source: Copyright 2005, Independent
Date: September 16, 2005
Byline: Steve Connor

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically.

Satellites monitoring the Arctic have found that the extent of the sea ice this August has reached its lowest monthly point on record, dipping an unprecedented 18.2 per cent below the long-term average.

Experts believe that such a loss of Arctic sea ice in summer has not occurred in hundreds and possibly thousands of years. It is the fourth year in a row that the sea ice in August has fallen below the monthly downward trend - a clear sign that melting has accelerated.

Scientists are now preparing to report a record loss of Arctic sea ice for September, when the surface area covered by the ice traditionally reaches its minimum extent at the end of the summer melting period.

Sea ice naturally melts in summer and reforms in winter but for the first time on record this annual rebound did not occur last winter when the ice of the Arctic failed to recover significantly.

Arctic specialists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University, who have documented the gradual loss of polar sea ice since 1978, believe that a more dramatic melt began about four years ago.

In September 2002 the sea ice coverage of the Arctic reached its lowest level in recorded history. Such lows have normally been followed the next year by a rebound to more normal levels, but this did not occur in the summers of either 2003 or 2004. This summer has been even worse. The surface area covered by sea ice was at a record monthly minimum for each of the summer months - June, July and now August.

Scientists analysing the latest satellite data for September - the traditional minimum extent for each summer - are preparing to announce a significant shift in the stability of the Arctic sea ice, the northern hemisphere's major "heat sink" that moderates climatic extremes.

"The changes we've seen in the Arctic over the past few decades are nothing short of remarkable," said Mark Serreze, one of the scientists at the Snow and Ice Data Centre who monitor Arctic sea ice.

Scientists at the data centre are bracing themselves for the 2005 annual minimum, which is expected to be reached in mid-September, when another record loss is forecast. A major announcement is scheduled for 20 September. "It looks like we're going to exceed it or be real close one way or the other. It is probably going to be at least as comparable to September 2002," Dr Serreze said.

"This will be four Septembers in a row that we've seen a downward trend. The feeling is we are reaching a tipping point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not recover."

The extent of the sea ice in September is the most valuable indicator of its health. This year's record melt means that more of the long-term ice formed over many winters - so called multi-year ice - has disappeared than at any time in recorded history.

Sea ice floats on the surface of the Arctic Ocean and its neighbouring seas and normally covers an area of some 7 million square kilometres (2.4 million square miles) during September - about the size of Australia. However, in September 2002, this dwindled to about 2 million square miles - 16 per cent below average.

Sea ice data for August closely mirrors that for September and last month's record low - 18.2 per cent below the monthly average - strongly suggests that this September will see the smallest coverage of Arctic sea ice ever recorded.

As more and more sea ice is lost during the summer, greater expanses of open ocean are exposed to the sun which increases the rate at which heat is absorbed in the Arctic region, Dr Serreze said.

Sea ice reflects up to 80 per cent of sunlight hitting it but this "albedo effect" is mostly lost when the sea is uncovered. "We've exposed all this dark ocean to the sun's heat so that the overall heat content increases," he explained.

Current computer models suggest that the Arctic will be entirely ice-free during summer by the year 2070 but some scientists now believe that even this dire prediction may be over-optimistic, said Professor Peter Wadhams, an Arctic ice specialist at Cambridge University.

"When the ice becomes so thin it breaks up mechanically rather than thermodynamically. So these predictions may well be on the over-optimistic side," he said.

As the sea ice melts, and more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the exposed ocean, a positive feedback is created leading to the loss of yet more ice, Professor Wadhams said.

"If anything we may be underestimating the dangers. The computer models may not take into account collaborative positive feedback," he said.

Sea ice keeps a cap on frigid water, keeping it cold and protecting it from heating up. Losing the sea ice of the Arctic is likely to have major repercussions for the climate, he said. "There could be dramatic changes to the climate of the northern region due to the creation of a vast expanse of open water where there was once effectively land," Professor Wadhams said. "You're essentially changing land into ocean and the creation of a huge area of open ocean where there was once land will have a very big impact on other climate parameters," he said.

Originally posted at: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece

Time to sell that beach front real estate.

Canadians, look forward to tropical weather in the future.
 
A vault could come in handy soon, does anyone have a spare? :D
But shouldn't the whole thing work more like in The day after tomorrow? In wich case Canada is going to get frozen solid... Haven't been keeping up with the doom's day scenarios for quite some time now.
 
No, because in The Day After Tomorrow you don't need gloves to prevent your hands from sticking to incredibly cold metal as you climb ladders.
 
But the whole northern hemisphere freezes in the end... the bloody choppers freeze in mid air and plummet to the ground and all that... Oh, and if what you meant was that the movie is just that it sort of went right by me at first...
Anyway what I am trying to say is: isn't global warming supposed to lead to an ice age, eventually?
 
