http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/0 … amp;src=sp
STOCKHOLM -- A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the region's ice and snow are melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century.
I love your sense of humor. This is from the article you point to: "The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain.
It is all about how we can fool them today.
It is a fraud, a sham, a lie. Stop believing it. You will be a much better person if you refuse to allow predictions of what may occur in 90 years to rule your life today.
Yes, much handier to carry a bucket of sand to stick your head in when challenged.
Ignore all evidence of bad things happening because the naughty scientists can't put an exact figure on the likely outcome.
"Hey guys, the ice caps are melting! How much exactly? Well we don't know exactly! Ha, then ignore it, it doesn't matter!
It is not evidence. It is a prediction.
And it is a lie often told.
Yes, they carry more weight than some of his posts!
Why thank you Ron. Are hubs important to you? I have five in the works. But, as you know, they do take time.
You should at least finish one. No, they're not that important but you don't want my alternative response to your comments.
I have one that took several days to research. I had to read a few books on the French Revolution. So I will formulate my hub over the next few weeks and publish one.
Done. The point of your hub is that the tyrannical grade school teachers will be led to the guillotine by angry mobs of teabaggers unless they give up their collective bargaining rights?
This is exactly what Tk Sensei aka Sab Oh said when challenged about hubs. Then, if I recall correctly, he put up a few heavily pixelated photos and some spun words into a Haiku shape and published them
I guess you would be them/it then - changing the way you write your posts does not change the rudimentary thinking that creates the words.
Who did you used to be? TKSenseiSabOh was more than 2 months ago.
Sorry Ron - it is a totally open secret and I thought you knew I am Chinaman of course, and alternate poet. I thought you caught that when I mentioned your suspect fishing abilities some while ago !
... whenever scientists use the terms "highly uncertain", they generally mean it.
Those guys have Ph.Ds riding on the language they use.
Well man, just for the sake of argument, let's say it's a reality. I think we have all entertained similar fantasies on Hubpages i.e., photo-shopped presidential birth certificates, etc.
Purely from a libertarian standoint, all that prime realestate imperiled by rising water is going to hurt the land and property owners.. There!!!!! See it's not so hard when you put in those terms.....It's like getting a shot with a sucker chaser!
Let us say that it is. Do you think it will make any difference? I do not. Some places will flood. And others will become more valuable.
But it is not true, is it? It is just a fairy tale designed to scare as many people as possible out of their money and their liberty.
As you are clearly a reasonable man, you must at least entertain the idea. If it's just 30% correct, and that's not much, then it stands to reason that there is something to it, some real impact on global weather. And if you give it any percentage in fact, then you must admit that it can and will only get worse - unless you believe in a static universe.
I am not so certain anything can be done to reverse it, but likely something can be done to prevent it from getting any worse. And history, unless you are a strict "5,000 plus year Creationist" cites plenty of examples, WITHOUT our influence, where he has been pretty bad.
Ah. A point we can agree upon.
I do. I believe that climate variations have occurred throughout the existence of our planet. I just don't believe that Americans driving SUVs have anywhere as much influence over the variations as that nuclear furnace 93 million miles away has.
If you believe that you can have any influence over the sun then go for it. But typically the people who believe that man-caused global warming is real also require that an elite run everything. And that the third estate, the commoners give up their liberty, their freedoms and their resources. And that is tyranny. No thanks.
Solar irradiance has remained more or less steady since the 70's.
First, who told you that? Second, what is their agenda? Third, do you believe that you ought to give up your liberty because someone says there is a very bad, big thing out there that might happen in 90 years?
"First, who told you that? Second, what is their agenda?"
Um, it's observable science. Facts do not have an agenda.
"Third, do you believe that you ought to give up your liberty because someone says there is a very bad, big thing out there that might happen in 90 years?"
First, who said anything about giving up liberty?
Second, the effects of global warming are already around us. The vanishing Maldives, the mass destruction of forests across the Western US and Canada by beetles benefiting from warmer winter temperatures, the "global weirding" of weather cycles, so you have, for example, a record cold winter in Russia followed immediately by a record hot summer (and its attendant wildfires). For an even more recent example, the tornadoes and floods in the US Southeast last month were driven in part by near record high water temperatures in the Gulf. And for an example more relevant to the original post of this thread, the Arctic could be ice free in summertime as early as 2030, which is a good deal sooner than 90 years...
