STOP PRESS - Vast Cracks Appear in Arctic Ice

Does it really matter what is actually causing it?

Everyone should just stop bickering about the cause of this "global warming" and focus not on trying, and probably failing, to prevent it but to adapt to it and minimise it impact upon us. Personally I think it is probably a variety of causes, but also isn't half as bad as the media now makes it out to be.

But we can't save the world's poor by arguing about it.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Don't know why there are so many anti-global warmists around here.

Cold temperatures kill more people than warm so anyone in their right mind would wish for a bit more warmth.

Even if there is nothing we can do, are you really that against cleaning up the Earth?

No i'm not not but then i never asked the capitalist/industrialist/kings/tyrants to pollute the planet in the first place. NO ONE asked for this mess and the average Joe has proven himself more than able to respect the environment that sustains him. The fact that 'we' now tend to live in cities while the destruction happens elsewhere is hardly our fault and we never did ask them to pollute instead of losing that few percentage points of income.

So the ice cracked... either we can fix it or we can't.

Sure we can fix it but are we responsible and should we even try to fix it? Will the cure be worse than the problem or is this change good?

People on this board seem to focus blame in the wrong area. It's policy you should be mad at, not the cause.

The cause may be noble in principle ( save the environment and all) but i will never save the environment as long as the capitalist system forces the one's closes to starvation to starve a bit more to 'pay' for the 'fix'. I will always pick people over the environment as frankly i would rather have everyone pay for a common mistake than just those who never benefited from that 'mistake'. It's too bad the planet got in the middle of all this but i am confident that she/he wont shed any tears when we all drown or starve for one reason or another; this planet has proven itself more than capable of recovering from most things imaginable.

The cause is noble, whether it is correct or wrong.

I don't understand how a noble cause can be correct or wrong? Will you mind picking one or at least explaining how being wrong can be noble?

You can tell someone has an agenda when just the mention of Global Warming makes them start yelling smart-ass Al Gore remarks.

Yes you can but since i am not one of those folk, and thought he was a self serving %$&%$%$ when he got to be 'famous' for refusing to become the president of the USA, some time before all this 'saving the planet stuff', i think you would be well advised to presume that i did read a bit, don't mind saving the environment, and won't believe in lies no matter how 'nobel' the intent supposedly is.

Usually I just skip over those posts.

I got the impression that you skipped over a whole lot more than that!

Stellar

reply to post by Blaine91555


I agree with many of the points you raise, and appreciate that you have taken a balanced viewpoint.

This end of the world nonsense is just that; nonsense! More dramatic climate changes have happened before and yet life goes on.

It is not a question of the end of the world. It is a question of glaringly obvious climate change. This is actually an inflammatory, even derogatory statement in contrast to much of what you wanted to get across.

The only thing we can do is adapt to the changes as they come along. Destroying ourselves financially won't help and yet some are ready to destroy our Earths economy out of pure paranoia.

The changes have come along. And what are we doing? In terms of an intelligent global strategy - zilch. Many scientists are arguing already that man-made greenhouse gases are damaging the ozone layer on such a scale the cycle is not entirely reversible. While wutone in particular did a stirling job of producing graphical evidence for historical global temperature fluctuation I'm surprised ATS-ers haven't picked up the clear implication - computer generated future scenarios that predict climate change will continue are right, whichever way you look at it.

People on both sides of the fence should be able to unite in saying that reduction, if not radical reduction, of greenhouse gases is an imperative. Current proposals for a world-wide agreement focus on slowing the rate of increase of greenhouse gas production, which is still not even a reduction.

I noticed in the first page that somehow the Race Card was introduced into this Global Warming topic.

I can only calmly say that this is way off the mark. Way off.

This is what happened on page one of the debate:

reply to post by centurion1211

Comment first posted by centurion1211:

just face it that nature is sometimes cruel and people are going to die - no matter how many trillions of dollars you want to spend.

Fair enough, most of the ones who will really suffer, at least at first, have dark skin, don't speak English and don't make a major contribution to the world economy... (I suspect such deep prejudice underlies much apathy, although please note I'm not making an assertion of racism against you personally.)

But what if they were your kids? Would you still be that blaze? Or would you perhaps do everything in your power to minimise the consequences and prepare for what is to come?

'Playing the race card' would be introducing racist comments or attempting to set one group of commentators against another using racial issues to do so. I did the very opposite: I was challenging the view that citizens of wealthy nations can just sit back and watch it all happen. Such an attitude comes from being in a position to cope more easily with the changes, and it is my sincere belief that if it was western nations that were first in line to face human and economic misery on this scale they would be pulling out all the stops to take whatever measures were necessary. No-one would have the gall to argue turning to renewable energy or adapting industrial output is too costly. I say human lives are more precious than corporate margins.

Even if many richer parts of the world are second in line for the impact to take full effect, it will still hit them eventually, so maybe when they appreciate that when all is said and done a global response is in their own interest they might at least feign some concern for the world environment, and accept that even costly redirection of energy sourcing and industrial output is worthwhile. And I repeat, saying we ought to respond with humane concern is not a 'race card'. When people have to resort to such accusations to rubbish another position it leaves you wondering whether deep down they know you are right.

The debate did become emotive in posts like this, but if anything it was the stone-heartedness of others' comments that were extreme.

People who care about these things deeply enough to take a strong stand are not, as you suggest, having tantrums. They are moved by the reality of global issues which individuals cannot influence other than via debate, and asking those who can to wake up.

Whether or not the primary cause of rising temperatures is man-made the greenhouse effect means even if the (ostensible) external cause happened to reverse and return to a non-harmful level temperatures could still rise significantly, albeit more slowly than if ozone depletion was itself the overall cause.

