Arctic ice 'disappearing fast'

[Matt25]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm

**The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists. **They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century. The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible…

“September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover,” said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado. “It’s the least sea ice we’ve seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we’ve now seen for the last four years,” he told BBC News…

Though there are significant variations across the region, on average the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, according to a major report released last year. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study involving hundreds of scientists, projected an additional temperature rise of 4-7C by 2100.

                   http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40851000/jpg/_40851268_polabearbbc203.jpg                     
     http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif
                    
                      [**Further warming for Arctic**](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3975805.stm)

 

[Edwin1961]

Are they sure it isn’t the fact that the icepacks / glaciers can move from their previous locations?

besides…we need more fresh water.

 

[Matt25]

After the G8 summit at Gleneagles the US Administration signed a communique which said in terms
number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7881.asp

1. We face serious and linked challenges in tackling climate change, promoting clean energy and achieving sustainable development globally.

(a) Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe.** We know that increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our Earth’s surface.** While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

If even the GWB Administration can accept that human activity contributes to Global Warning why do people on this forum find it so difficult to grasp?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Matt25:

If even the GWB Administration can accept that human activity contributes to Global Warning why do people on this forum find it so difficult to grasp?

Because the global-warming proponents have given every indication that they are less interested in the fate of the environment than they are with turning every national economy into a socialist quadroplegic. Until they can abandon the bankrupt state-power-solves-everything theory, they are going to continue to spin their mired tires.

Scott

 

[2shelbys]

If even the GWB Administration can accept that human activity contributes to Global Warning why do people on this forum find it so difficult to grasp?

Because administrations often do things for political reasons and political reasons alone. There is far too much evidence that global warming is not happening. Go to the thread on global warming and you will see much information from both sides. You will also find links to studies showing that while ice in some regions is retreating it is advancing in other regions. Most notably in Antarctica which has been shown to be experiencing a cooling trend. I posted this mainly to direct you to the other thread which has tons of info on this subject because I do not see the point of getting involved in two separate discussions of the same topic.

 

[gilliam]

I think I heard last week that the ice in the Antartic is increasing.

 

[The_Eurasian]

So what is causing the Arctic Polar Ice to melt???

If it is being heated from underground by the earth, it should melt from below, I suppose.

If it is being heated by the ocean, not only will it melt at the edges where the ice meets the ocean, but the ocean temperature would be higher in temperature than in prior recent decades.

If it is being heated up by radiation from the sun or from convection by the air, it will be melting on the surface where it meets the air.

Humans do not have to be puppets of these cycles. We can break these cycles if we need to!!! Of course, scientifically, we may not be able to alter the cycle so much. But at least we can alter it a little bit to make our lives here on earth more livable than otherwise. That is what stewards are supposed to do. Otherwise we will be like the servant who simply buried the talents entrusted to him by the Lord. And as you know, the Lord was disapointed in him, got the little talent given to him and and gave it to the one who already had plenty, – all because the who had plenty was putting the talents given to him to good use that was pleasing to the Lord.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The Eurasian:

Of course, scientifically, we may not be able to alter the cycle so much. But at least we can alter it a little bit to make our lives here on earth more livable than otherwise…

That is the problem. There is no indication that this is even possible. And quite frankly, the proponents of global warming don’t care, as long as they can establish that man’s contribution is even .0000000000001 percent, that apparently is enough to warrant absurd state power grabs. That is, their thinking is that we should hand over power to the high priests of Mother Earth idolatry right now, and worry about whether trammeling national sovereignity and property rights actually does any bloody good later.

Scott

 

[Matt25]

Do people ever ask themselves why it is that the country which is the worlds biggest polluter is also the country that is the most resistant to the idea of climate change? Is it a coincidence? Are people so wedded to an extravagant materialist lifestyle that they just don’t want to give up consumer goods they don’t really need?

Or is it just that America is right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

 

[Jay74]

Matt25:

Do people ever ask themselves why it is that the country which is the worlds biggest polluter is also the country that is the most resistant to the idea of climate change?

We’re polarized on this issue. We may have some who resist the idea that we contribute, but we also have some of the most extreme activists on the other side of the spectrum.

I happen to believe we should reduce pollution.

Matt25:

Are people so wedded to an extravagant materialist lifestyle that they just don’t want to give up consumer goods they don’t really need?

Whether or not we need consumer goods is not rellevant. If people only had what they needed, they would have next to nothing. That’s a fact anywhere. If they want them, can afford them, and they aren’t doing damage, it is really their own private business. For example, none of us (you and me included) need Internet access, but its no one elses place to tell us we shouldn’t have it, unless we are misusing it.

The final argument is the key – if they arent’ doing damage. If it is proven that some consumer good is causing global warming at a significant level, action may need taken for the sake of the planet. Some evidence indicates, however (sorry, no link on hand), that a volcano errupting contributes more to global warming than all our consumer goods combined, and we can’t do much about that. I’m not informed enough, mostly because of conflicting information from reliable sources on both sides, to know definitively.

Matt25:

Or is it just that America is right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

You have bitterness against America, I’m sad to say. Frankly, though, we’re often right when the world is wrong. When we’re wrong, we should be held accountable. When we’re right, however, its not fair to say “America must always be right.”

America gives more to the world than it takes. Of this, I have no doubt.

 

[rlg94086]

Matt25:

Do people ever ask themselves why it is that the country which is the worlds biggest polluter is also the country that is the most resistant to the idea of climate change? Is it a coincidence? Are people so wedded to an extravagant materialist lifestyle that they just don’t want to give up consumer goods they don’t really need?

Or is it just that America is right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

Definitely the latter

Seriously, “the country” is not opposed to sensible change. The Kyoto treaty is the only hard agreement put forward, and it wasn’t sensible.