Of course you are aware that much of the data was "fudged" and cherry picked? It was a hoax. Does that mean that the climate does not change? Of course not. It has been changing as long as the sun has burned nearby.
"Third, do you believe that you ought to give up your liberty because someone says there is a very bad, big thing out there that might happen in 90 years?"
How do you shut down an economy, reducing us to a third world nation without forcing people to give up their liberty? Why do you think the boy president so gleefully talks about using the government to bankrupt the coal industry? This is the dark place that a belief in human-caused global warming leads.
Do you believe that the climate has ever been static? It has not been. Do you believe that giving the government even greater amounts of our wealth and control over our lives will stop the Earth in its tracks? It will not. Do you think that weather patterns from year to year indicate deep and profound changes? They do not.
"Boy president," seriously? The man is 50 years old. Were Teddy Roosevelt and Ulysses Grant "boy presidents" too? They were younger than he was when they were inaugurated.
As for the rest, we're going to have to agree to disagree. The known solar drivers of climate change can not account for the current warming. Could there be an unknown factor at play? Certainly, but given that we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (and have known so since the mid 19th century) and that we know that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen by over 100 ppm since the dawn of the industrial revolution, I think the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one.
As for your babbling about tyranny and evil conspiracies between scientists and governments, you have yet to point to a single place in this conversation where I have advocated a tyrannical response. I'm pessimistic enough about humanity in general that I won't be surprised if tyranny is what happens when the climate really goes to hell in a handbasket, but the most "tyrannical" response that I personally advocate is a major overhauling of building codes and auto emissions standards.
I've written quite extensively here on HubPages about my preferred responses to the threat of climate change. I think you will find dictatorship is not among them:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming- … ate-Change
No I agree... but I truly do believe it is a bit foolish to believe that we can dump crap into the air for almost two centuries without impunity. As for an elite running the show, no thanks. I prefer to teeter on the fence and in the process, hopefully, keep an open mind.
Yes. But there is a difference between polluting where we live and claiming that we are destroying the plane because we live on it. This government has convinced you that the air all animals breathe out is a pollutant that must be controlled by taxing you until you rebel.
Don't believe them and don't go with them.
Can I throw my two bits into this?
Consider a couple of things... There are two issues that are important.
First thing is "what is Actually happening... Yes its getting warmer."
But the Second important thing... and the question we should be asking is this... Does Mankind have anything to do with causing it?
Answer is NO!
Global Warming is an Algorithmic cycle of the planet. Over the course of hundreds of years the planets temp and tides rise and fall... the Co2 and precipitation levels are keys to the system but when you look at the planet in sheer magnitude of its size.... we are little tiny microbes that try and claim to be Earth movers and shakers...
Some of you have said that its Government Control... Money games in industry etc... Right... its that and much more. :-)
Anyone think of a reason why you would want to lock up precious resources inside "Natural Areas" where nobody can go and mine them? Easy... there are some people who already have surpluses of every precious thing imaginable... and the best way to raise the prices and make more money is to shut down the New mining industries.
Want to know why Global Warming is so important? Think of all the ways they are using this thing to benefit themselves and vote in their own pay increases... Give themselves and their own think tanks and businesses Huge Grants and Fundings... all in the name of *choke choke* Science.
Oh... and add one last thing...
There is also a boat load of laws being passed that give these people more power and the people less rights... All in the name of a Green Planet... know what I mean Jelly Bean?
"You will be a much better person if you refuse to allow predictions of what may occur in 90 years to rule your life today."
Thanks, but I've got kids who could conceivably be alive in 2100. I would prefer to leave them a world they can live in as comfortably as their grandparents and I have been able to.
Do you believe that creating a centralized, tyrannical government will lead to better lives for them? That is the goal of the environmental whackos. And, apparently, you.
Who said anything about creating a centralized, tyrannical government? I'd personally get started by cutting oil, coal, and ag subsidies.
To what other destination could your goofiness possibly lead?
