Folks, This Is Getting Serious

I have a question - with all the ice that has already melted, why are the coasts not flooded yet? Where is the water going? Anyone know?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Several reports from the Pentagon and Nasa have already declared it a point of no return. Hey, it's amazing what a couple of centuries of "progress" can do to an environment. After all, real technology didn't take shape until the industrial period...so, we are only talking about a couple of centuries of ....environmental hazard.
[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

SoT:

Here's something to add to your "faith-based" equation.

Roll back all that "progress" you seem to hate, and what do you think would happen (and rather quickly)?

Hint: Without the technology that now supports them, billions of humans on this planet would die pretty terrible deaths due to starvation, wars and disease.

So, is that what you really want to have happen? Is de-population of the planet your real agenda here?

How about answering my questions?

[edit on 9/14/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by ferretman2
Has greenland always been covered with ice?

How were the fjords formed in Finland? (That's Glaciers)...where are they now? how long idid it take for them to melt?

Do you know 'speaker-of-truth'?

You seem to be another one who thinks it's all "cyclical" in nature. I have already conceded to the fact that part of it is probably cyclical; however, to have the naive belief that we are not the main cause of the green house effect is beyond ridiculous.

Was Greenland always covered with ice? Of course not. Just like there seems to be evidence that Anartica wasn't alway covered with ice. However, did it take thousands of years for Greenland to become covered with ice,or just a couple of hundred. I select thousands. Whereas, ice melting has increased to preposterous proportions in just the last 10-20 years!! How canone even be so presumptuous as to say that there is a comparison???!!!

Originally posted by centurion1211

So, is that what you really want to have happen? Is de-population of the planet your real agenda here?

[edit on 9/14/2006 by centurion1211]

Well,......I need to be careful as to how I answer this....

Okay, would I condone the intentional starving of "billions" of people? No. However, let me show you how "progress" has "helped" eliminate the problem of hunger. Have you ever heard of genetically modified food? Yeah.... that's how your revered "progress" has helped "eliminate" hunger. If you think that's a good thing, then I suggest you read up on genetically modified food and what it is, and what it does to you.

Anyway, ....I do believe that there is a "cleansing" coming via natural disasters that will wipe out about 1/3 of the population. Do I think that's necessarily bad? It doesn't matter what I think....I think that it will be the earth's way of stabilizing what we are doing to it.

To answer your question, no I am not condoning or suggesting the methodical genocide of anyone. Absolutely not.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

I'm feeling like an old guy here.

In THIS MODERN WORLD, there is little respect for science.

I see it here, I hear it everywhere. A couple of weeks ago, a couple of Yell Radio hosts here in town got a scientist on the show and beat him up for over 1/2 hour about how his data about global warming couldn't be right -- throwing every possible reason or excuse at him from the basis of a 10th grade level understanding of earth and atmospheric science.

The scientist had a solid answer for every objection they threw up. It didn't faze them a bit. And when he needed to nail a point down, the scientist would mention that the report on warming came from the National Academy of Science.

So when did it happen that every Tom Dick and Harry suddenly decided that they could attack findings derived by rigorous scientific method and proven by peer review?

Global warming is real. Some of the effects are really arcane but serious -- like the melting of methane ice in deep lakes and the ocean. This ice melts and puts tons of methane into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and in turn accelerating global warming. Some results of warming produce a countervaling effect, such as increasing snowfall on Antacrctica and some of the largest glacial masses.

It's not 1+1=2. But it is serious, because the ecosystem has a limited ability to self-heal. And some self-healing can take tens of thousands of years.

But hey. That's all according to scientists. Several radio entertainers disagree. And why isn't their opinion just as valid?

Why do some of you think that our Sun is a constantly steady stream of heat? It's not, the heat is constantly changing. Solar flares are random, and so are other types of explosions on the Sun. Those can heat up our Earth and melt the ice "quicker than normal". There are many things that can explain away the heat.