 

[shockerfan]

Matt25:

If even the GWB Administration can accept that human activity contributes to Global Warning why do people on this forum find it so difficult to grasp?

Here is what I grasp:

1. 95.5% of greenhouse gases occur naturally (I got this off of a environmentalist website.)
2. Scientists do not agree on the effect the human contribution to green house gases has. I don’t think anybody disagrees with the assertion that humans contribute to global warming / cooling. The disagreement comes with what the measurable impact is to that contribution.

Consider this:
The 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines was one of the largest in the past 100 years. The injection into the stratosphere of 14-26 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide led to a global surface cooling of 0.5°C a year after the eruption. The climatic impact of the Pinatubo aerosol was stronger than the warming effects of either El Niño or human-induced greenhouse gas changes during 1991-93
dar.csiro.au/publications/greenhouse_2000e.htm

Disagreement also come over some so-called solutions like the Kyoto Treaty would be punitive to the US by limiting our greenhouse emissions and give a free pass to the biggest polluter (China) and other “developing” countries.

If human impact on global warming is so easy to grasp, then why has the scientific community not reached consensus?

 

[rlg94086]

shockerfan:

If human impact on global warming is so easy to grasp, then why has the scientific community not reached consensus?

Oh, but they have! Haven’t you been keeping up with the posts? There is complete consensus in the scientific community…except for those who disagree, and their opinions don’t count.

 

[shockerfan]

Matt25:

Do people ever ask themselves why it is that the country which is the worlds biggest polluter is also the country that is the most resistant to the idea of climate change? Is it a coincidence? Are people so wedded to an extravagant materialist lifestyle that they just don’t want to give up consumer goods they don’t really need?

Or is it just that America is right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

I think we are most resistant to some of the one-sided solutions that seem to come up. Its not the consumer goods we need, its the jobs. Do you think that punishing the US with standards not applicable to other countries will do anything other than shift our industry to those countries?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Matt25:

Do people ever ask themselves why it is that the country which is the worlds biggest polluter is also the country that is the most resistant to the idea of climate change? Is it a coincidence? Are people so wedded to an extravagant materialist lifestyle that they just don’t want to give up consumer goods they don’t really need?

Or is it just that America is right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

As an American, I am not “resistant” to the idea of climate change, but lets take a look at the story:

1. The earth is warming-- ok, I can reasonably buy that.
2. Some of the earth’s warming may be due to human activity.-- I can temporarily buy that as well for the purpose of discussion, but notice that few can give us any real idea of how much is due to humans.
3. Humans can reverse this trend. – Now we are getting incredibly speculative at this point. And notice that no one seriously offers a cost/benefit analysis that suggest we ought to do so. It is clear what our global-warming advocates think this would entail (although only a few will come out and admit it): increased state power, heavy regulation, loss of property rights. Now, as a good Catholic I hold that property rights are not absolute, but before one starts taking people’s stuff by legislative fiat, there has to be a very clear reason for doing so and a very clear idea of the end result. This is where the global-warming drum beaters are way off the mark. This is no better than an appeal to pagan magic. To propse these massive and disruptive changes without a real idea of what is going to happen is the equivalent of chucking virgins down a well in order to get a decent harvest.

Scott

 

[Matt25]

shockerfan:

. Do you think that punishing the US with standards not applicable to other countries will do anything other than shift our industry to those countries?

Kyoto standards are applicable to the European Union Countries and Japan. Its not a conspiracy against US industry. Its an attempt to stop terrible environmental damage being done to the world and the people living in it. The consequences of unchecked climate change will do a darn sight more damage to ordinary Americans than pretending the problem doesn’t exist will.

 

[shockerfan]

Matt25:

Kyoto standards are applicable to the European Union Countries and Japan. Its not a conspiracy against US industry. Its an attempt to stop terrible environmental damage being done to the world and the people living in it. The consequences of unchecked climate change will do a darn sight more damage to ordinary Americans than pretending the problem doesn’t exist will.

Why not applicable to China?

They are perceived to be the biggest competitive threat to the US. FYI, according to the CIA factbook, China’s industrial growth rate is 17.1%, European Union is 2.4%, US is 4.4%. Also, China’s GDP ranks 3rd in the world

Either global warming is a global problem to be solved globally or its not. Do you disagree???

 

[Brad]

In related news, the director of the National Hurricane Center said recent hurricanes are NOT due to global warming:

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050921/sc_afp/usweatherpolitics

Further, storms have decreased since “global warming” took over the planet. This, however doesn’t impede liberal commentators from implementing a rollling global warmng start date. (kind of like the rolling end times date of rapturists, but that’s a whole different matter).

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/25/131154.shtml

 

[Matt25]

shockerfan:

Why not applicable to China?

They are perceived to be the biggest competitive threat to the US. FYI, according to the CIA factbook, China’s industrial growth rate is 17.1%, European Union is 2.4%, US is 4.4%. Also, China’s GDP ranks 3rd in the world

Either global warming is a global problem to be solved globally or its not. Do you disagree???

Yes every country will have to be included at some point. But if you wait for the perfect agreement before you do anything then you are just making an excuse for doing nothing. People who said lets ignore the international community and invade Iraq are saying we cannot ignore the international community and do something to tackle climate change.

 

[Thekla]

Matt25:

After the G8 summit at Gleneagles the US Administration signed a communique which said in terms
number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7881.asp

If even the GWB Administration can accept that human activity contributes to Global Warning why do people on this forum find it so difficult to grasp?

Because ignorance and anti-intellectualism have been turned into attributes. If you recognize that there’s a problem, then you have to DO something about it. Ergo, people don’t recognize the problem.