Snow reflects heat, less snow means more heat, more heat means less snow, and so on.

I think the deal with the ice age is that at some point all the shit in the atmosphere not only locks the heat in but also locks the sunrays out, which would mean that the planet cools down.

That would mean we'll first get a global Sahara, then a global Arctis and then a somewhat normal climate again.

But I could be wrong.
 
THe deal in the world after tomorrow is that the water in the gulf stream gets disturbed by freshwater from the melted glaciers. This leads to the gulf stream stopping or turning, thus the whole north europe cools down. That is what people are afraid is going to happen with this huge meltdown.
What we hope is going to happen, is that denmark diseapears.
 
The real worry they had in Day After Tommorrow was that the new ice shelfs forming would be extensive enough to reflect enough sunlight from the Earth that the tempature would keep dropping.

IE, new Ice Age, Humanity Over, Play Again?
 
Well, if it happens, I'll do everything I can to annihilate the responsible in a nuclear inferno.
 
Unless we all suddenly succumb to the barbarian hordes of Palestino-Turk "terroists".
 
I think I've lost every ounce of respect I ever had for Environmentalism. They've become the Communists of the 20th Century; they may, deep down, somehow, have a point, but it's buried under way too much shit, self importance and apocalyptic rhetoric for me to take seriously.

I mean, shit, I like the wild as much as the next man, but people have been predicting OMG ENIVORMTAL AOPACLYSPE NWO!!!! from the 60's. It's just dead.
 
John Uskglass said:
I think I've lost every ounce of respect I ever had for Environmentalism.
Is that your typical reaction to facts you don't like?

Physics teacher: "At absolute zero temperature entropy of a perfect crystal lattice is zero."

You: "Waaah! I don't want entropy to be zero at absolute zero temperature! I lost every ounce of respect I ever had for Physics!"

They've become the Communists of the 20th Century; they may, deep down, somehow, have a point, but it's buried under way too much shit, self importance and apocalyptic rhetoric for me to take seriously.

I mean, shit, I like the wild as much as the next man, but people have been predicting OMG ENIVORMTAL AOPACLYSPE NWO!!!! from the 60's. It's just dead.
Environmentalists aren't politicans or religious prophets. They are scientists with years of education and research experience in area of environmental sciences. If they say Arctic ice will probably melt in 70 years, I am inclined to believe their estimate, because, unlike you, they know what they are talking about. Also, I'd like you to link to one - just *one* - environmental science work that contains even the slightest tinge of "shit, self-importance and apocalyptic rhetoric". No, don't bother searching - you won't find one. Why? Because shit, self-importance and apocalyptic rhetoric have no place in science and a scientific paper with either of those characteristics isn't a scientific paper in the first place.

God, I hate when scientific evidence is dismissed by people who have no clue about scientific methods.
 
In my state of Oregon, we have one of the biggest anti-global warming "scientists" in the country. And he's universally despised by the community that he bashes on a regular basis. His "facts" are based on incomplete data and the continual bleating of "not enough sample data!".
 
Graz'zt said:
Environmentalists aren't politicans or religious prophets.

What?

There are scientific environmentalists, and there are the extremists who burn down laboratories. There are all sorts of environmentalists, from the self-educated to those who have no idea on the issues (though they will gleefully attend protests).
 
Kotario said:
What?

There are scientific environmentalists, and there are the extremists who burn down laboratories. There are all sorts of environmentalists, from the self-educated to those who have no idea on the issues (though they will gleefully attend protests).
By "environmentalists" CCR means environmental scientists, as do I.
 
welsh said:
Meanwhile, less cocaine-fried brains have been studying this issue and what did they say?

Two sides of the same coin, ey? Both are dealing with a non-science based on guesswork more than scientific methods. Both global warming and anti-global warming scientists are consistently being proven wrong by reality, which is not surprising when you consider the fact that theories from both sides have little groundwork in reality

No wonder I choose not to listen to either idiotic sides of this lil' war of pseudo-sciences.

Graz'zt said:
Environmentalists aren't politicans or religious prophets. They are scientists with years of education and research experience in area of environmental sciences. If they say Arctic ice will probably melt in 70 years, I am inclined to believe their estimate, because, unlike you, they know what they are talking about. Also, I'd like you to link to one - just *one* - environmental science work that contains even the slightest tinge of "shit, self-importance and apocalyptic rhetoric". No, don't bother searching - you won't find one. Why? Because shit, self-importance and apocalyptic rhetoric have no place in science and a scientific paper with either of those characteristics isn't a scientific paper in the first place.

God, I hate when scientific evidence is dismissed by people who have no clue about scientific methods.

There's a reason I replied "Science!" to this thread. That's because this isn't "science", this IS the epitome of "Science!".