I still think global warming is a flawed theory. To think our Earth doesn't have a means for getting rid of heat is insane. The Earth is a gigantic ball of heat, with crust around it. The heat from the Earth escapes on a daily basis. That would mean our Earth should have overheated a long time ago. But it didn't. Outside of our atmosphere is a super cold vacuum. Does this play a role in keeping Earth cool? Most likely yes.

Also, core samples that date back millions of years can not be 100% accurate, they are just estimates.

Originally posted by Mr_Peel
That's all according to scientists. Several radio entertainers disagree. And why isn't their opinion just as valid?

Yeah, that's kind of like movie actors given their thoughts on politics. Who really cares about what Charlie Sheen thinks should happen in Iraq? The guy is a freaking actor,not a political analyst.... I don't really give a hoot about what some disc jockey from nowhere U.S.A has to say about the environment either.

Now,I will take the time to admit here and now that I am biased. I also have an agenda. Who doesn't? anyone who claims they don't have an agenda is either lying or they don't know what an agenda is. So, all of those who have been insinuating that I am somewhat biased, revel in your "glory" because I admit that to an extent I am.

I am not a whacko environmentalist, like Al Gore, but I do think that we need to start thinking more environmentally...

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by Thinker_1
I have a question - with all the ice that has already melted, why are the coasts not flooded yet? Where is the water going? Anyone know?

I believe there has been a rise in ocean level. I know the streets of Venice are now under the lagoon surface for something like 4 months of the year...

It's hard to get down to the level of year-to-year granularity, but you can see the trend is a slight acceleration here:

en.wikipedia.org...:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Why do some of you think that our Sun is a constantly steady stream of heat? It's not, the heat is constantly changing. Solar flares are random, and so are other types of explosions on the Sun. Those can heat up our Earth and melt the ice "quicker than normal". There are many things that can explain away the heat.

That is actually an angle I haven't really taken into account seriously. I have thought about it, but only in passing. What you suggest is quite possible.

Sure something needs to be done, but what about the "Warming Solar System" theory? Is global warming due, in part, to space weather or is it purely due to human activity? There's no doubt we're having an impact on the planet but why is it happenning so quickly, according to scientists but there seems to be little obvious impact - like where's all the melted ice going? I have friends on both coasts of Canada and there's no rise in ocean levels there. And if the earth can recover from the Gulf of Mexico asteroid impact in a relatively short time, why is it having such difficulty digesting our effect - we're nowhere near the impact of that asteroid.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

That is actually an angle I haven't really taken into account seriously. I have thought about it, but only in passing. What you suggest is quite possible.

Just look up "Solar variation" or "Solar Irradiance".

www.spaceweather.com... has good up to date information about the Sun's current activity. Also, past activity.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov... is also pretty good.

Also, Lockheeds latest solar events...
www.lmsal.com...

[edit on 14-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]

I know some people are going to hate me for posting such a useless reply but I'm sure it will make someone laugh out there...



WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!!
GLOBAL WARMING....ITS COMING!!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!

lol =)

Anyone that is actually interested in the facts, would be interested in the following links.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Too many environmentalists are trying to dismiss and hide such information because they want to bolster their agenda that "mankind is at fault for global warming".

We do need to take care of our planet, that is no joke, what recourses and treasures we destroy today we deprive ourselves and more importantly our children the experiences nature has to offer.

That being said, we know jack about global warming, if it was a man made issue it would not develope and accelerate in a short amount of time, our industries have been at it for well over a hundred years, cars for over a hundred, and no signs of significant weather changes until the past few decades. The causes could be anything, we know very little about our planets climatic rotations and to blame one thing and for the problem to be another is in its self ignorant.

We need to control industry for the sake of our health and our beautiful planet, but weather changes happen many times often uncontrolable.

EDT to add I am not sure if that load of bs even makes sense to tell you the ruth honestly I am so very drunk right now/ I appologize for any ignorance I may hgave spread through my words.