Is there any other part of your life where you willingly stop thinking and give up your sovereignty? If so you are ripe for the picking.
Just consider. What do all of these models have in common? They all claim catastrophe off in the future. All of them. And they all insist that we become just a little less free and way less wealthy in order to pass power and wealth to the government. And tyranny comes. It is here already.
Oh my god, ending subsidies! What an unconscionable violation of our liberties and basic human rights!
Or, you know, our basic corporate right to make as big a profit as possible off the backs of the taxpayers. Same difference, right?
Dude, shill more, why don't you? I think you've made it pretty clear whose side you're really on.
Perhaps you will join me now in calling for the Fair Tax. It seems to be the best way for each of us to get what we want.
The so called "fair tax" is an excuse for rich people to pay fewer taxes and poor people to pay more. So, no.
No. It takes the power out of Washington D.C. That is its primary selling point.
Actually there is more and more evidence that this is affecting our lives today. If the Antarctic ice cap melts completely, which could happen in the next few years, we are going to see dramatic changes in the climate.
It's not 90 years down the road, bud, it's right here and right now. I have personally lived through more extreme weather events in the past 5 years than in the 30 years before that combined.
Having now had a chance to glance over the original report, it's actually probably quite conservative, because it doesn't take into account feedback from thawing permafrost, which could release an additional 100 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere by 2100, or methane from Siberian swamplands and the East Siberian continental shelf, which contain approximately 1,000 billion tons and 1,400 billion tons of methane respectively. Methane, as you may recall, does not last as long in the atmosphere as CO2, but in the short term is 20-30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. Models taking these feedbacks into account predict sea level rise by 2100 of closer to 5 meters than 5 feet.
You drank the kool-aid. You should not drink the kool-aid. It always leads to your undoing. It is a prediction in support of several agendas. One is to get more research grants. The other is tyranny.
I find it truly interesting that the single most common argument I see against anthropogenic global warming is that people want to make money off it.
Why is Al Gore investing in carbon offset companies (I am opposed to carbon offsetting, by the way) sure proof that AGW is some global conspiracy to make him rich, while the strong motivation of oil companies - the most profitable businesses in the history of the world - to obscure the harmful side effects of oil consumption is completely ignored?
Somebody here is drinking kool-aid, but I'm pretty sure it's not me. (Hate the stuff, actually.)
There is no global warming. Scietists say what they want to get what they want. The weather is just a cycle like everything else. When I was a kid, we were taught in school and the scientists then said we were going to have a global freeze. Everthing was pointing to it. Now it is warming and we are going to burn up. Scientists, make up your mind. Next if the ice caps melt the ocean will not rise. Let me prove it to you Fill a glass with Ice. Then fill water to the top. Clock how long it takes for the melting ice to rise and overflo the glass. For those who do not want to do this I will give you the answer. It never will overflo. Frozen water is the same mass as unfrozen water, It displace the unfrozen water.
So all the icebergs, all the ice covered land will not raise the sea level when they melt and combine with the sea?
Now try over filling your glass with ice, so the ice actually stands up above the rim and watch the glass overflow as the ice melts.
Just keep following with blinders since you cannot think for yourself. What no bridge to buy comment this time?
I rather think you are the one wearing blinders and unable to think for yourself.
You demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of Ice formation and reactions between salt and fresh water.
What's up, you up for buying another bridge already?
NAH, already own several, make good money from the tolls people pay to cross. Sure glad I have you to post my distinct lack of understanding. Suprised to not see you claim the sea cannot freeze because it has salt in it. I guess you think salt water and fresh water cannot mix and that is why the water will rise, because the fresh water will sit on top of the salt water. No point in trying to explain the realities of it. You know better and we are all stupid
Yeah, science sucks! Just read the bible, it says so in Leviticus.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, the problem with the Arctic ice cap melting is not the rising sea levels, but the change in ocean temperatures (and therefore, ocean currents) caused by 1. a large volume of cold freshwater entering the ocean and 2. the loss of the reflective surface of ice which keeps the arctic ocean from absorbing solar energy.
One the arctic ice cap is gone, we are pretty much screwed. Global climate change will be out of our hands.
