BBC article from the other day. Some interesting graphics: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If climate change folks want to be taken more seriously, stop making stupid #$@ articles like this.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
The article on phytoplankton focused on temperature, but this is just one factor. In reality there's a lot more going on than a sea temperature rise. Natural systems are breaking down all around us.
If the sea reached the 6 degree increase posited by the article we'd already be well into an extinction event. The natural systems supporting life on Earth would already be in a tailspin.
If the sea reached the 6 degree increase posited by the article we'd already be well into an extinction event. The natural systems supporting life on Earth would already be in a tailspin.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
How interesting that the BBC only recognizes the north pole as relevant to Earth's climate in this article
why would that be? an editorial mistake? clumsy journalism? honest ignorance? what do you think?
dust1n
Zindīq
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
How interesting that the BBC only recognizes the north pole as relevant to Earth's climate in this article
why would that be? an editorial mistake? clumsy journalism? honest ignorance? what do you think?
Again, form your own source:
"Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)."
Again, NASA acknowledges climate change, and talks specifically in this article that you are using to debunk climate change, how Antarctica's ice growth does not run contrary to this.
But you seem to be better at cherry picking information to support conclusions that the information in no way supports. I mean, how many times does one engage in such a blatant dishonesty before another can safely stop taking them seriously entirely?
That's why some prefer "climate change," Guy. While there is a general warming, it's not evenly distributed. Some regions become colder, some warmer. Some desertify, others flood. If the melting of Greenland's ice cap shuts down the Atlantic Conveyor, you're going to see Europe's temperatures plunge, too.
Look at the glaciers and mountain ice caps -- disappearing. How about the rise in sea level? Look at the methane outgassing from the arctic tundra or bubbling up from lakes. How about ocean acidification or rainforest destruction.
All these will affect climate, geography, demographics and the balance of life on Earth.
Look at the glaciers and mountain ice caps -- disappearing. How about the rise in sea level? Look at the methane outgassing from the arctic tundra or bubbling up from lakes. How about ocean acidification or rainforest destruction.
All these will affect climate, geography, demographics and the balance of life on Earth.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What evidence?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I've heard that New York was under a glacier when the average temp was 7degress less than 1950
the temp has risen 3degress since 1950.
seen any glacier photos lately?
and many people on this earth rely on watershed from the fresh water glaciers.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
How interesting that the BBC only recognizes the north pole as relevant to Earth's climate in this article
why would that be? an editorial mistake? clumsy journalism? honest ignorance? what do you think?
I heard that our Navy is now able to bring a sub to surface almost anywhere in the northern icecap.
used to be.....summer only
the cap is now an average of three feet thick
That's a long way to go from the word intergovernmental.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
USS SKATE at the North Pole on MARCH 17th 1959..
very near peak season for ice thickness
That ice is way less than 3 ft thick- unless that man is 20ft tall!?
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The polar ice caps are thinning overall as are most of the glaciers, and this has been verified over and over again. However, as someone posted earlier, there is not uniformity with this because climate change itself is not uniform.
The importance is this: actual temperature measurements complied for more than 200 years worldwide have verified without any doubt whatsoever that we are in a warming trend, and we also well know that higher levels of C02 and methane gas heavily have contributed to that. This is not something that we "believe"-- this is something that we "know".
The-sky-is-falling celebrities don't help either.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...-at-global-inaction-on-climate-change/7015380
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...-at-global-inaction-on-climate-change/7015380
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
so every possible conceivable observation ... growing pole, melting pole, warming Europe, freezing Europe, flood, drought, rain, snow...
All support 'climate change' - I'm sure you see the problem here in terms of being a scientifically valid theory
Glaciers and ice caps have been generally retreating since the last glacial maximum 19000 years ago. (Pray this does not stop and reverse, or we might have a real problem to worry about!)
In 2007, IPCC notes “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003
(IPCC) concluded that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected
Oceans are actually alkaline, not acid- we may make the sea very very slightly more balanced, neutral and less bleach -like. Again if we were doing the exact opposite, I'd be concerned.
Do you seriously think that slightly more CO2, warmth and precip would be BAD for rainforests? once again, doing the exact opposite would be unambiguously harmful. no computer sims required
Most life arose with vastly higher levels of CO2 7000ppm in the Cambrian, they still prefer 1200-1500 ppm today. The pre-industrial 275ppm was a near starvation level after millions of years of plants consuming CO2.
So again, we are merely restoring a little balance to nature, recycling it's consumed natural resources, mother nature would thank us.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Ford: "The time has clearly come to ban the combustion engine entirely and focus on sublight ion drive technology, but the evil oil companies are keeping it under wraps"
Thief
Rogue Theologian
maybe they picked a thin spot
USS SKATE at the North Pole on MARCH 17th 1959..
very near peak season for ice thickness
That ice is way less than 3 ft thick- unless that man is 20ft tall!?
What I find most effective in countering the argument that GW isn't happening is pointing to real climate
change seen by people who are so affected by it, particularly ancient arctic environment types, eg, Inuit.
(We used to call them "eskimo". I don't know why, but now we don't.)
Their experiences are more persuasive than all the scientific data because they're independent of political agendas.
I find it really changes some minds....they actually agree that it's occurring.
Then the only controversy is about the effects, what to do & how quickly.
change seen by people who are so affected by it, particularly ancient arctic environment types, eg, Inuit.
(We used to call them "eskimo". I don't know why, but now we don't.)
Their experiences are more persuasive than all the scientific data because they're independent of political agendas.
I find it really changes some minds....they actually agree that it's occurring.
Then the only controversy is about the effects, what to do & how quickly.