Another EDIT to add tha tI LOVEEE YooUUU ATS! GOd damned if there aint ever been a better bunch of people, even those I disagree with, woohoo go ats n stuff!

[edit on 9/14/2006 by Rockpuck]

[edit on 9/14/2006 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
To answer your question, no I am not condoning or suggesting the methodical genocide of anyone. Absolutely not.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Nevertheless, there is no way to get around the fact that drastically curtailing technology would result in billions of deaths. That cannot be the solution to the issue you raise, but at the same time, it seems to be the only solution to "human-caused" global warming.

What do you propose to fix the problem, or are you just here to point it out for the rest of us? From Al Gore on down I never see any realistic solutions proposed, only complaints - with the U.S. always labeled the "bad guy". Hello! If this is truly a world problem, it's up to the world to fix it, not just the U.S. So before anyone starts talking about Kyoto, remember that that document made it the U.S.'s responsibility to alone take the fall for global warming while leaving gross polluters such as China alone to continue on with business as usual.

Continuing on ...

Here's a related matter I would like to see reconciled.

Al Gore belongs to a group of people(let's call them "progressives") that claims to think for, speak for, and look out for the downtrodden (the little people) of the world. And human-caused global warming is one of their major concerns. They have blasted the U.S. for not ratifying the Kyoto accords, even though doing so would put a major hurt solely on the U.S. economy.

But wait a minute - and here is what needs to be reconciled - the U.S. is the "breadbasket" for much of the third world, exporting the grain that keeps millions from starving in countries like Indonesia. So, if the U.S. has to cut back its economy, won't that be a major problem for the poor countries that depend on the U.S. grain exports? Won't that end up starving millions of the very same people the "progressives" claim to be watching out for?

Al's probably not here on ATS, so who can answer this on behalf of the others that think as he does?



[edit on 9/14/2006 by centurion1211]

I must agree with Essan, in our limited view we are banned to despair, but take a look at millions of years and you will see.
I apologize if this link is malfunctioning.
http:/www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/5/704[/url]

If one does a brief search on " petrified trees on Antarctica" you will find a multitude of suggestions.

I agree though we have a hazardous approach to our environment.

WIS

I maintain as I always have that, just as our ancient forebears did, we will be forced to adapt to climate change. The debate over who or what is causing global warming, while important, should not supersede the issue of what we intend to do about it. All evidence suggests that this is a trend that will continue for decades, and that the implications could last for centuries. To my thinking, that implies that who is at fault is less important now than what we are going to do about it. Whether you believe humanity is responsible for climate change, or whether you believe this is a natural occurrence, this phenomenon is real, is affecting us today, and will affect our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to a far greater extent than it will impact upon our lives. This alone - for me - is reason for concern, regardless of the source of the phenomenon. We must let go of our desire to win an argument or prove a case, and focus on solutions. Sadly, I can offer no good suggestions as I simply lack the knowledge necessary to do so. However, I feel that choosing to consider this a relevant issue is a good place to start. We must start somewhere. Even if this is a natural phenomenon, it doesn’t look like it’s going to suddenly go away anytime soon.

My contention is and always has been, that mankind didn't cause the current phenomenon but exacerbated it where, for example, if the world were on the crux of a self-healing initiative we pushed it in the wrong direction.

Personally I think "Global Warming" may be a somewhat irresponsible nomenclature for what is happening now, where, in my honest opinion, "Ocean Warming" is probably more appropriate.

For those interested, perhaps you should look into the rate of Oceanic Warming instead, and the influences that drive it. Undersea volcanism is certainly the place to start. Think of all the recent seisomic undersea activity, Dec., 2004's Tsunami, The ring of Fire, Gakkel Ridge, Mid-Atlantic Ridge..there seems to be an incredible amount of oceanic volcanism that could well explain a large portion of (lets just call it) "Warming".