Get back with me on this in about 5 years and we'll see who's right.
The number of scientists who actually predicted global cooling in the 70's is greatly overstated. The idea was spread mainly by sensationalist popular media, and the majority of actual peer-reviewed scientific papers during the period that made any future climate predictions at all were talking about global warming.
Additionally, although you're correct that melting floating ice won't raise sea levels, there is a significant amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica that is resting on land, and melting that ice could raise sea levels by 5 feet by 2100 (five meters according to the most pessimistic models) and rising 10-20 inches per decade thereafter for centuries.
As William and others have pointed out, massive amounts of fresh water pouring into the oceans (whether from melting ice on land or on water) could also disrupt the Gulf Stream, which would throw the world's weather into chaos.
Actually water rise is not the big fear. The problem is the stoppage of the warm water currents like the Gulf Stream.
I would love to see a decent discussion of all this without the sockpuppets/political masketeers joining in.
I'm not going to say global weather patterns aren't changing, but they do anyway, regardless of mankind.
It's almost a year since we had a major movement in an iceberg in the South Atlantic, which was predicted to cause global climate change.
And yes I wrote a hub about it.
Meanwhile, some random volcano in Iceland had a hissy fit and spewed forth yet more volcanic ash in to the atmosphere, which yet again changed the goalposts.
Then we had a major earthquake, that affected Japan badly.
All of these factors affect global weather patterns, and I fail to see the connection with mankind as a causative issue.
Sorry to those who believe otherwise, but I think Mother Earth knows what she is doing. We may not like it, but hey, we are only visitors for a short time.
Earth in its vast history has been through worse, and survived to tell the the tale.
Izzy, I live in Manchester which was, and still is in some circles, known as the rainy city.
It's true, we had rain virtually every day and then all the old industries died and left, taking the rain with them.
I find it impossible to believe that we don't affect the weather patterns.
It makes sense because someone has created the algorithm, if you like, to make it so.
Have you looked at sunspot activity in your given time-frame?
Sunspot activity has nothing to do with what we on Earth do.
I appreciate what you are saying. Glasgow isn't exactly an un-industrialized nation....city even.
I did for a while , but now just refuse to swallow the politically-driven nonsense they want us to believe.
They have their own agenda, and that involves them becoming rich. End of story.
So based onyour theory about the rain, if the industry moves out of the Brazilian rain forrest the rain will stop? Oh yea there are no industry there, its a jungle
But cut all the trees down and watch the land turn to desert!
Nothing like twisting and spin. I admit you love to do it. The subject was industry and rain, not the forrest and rain. I was pointing out there is rain in the forrest without indutry there. As to cutting the tree down in the forest, we all know if that continues the rain will become less to actually stopping. Trees, not industry
Unless the air is super-saturated with water vapor, cloud condensation nuclei are required for precipitation to form at temperatures above freezing.
There are many different types of particles that can serve as cloud condensation nuclei. Some of the most common are put out by trees, hence the well known relationship between forested regions such as rainforests and rainfall patterns. Certain types of man-made pollutants can also act as cloud condensation nuclei, so although I don't know anything about Manchester's rainfall patterns specifically, John's claim that the death of polluting industries in Manchester led to less rainfall in the area is entirely consistent with known science.
Yeah I have heard a lot about global warming and I think it was started by men. But what we are doing to stop polluting our Mother Earth?
The bitter truth is we can't do anything but it. But at least we can change ourselves by using Eco friendly items and by growing plenty of trees and plants in our houses and so on.
Sorry if I irritate you. I was born that way.
Earth has been through a lot, yes. Humans, and the other living things that share this planet with us, are the ones who are going to suffer.
If you doubt the connection between the actions of 6 billion humans and global weather patterns, I have written a series of hubs on it. The evidence is quite compelling.
There is no doubt that we humans are adding to a natural phenomenon.
Have you studied the natural effects of "precession" on our planet i.e. climate/seasons?
I have looked into this. The Milankovitch cycles have been known for 100 years and they are not enough to cause the climatic shifts we are seeing.
If you have further information that I might have missed, feel free to link it and I'll look over it.
