[quote][b]Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant'
13:38 02 February 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Jenny Hogan, Exeter
The massive west Antarctic ice sheet, previously assumed to be stable, is starting to collapse, scientists warned on Tuesday.
Antarctica contains more than 90% of the world's ice, and the loss of any significant part of it would cause a substantial sea level rise. Scientists used to view Antarctica as a "slumbering giant", said Chris Rapley, from the British Antarctic Survey, but now he sees it as an "awakened giant".
Rapley presented measurements of the ice sheet at a major climate conference in Exeter, UK. Glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula, which protrudes from the continent to the north, were already known to be retreating. But the data Rapley presented show that glaciers within the much larger west Antarctic Ice sheet are also starting to disappear.
If the ice on the peninsula melts entirely it will raise global sea levels by 0.3 metres, and the west Antarctic ice sheet contains enough water to contribute metres more. The last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2001, said that collapse of this ice sheet was unlikely during the 21st century. That may now need to be reassessed, Rapley warned.
Cork from a bottle
Changes on the peninsula, where 75% of the 400 mountain glaciers are in retreat, have provided new insights into the ways that ice sheets may disintegrate.
In March 2002, a huge floating ice shelf known as Larsen B shattered into icebergs. This turned out to have an effect akin to pulling a cork from a bottle. With Larsen B no longer impeding movement, the ice floes that fed the shelf began moving faster towards the sea and started to thin. The finding took scientists by surprise when revealed in September 2004 and now modellers are now working to include such mechanisms in their predictions.
Climate records derived from the analysis of sediments show that ice shelves off the peninsula have been absent in several earlier eras, when natural variability warmed the world. But the break-up is affecting ice closer to the pole than ever recorded, said Rapley. "It's like the Heineken effect," he said, referring to the beer adverts that claim Heineken "reaches the parts other beers cannot reach".
Indications that climate change may be affecting the west Antarctic ice sheet comes from three glaciers, including Pine Island and Thwaites. Data reveal they are losing more ice - mainly through the calving of icebergs - than is being replaced by snowfall. According to a preliminary analysis, the difference between the mass lost and mass replaced is about 60%.
[b]Whether the loss of mass by the glaciers is due to natural variation or is caused by human-influenced warming of the oceans is not known for sure. Scientists are now making more field measurements to assess the causes, but warming is a likely culprit, said Rapley: "The fact that three of them are simultaneously accelerating suggests that is the case." The melting of these three glaciers alone is contributing an estimated 0.24 millimetres per year to sea level. [/b]
OMIGOD, GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, though...why this need to invent catastrophies? We can't prove that human activity is causing the warming we may be detecting, nor do we have a lot of reliable historical data and our models all have a zillion unsupported assumptions inbedded within...but you can't prove it's NOT global waarming!
if 90% of the US is allowed to believe in an invisible white bearded old man that created everything, knows everything, loves us but desperately needs unending praise and money, then i am allowed to believe in global warming.
[quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 04:21 PM
[b] OMIGOD, GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, though...why this need to invent catastrophies? We can't prove that human activity is causing the warming we may be detecting, nor do we have a lot of reliable historical data and our models all have a zillion unsupported assumptions inbedded within...but you can't prove it's NOT global waarming! [/b][/quote]
Personally I believe in global warming. My question to you and all who vehemently disagree with the theory, is why do you care if the theory holds no water?
Can't we all at least agree that pollution in general is bad? Don't we all at least concede the fact that pollution causes acid rain, raises mercury levels in fish, respiratory ailments, etc... Does it really matter if global warming is or is not a fact?
The only reason I could see someone not caring about pollution levels is if they themselves are the polluter or receive kickbacks from the polluters. I don't believe any of this BS about costing Americans millions of jobs, that is simply an excuse. Isn't saying that we should not sign the Kyoto agreement because other countries didn't sign it a cop out?
I'm not a tree-hugging hippie, but even I am appalled by the irresponsibility of the Bush administration on the environment. It is so clear that he is appeasing his big-business buddies.
I don't know maybe some of you are Dominion Christians and believe that the world is going to end soon so we should reap whatever we can from the earth.
Section - do you think it's possible that greenies overhype the ramifications of global warming in order to advance their agendas? I mean, you seem to imply that business pooh-pooh global warming for their own ends, does that cynicism also extend to green groups? It's about control and power. Green groups like non-profits or "think tanks" all have payrolls to worry about, expenses, mortgages, asstes, etc. They seek more and more funding. Do you think that is a conflict of interest and could possibly affect their scientific conclusions? I mean, businesses certainly have incentives to under-estimate envoronmental concerns, but greenies also have an inverted incentive. Why would any green group say, "You know what, it's not that bad actually. Cut our funding and we'll all find new jobs!" Everyone has something to gain, not just the evil capitalists.
You want to restrict people from builing on "wetlands" or swamps? Fine, then don't whine about the lack of affordable housing when it is YOU who are restricting the supply of housing. Don't call people "developers" as if that has some negative connotation when it is "developers" who help increase the supply of and therefore lower the price of housing.
One of the biggest myths going today is the notion that scientists are not biased or do not make leaps of faith that are similar to the ones made by religious folk. Scientists build their reputations around their famous theories, and are not inclined to accept the possibility that their life's work could be wrong if other data comes along that is contradictory. So scientists become as entrenched as do any other people. They make ad-hoc arguments all the time.