Combine this, with irregular Solar activity, Solar storms, Increased human activity (negatively affecting the stratosphere, ionosphere and ecosystems), a time (unknown to modern man) when the Sun will cross the galactic median, the current slowing of the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) or Conveyor belt, Tectonic disturbances that alter waterways sending more fresh water into saltwater, ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), Trade winds.

A HOST of so many factors, that most who have posted on here seems to have failed to take into account, either for or against the "Global Warming by Mankind" debate. So many that I have not taken into account here (its beyond the scope of one post). It's become politically motivated, where it should be humanitarian motivated.

When you choose to present a case, I would find it advantageous to present ALL SUPPORTING facts to the group before claiming one position or the other.

SpeakerOfTruth, where you require (or so it seems to me) for the majority to concede accountability, to me this seems fanatical to your cause. It just doesnt make sense. No matter WHO's responsible, only one will fix it, and it wont be mankind..its beyond our reach especially at this point. I mean truth be told, what will you do? What will WE do?
a) Cool the oceans volcanic eruptions?
b) Cool the Land based volcanic eruptions?
c) Get truckload after truckload of salt and offset the oceanic salinity deficiency?
d) Start sewing the holes in the ozone back together?
e) Regulate Solar output?
f) Slow the rate of the Procession of the Equinoxes?
g) Regulate the ENSO?
h) Quell the amount of tectonic activity?
i) All of the above?


Do you see my point? In circumspect manmade environmental anamolies seem very small by way of comparison to the earth's own natural tendencies and growth, recession, and regrowth. Calling for accountability is counter-productive if your "agenda" is a What the heck do we do now mindset. You live, you love, you enjoy, and you hope for the best..i'm not saying throwing caution to the wind, nor am i saying pollute everywhere you can, because God KNOWS I'm very envrionmentally conscious and think we should ALL do our part to clean up this planet...conversely I'm saying dont stir panic.

As a sidenote, in case you werent aware, approximately 95% of Green house Gases are water vapor..which leads one to believe a higher rate of evaporation. In my opinion there, the largest factors would be the worlds oceans. THAT being said, AGAIN in my opinion, the oceans themselves are probably warming from the bottom up, producing a higher rate of evaporation -> more GHG's -> warmer climate -> accelerated rate of Glacial Melting and lower arctic sea ice mass.

AB1

[edit on 15-9-2006 by alphabetaone]

[edit on 15-9-2006 by alphabetaone]

Originally posted by Thinker_1
I have a question - with all the ice that has already melted, why are the coasts not flooded yet? Where is the water going? Anyone know?

Ice that is already in the water (such as the Arctic) does not raise sea levels. I believe it has something to do with ice being less thick than water and the fact that it is already in it. You can put an ice cube in a glass of water and notice the total water level doesn't rise after the ice cube melts. However the ice on top of land such as on top of Greenland and Antarctica will raise sea levels a lot if it melts. Actually it is melting on Greenland at a faster pace recently.

I read this news earlier today that the Arctic ice has melted I believe 12 percent for the last two years compared to 9 percent per decade for the last two decades. The lack of ice will only help the Arctic water to heat up faster as less sunlight is reflected away. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw an almost ice free Arctic in our lifetimes.

Then the motor for the gulf stream could shut down and the northern hemisphere could experience massive snow and ice storms where snow and ice starts accumulating heavily on land in the Arctic areas. Then the cold heads south. We may be living in interesting times. I've heard many times of lake effect snow. Perhaps in Canada they will be hearing of Arctic effect snow in the years to come.

A thawed out Arctic ocean could be a massive source of water for extremely heavy snowfall. The sad thing is the equatorial regions may get a lot hotter than today while the polar regions get a lot colder if the motor mechanism for the gulf stream shuts down completely. I doubt a few curbs on greenhouse gases is going to change much. A global curb along with experimental dumping of iron into the ocean might have an impact. I think the biggest problem is so many people think we can't do anything significant or it's not economical to do anything to curtail climate change.