As I said, there is no doubt we humans are adding to the effects of this natural phenomenon.
"Precession" has been a natural assist in creating the ice ages and in the creation of "warming," over periods of about 26k yrs.
"Man" is not the sole cause (creator) of global warming.
Over a period of about 4 million yrs,
WE humans have survived these changes.
WE are a greater danger, to our continuing existence, than are to "natural" happenings.
If "man" could reach up and grasp the first rung of the evolutionary ladder and come together as a concerted, synergistic unit, there is no doubt that he'd be around for many more k's of yrs.
That scenario, tho, is not a viable one.
"They have their own agenda, and that involves them becoming rich. End of story."
Don't know who 'their' is but it is corporate capitalism that promotes the idea of no global warming, because less industrial pollution means less profits. Not sure who would make more money by less
I could easily be confused all over again. This is why I don't participate in this forum, normally.
You know, and I know, there are political forces at work.
I prefer to listen to the scientists. Then again, political forces have been dragged into it all and we now have some scientists denying or manipulating data.
Earth has survived how many Ice Ages? How many warming periods? And this all LONG before man existed.
In fact, MAN (us) is nothing more than a blink in the eye of Earth's long history.
Are we so presumptuous as to assume that we can change weather patterns?
That is maybe what we need to ask ourselves.
"Are we so presumptuous as to assume that we can change weather patterns?"
We've been doing it on a local level for thousands of years. Now that there's 6+ billion of us and hardly a single part of the planet not touched by human impacts, why shouldn't our impacts be global?
Consider also that the Earth has spent millions of years sequestering excess carbon underground so it won't get into the atmosphere, and we're on track to burn up all those millions of years of stored carbon and send it straight to the atmosphere within a few hundred years.
"Are we so presumptuous as to assume that we can change weather patterns?" Cut down a rain forest and create a desert. Completely changes the weather patterns in the area.
Your right, doesn't matter over the gazillions. However I am here and now and will personally not be held much responsible if I have some kind of gazillion presence.
Yes I understand that - cut down a rainforest and create a desert. We, in the West know those things. but can we honestly turn round and say to those people who cut it - who cut it down for their survival - that they couldn't do that?
Survival is all, no?
If some rich nations knew how to feed the poor starving people in some equatorial belt, why didn't they either feed them, tell them how to feed themselves, or shut up?
But oh no, those people had to cut down rainforests, and let's face it, it is rainforests we are talking about, and now we have global weather changes which were in part due to the burning of fossil fuels, part due to our overuse of carbon fuels, part due to cows over-farting for all we know.
When all the time, things that are completely outwith our control were going on, like sunspots, and movement of ice flows. But they don't count in the political world. What...? something a politician can't control?? Doesn't exist in their minds.
It is always the people who failed science in school who go on to become climate change deniers. These failures make the perfect dupes for the old industries who stand to lose so much in the change over to a sustainable economy.
So we have the future of the planet being determined by the failures and those driven by pure greed who exploit their pawns ignorance and insecurities so adroitly.
I used to care but now I am not even sure humanity deserves a future.
by sannyasinman 7 years ago
Online news service promotes false climate change study http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … CMP=twt_fd
by Tammy Barnette 5 years ago
WASHINGTON — The melting of polar ice caps raised sea levels by nearly half an inch (11 millimeters) over the last two decades, scientists said Thursday, calling it the most definitive measure yet of the impact of climate changehttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar … 0048b7.4c1Can we now...
by Jacqueline Williamson BBA MPA MS 3 years ago
If you have been watching the Weather Channel or your local weather station; you will realize that some of us have been experiencing phenomenal weather conditions. I heard that the wind chill factor in one city was 74- which is basically unheard of in the lower 48 states. It seems as if every...
by Judy Specht 4 years ago
It is 33 degrees as I write, 10:45 am, in sunny northern California. Have been wishing for global warming as I watch my tropical plant freeze. Why have we not heard about this story? Did you say," It's not politically...
by Holle Abee 23 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by ediggity 7 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/scien … imate.htmlPeople wouldn't alter scientific data for their own personal benefit would they? There's not any money to be made with Global Warming is their?To be fair, the rebuttal:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar …...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|