Running around screaming about enviromentalist scientists prediction makes about as much sense as doing the same for those of sociology or anthropology. They're all sciences, but they're not sciences of absolutes. A lot of it is guesswork. Whether because of insufficient data, politics or inherent flaws in the science.

If not, you're really going to have to explain to me why enviromentalists have consistently been proven to be wrong about their predictions over the last decades, as well as show me how exactly they manage to gain "sufficient data" while everyone agrees that too many factors, including earth's natural heating cycles, *are unknown*.

Ratty said:
Is that your typical reaction to facts you don't like?

Yes, because your reaction to facts you do like is obviously much less biased.

Ratty said:
If they say Arctic ice will probably melt in 70 years, I am inclined to believe their estimate, because, unlike you, they know what they are talking about.

Except they don't and the odds that they'll be proven wrong in 70 years are quite large.

The odds of them being proven right are also there. But hey, the same goes for buying a lottery-ticket with certain numbers. Just because I turn out to be right in the end doesn't make me a lottery scientist.

Ratty said:
Also, I'd like you to link to one - just *one* - environmental science work that contains even the slightest tinge of "shit, self-importance and apocalyptic rhetoric". No, don't bother searching - you won't find one. Why? Because shit, self-importance and apocalyptic rhetoric have no place in science and a scientific paper with either of those characteristics isn't a scientific paper in the first place.

goes to show enviromentalist papers are hardly scientific.

The fact is that the doomsday models are quite popular. These "scientists" get quite a lot of funding and, in fact, justify their own existence by spouting some ill-guessed apocalyptic models every now and again. If that's science, I'm a duck.

Ratty said:
people who have no clue about scientific methods.

You mean enviromental scientists, right?

Lazarus said:
In my state of Oregon, we have one of the biggest anti-global warming "scientists" in the country. And he's universally despised by the community that he bashes on a regular basis

Gasp. He's despised by those that disagree with him? That must prove him wrong, just like Galileo Galilei was wrong, no doubt.

Lazarus said:
His "facts" are based on incomplete data and the continual bleating of "not enough sample data!".

Oh, lovely, lovely irony.

Try flipping that sentence around. It's funny.
 
Graz'zt said:
By "environmentalists" CCR means environmental scientists, as do I.

Well, obviously you do. I read CCR's post a bit differently, as including both scientists and the unwashed masses. Though it is his fault either way for being imprecise. :D
 
Kharn said:
If not, you're really going to have to explain to me why enviromentalists have consistently been proven to be wrong about their predictions over the last decades, as well as show me how exactly they manage to gain "sufficient data" while everyone agrees that too many factors, including earth's natural heating cycles, *are unknown*.
I don't believe you, Kharn. Are you really foolish enough to assume that science and technology stood still over the last decades? Newsflash - they haven't. Climactology, metheorology, chemistry and other fields environmental science is based on are far more potent now than they were forty years ago, or even ten years ago. We now have sophisticated metheorological satellites orbiting Earth and providing us with information that was previously impossible to acquire. We have a complex mathematical apparatus of statistics, chaos theory, fractal geometry and other relevant areas. We have powerful supercomputers capable of rapidly performing calculations that were near impossible to do within a realistic time frame back then. We have measuring instruments and technology of unprecedented power and accuracy. But most important of all, we have had time to study environmental phenomena systematically and in great detail. All of that has allowed us to have a much better understanding of what Earth's climate was like in the past, what it is like now and what it will be like in the future. To ignore that progress and dismiss today's environmental findings on account of a few erroneous predictions that were made several decades ago is ludicrous and basically removes the purpose behind all that progress. It's equivalent to saying astronomy sucks because 100 years ago astronomers thought the universe stood still. If scientific findings were nonchalantly disregarded because they aren't always right, then we would still be living in the 17th century.

Running around screaming about enviromentalist scientists prediction makes about as much sense as doing the same for those of sociology or anthropology. They're all sciences, but they're not sciences of absolutes. A lot of it is guesswork. Whether because of insufficient data, politics or inherent flaws in the science.
You are wrong. Methodology of environmental sciences is based on observation, experimentation and mathematical models, unlike anthropology, sociology and other pseudosciences. All of the aforementioned methods have been proven as reliable more times than anyone can count. A few decades ago that methodology was incomplete and lacking, but back then environmental research didn't possess nearly as much resources, theoretical and practical knowledge as it does now.
 
Let me guess, Kharn. You haven't been conclusively proven wrong (however you define being proven wrong) so you must be right? That mentality is very common.

But there is far more evidence to support Global Warming than evidence to reute it. Is it all some kind of global conspiracy? You of course will almost certainly claim detached skepticism as your motives, but I find that a spurrious claim under the circumstances of this debate.
 
Back
Top