Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, someone posted that news article last week, and then someone posted data showing that the last 10 years were the warmest in 200 years or something like that.
True enough. But then man hasn't really been messing it up for much longer than 200 years. And on top of that, most deniers keep coming up with comments about really short term fluctuations ( winter cold snaps, cool summers, etc. in places) and consider those as enough to refute the long term trends.AnnaG, Oh ok, didn't know that, just something I came across. 200 years isn't much of a gauge for temp, considering the earth has been around a little longer than that
It all started really with the English Industrial Revolution. So, we have to think at another revolution to stop the mess.
Will this thread die on such inconsequential remarks? How about going back to post #1106?
Not quite. Floating ice, which most of the Arctic ice is, won't increase sea levels by melting (remember Archimedes' Principle?), it's the stuff on land, Greenland and Antarctica in particular, that'll raise sea levels by melting.
You may be right, I can't remember where the comment came from. But this time I know it was scientists that said this latest prediction and they did say "might be".
I'm not sure what the mainstream media says but " A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer may happen three times sooner than scientists have estimated. New research says the Arctic might lose most of its ice cover in summer in as few as 30 years instead of the end of the century. " Ice-free Arctic Ocean Possible In 30 Years, Not 90 As Previously Estimated
Think about it! "Ice-free Arctic" is prison-like expression. Real freedom comes by keeping the ice.
It sure would be for bears. I think 3 miles is about max for the length of swim bears can do. And it's pretty tough sitting outside a airhole in the ice waiting for food if there is no ice. I'll have to look up how far they can swim to be sure, though.
Ok I was waaaay short, they've been seen swimming at 100 km from shore.
This has been the standard lore, but a Professor at St. Mary's University in Halifax wrote a paper recently on a topic that no oceanagraphers or other geoscientists had thought of, except for one Robert Grumbine. Grumbine has an interesting project, a blog trying to make education of climate sciences more accessible to lay readers. He discusses his analysis in one of the topics there.
Anyways, Grumbine and Noerdlinger and Brower (2007) (or here) are the only scientists to date who have calculated what the effect of halosteric sea level rise. That is, the change in salinity will cause sea level change. It's not a lot, 4 cm for all floating and extant sea ice. But it's not nothing either.
Their major swimmers,An Innuk told me a story last year where they were caught in a fog while fishing and trying to find the next land and a polar started following them knowing they were headed for shore and they were out about 20 clicks.Around Rankin area where the land is just a few meters above sea level and its allmost all water they do lots of swimming to get from island to island.
It wouldnt surprise me if they could go for days on the water.
Last edited:
Forget about bears since politicians can decide to treat them like humans. When humans are caught in catastrophic situation, politicians put them in camps and drop food on them. (The only thing though is that these refugees cannot know for sure if the planes will drop food or bombs.)
Yep. There is also saline factor in polar waters that plays a role in the process but I've forgotten how it works.
Ah, that's very interesting, and good science, pays close attention to details. I hadn't seen that before, thanks for the links. A 4 cm rise in sea level is, as you say, not nothing, but in the overall scheme of things it's pretty inconsequential. Tides rise and fall far more than that in most places, so it wouldn't create any problems by itself in that context. The critical point would be the loss of the Arctic ice cover, not the rise in sea level it produces. But still, I think every little bit hurts, so that's useful information.
While the deniers are making themselves quieter, let’s listen a bit to Elinor Ostrom (Nobel prize 2009 for economics):
Common property regimes typically function at a local level to prevent the overexploitation of a resource system from which fringe units can be extracted. There are no examples of common property regimes which solve problems of overuse on a larger scale, such as air pollution. In some cases, government regulations combined with tradable environmental allowances (TEAs) are used successfully to prevent excessive pollution, whereas in other cases - especially in the absence of a unique government being able to set limits and monitor economic activities - excessive use or pollution continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource
Common property regimes typically function at a local level to prevent the overexploitation of a resource system from which fringe units can be extracted. There are no examples of common property regimes which solve problems of overuse on a larger scale, such as air pollution. In some cases, government regulations combined with tradable environmental allowances (TEAs) are used successfully to prevent excessive pollution, whereas in other cases - especially in the absence of a unique government being able to set limits and monitor economic activities - excessive use or pollution continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource
- Status