Well if anyone is interesting to do a bit of scientific work on global warming models. There is experiment running by Met Office and Universities of Reading and Oxford. Each of participant get their own climate model for analysing and results are published online. BBC already published them once but project is still running with a goal to make more exact results.

More info on:

climateprediction.net...

Dramatic evidence of the break-up of the Arctic ice-cap has emerged from research during an expedition by the Canadian military.

Scientists travelling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada's far north.

...One of the expedition's scientists, Derek Mueller of Trent University, Ontario, told me: "I was astonished to see these new cracks..."


I love the whole Scientists travelling with the troops bit!

Anyway, the polar ice caps seasonally shrink, fact. Man isn't the cause of the solar warming that's happening now, has done in the past and long after ATS has lived its usefulness.

Stop worrying about all the natural events that you can't change i.e. Burma, china etc..... If you are so concerned with 'people' then get your government to stop invading other countries, may be reduce your 25% share of world pollution, stop subscribing to all your TV channels and newspapers (they are all Jewish Elitist propaganda outlets), may be stop funding so much global terror and here's a thought, spend the trillions you give to Israel on say, US citizens that are living in 1st world poverty?

Stop being part of the whole man and global warming problem.

All your guys arguing your solar event stuff, you do realize that the majority of the rest of the planet in a position to have an opinion on this,k outside of the good ol' US of A, takes global warming as a scientific fact, and puts the blame on man-made CO2 gases. It just seems many people have this urge to cling to and not change.

Even if you don't believe in global warming, are you always right?

Green industries would stimulate a dying US economy....

What if there is only a 10% chance us "believers" are right?

Your going to risk the future of the planets because you don't wanna give up driving your SUV to the store two blocks away?

Noone can know for sure whose right in this debate, but why risk it for trivial (by comparison) things?

I also found interesting article on Reuters. Posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by centurion1211

 

just face it that nature is sometimes cruel and people are going to die - no matter how many trillions of dollars you want to spend.

Fair enough, most of the ones who will really suffer, at least at first, have dark skin, don't speak English and don't make a major contribution to the world economy... (I suspect such deep prejudice underlies much apathy, although please note I'm not making an assertion of racism against you personally.)

But what if they were your kids? Would you still be that blaze? Or would you perhaps do everything in your power to minimise the consequences and prepare for what is to come?

actually africans will get water in the deserts...europe and america will suffer massive flooding...

to stop the melting ice all you need to do is simple insert about 120 electrodes around the general arctic area circumference and pass a small current.this will release oxygen and and hydrogen gas which will dispel carbon dioxide over the arctic thus stopping trapping of heat and cooling the ice.

the current does not have to be huge.

the cost is minimal.

just enough to liberate enough o2 and h2 to displace co2 gas and thus stopping the green house effect over the poles.

i have saved world.

[edit on 24-5-2008 by esecallum]

[edit on 24-5-2008 by esecallum]

reply to post by Tenebrous


Well said. Just because people are saying there could be dire consequences for the entire planet doesn't mean you should assume it is scaremongering. And the ice keeps on melting...

Just what would it take to convince some people? Bubbles in the sea?



reply to post by Blaine

The question is, should we panic and act like a bunch of fools about it while we destroy ourselves financially, or; should we approach this calmly and rationally.

Our economy is truly a world economy and if the West fails the domino's will fall.

Yes, but that is the whole point of creating a sustainable economy!



reply to post by mimijyd

Anyway, the polar ice caps seasonally shrink, fact.

Gargantuan cracks in the polar ice caps are happening in places that do not fit the paradigm of annual ebb and flow. And the season-to-season pattern that is emerging is overall one-directional: shrinkage.

Here is some serious evidence: www.pewclimate.org... - highly recommended reading.

There has been concern about loss of habitat for polar bears for quite some time. There is now a very real possibility of extinction.

Don't believe me? Check this out:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to

 

1942 was the hottest year on record because of WW II, and is and of itself positive proof that global warming is caused by man. WW II heated our entire freakin planet up.

Can you confirm this claim?

Originally posted by Locus Iste What is true is that weather is unpredidictable system. One small change on the other side can cause natural catastrophe on the other side. It's butterfly effect one of the laws in meteorology.

There is another law that might be more valid. The total amount of energy coming out can not exceed de amount of energy that got in. The butterfly fable is totally bogus and is based on nothing than poetry gone wild. If that is a law in meteorology than I can imagine why they just seam to not be able to predict the weather for the next two days.

Arctic ice is still far below awerage so don't say that ice has returned. It has returned but because on north pole was dark for 6 months. We had winter and it's completely normal for ice to progress. BUT we havent reached even averege.

For one to work out an average one will have a part above average but there needs to be an equal portion below average. What you need to do is long time measurements not pick a year or a decade and shout dwolf at it. That wont do the trick.

Once you start looking at the big picture and I mean a real big picture, say recorded in ice cores, you may not see anything that is alarming.

About Al Gore maybe not all facts are as he represented it but i personally feafear consequences will be far worst.

And there’s the problem in a nutshell. Fear. Fear is a bad conductor for constructive thinking. Even worse, fear is an isolator for constructive thinking. Politicians know this fact and are not shy to use this in their advantage. Once fear is bullied into the play yard, the kids are easily persuaded to hand over the goodies.

And now look at the way the science is done by a bully :

35 inconvenient truths

When a scientific thesis includes at least 35 provable errors, you can render it entirely useless.

So now there is a problem without a theory. One can not try and counteract something that one does not know about. So what one must do is try to get a picture of what is causing the phenomenon and if it is curable then work out a cure but for crying out load don’t run around like a beheaded chicken squishing blood against the wall. The mess will only become bigger.

We need good science, no lies no, scare inducting, no exaggerations, no convenient errors, no politicians, no lies.

That what needs to be done.