We simply don't have enough historical data. Even if the climate is changing, we don't know where we are now in relation to most of the earth's history. What if the climate is rising due to the shifting of sunspots, as some people think? All of the models used for predictions and back-testing are crammed full of assumptions, usually cherry-picked to produce an output that will be in agreement with the pre-ordained conclusions of whoever is funding the "independent study."
For every article that Bit posts, you can find a bunch of other ones saying something completely different.
It's about money - business want to save it, and greenies want to get at some of it.
Anyone can righteously claim that water needs to be "clean" or air needs to be "clean" or that "pollution" is bad. It is all relative. For example, if our air is, say, 98% clean from toxins, we can always improve. We will NEVER get to 100%. So it is quite easy for people to come along and say "our air could be clearner, do what we tell you!" and demand more money or create some model that spits out exactly what they want it to.
The question is, are the benefits of having air that is greater than 98% clean worth the costs of doing so? And this assumes that we even know how clean our air is and know that our measures will ijmprove it. What if we spend all sorts of money and cripple the economies of developing nations and global warming turns out to be baseless. The USA has a large and flexible economy. We'd be hurt economically, but we'd survive. It is the developing nations, the poorer nations that need to build up infrastructure and physical capital in order to get ahead. We would be CRIPPLING them if we enact the types of haevy, heavy regulations some greenies want. On what? A guess? Why is the hole in the ozone layer getting smaller? Why is the Sahara desert shrinking? Our air and drinking water in the USA is cleaner today than it ever has been. There is a lot of disinformation and demagoguing out there.
This is not just lost profits or smaller margins for CEOs, these are people losing jobs, etc. The spotted owl and logging example I have cited in the past is a good illustration of the human costs associated with greenies being wrong. Banning DDT is another illustration of this human cost. If greenies didn't lobby so hard, Africa would have DDT and their rates of malaria would go down tremendously. They are screaming for DDT. But we (the west) still cling to the green lobby and won't provide it, because we think it kills birds, even though it doesn't when used in controlled doses.
Maybe the climate is getting hotter. We have been on this earth for literally less than a millionith of a nanosecond, in terms of the entire history of the earth. Our atmosphere has survived meteors, mass eruptions, ice ages, etc. Some of these disruptions have lasted for hundreds of thousands of years. All of a sudden humans are screwing things up after a few hundred years of industry??
I can appreciate that not everyhting environmentalists say is BS. You could argue that even though they exaggerate and jump to conclusions and all, that perhaps that is what is needed, since without that, nothing would get done...not even the "very little" that is being done now, according to greenies. I guess I can see that. But in terms of scientific truth and conclusive evidence, I have yet to see it.
Jets5, if it's so simple, well then, I'll be sure to catch and fillet a few Hudson River Fish (Stripers perhaps) next time I'm in New York on a fishing Trip, and I'll be sure to call you ao I can enjoy watching you eat up. :lol: :lol:
[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 04:16 PM
[b] Jets5, if it's so simple, well then, I'll be sure to catch and fillet a few Hudson River Fish (Stripers perhaps) next time I'm in New York on a fishing Trip, and I'll be sure to call you ao I can enjoy watching you eat up. :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Who said it was simple?
[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 04:22 PM
[b] I don't know....who? I just felt like joking with you, needed an excuse. My bad. :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
No worries. I always knew you were a whale-hugging hippie tree-kisser.
[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 3 2005, 11:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 3 2005, 11:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Piper[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 10:31 AM
[b] mother nature is a ***** [/b][/quote]
yeah especially when humanity shoves a tailpipe in her mouth [/b][/quote]
Exactly...But once again Bush fails to see the danger of global warming, and another 4 years of him could be catostorophic, but that goes along with his Christian values, because Christians believes this world is theres for the taking and whatever natural thing happens, it happens, it is very scary when you think about it..
[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 02:29 PM
if 90% of the US is allowed to believe in an invisible white bearded old man that created everything, knows everything, loves us but desperately needs unending praise and money, then i am allowed to believe in global warming. [/b][/quote]
Haha you tell him, EXACTLY!
It is just scary when you think about it, I am almost at the point as saying F--t It, humanity is f---d and there is almost nothing I can do, might as well go down with the ship....
And it is not even a question of believing in Global warming, it is a fact, just think about it, when you light a match it creates heat, think of that heat times a trillion and that is what it does to the world
But once again the brainwashed ones(People who worship and see no other option then to believe in god) well turn a blind eye, and ALL of humanity has to suffer...
In 500 years when Religion is abolished from the earth, people are going to look at our culture and laugh and say 'What the heck was wrong with these people?"
[quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Feb 3 2005, 04:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Feb 3 2005, 04:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Warfish[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 04:22 PM
[b] I don't know....who? I just felt like joking with you, needed an excuse. My bad. :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
No worries. I always knew you were a whale-hugging hippie tree-kisser. [/b][/quote]
Whale-hugger, eh? Yea, right before I pull out the ol' electric fillet knife. Bet you didn;t know that endangered Whale makes great Catfish bait..... :lol: :lol:
As an atheist your comments about religion offend even me. I know I took a crack at the Dominion Christians, but most Christians do not condone raping the environment. (Atleast I hope so.)
5ever: Good analysis, and I see your point, but to me it is common sense. There is plenty of evidence to show the harm man has made to the environment wheather it be the ones I already mentioned, extinction of species, whatever. I guess I don't have the buisness at all costs mindset. I would be willing to pay a few extra dollars to say my electric company for them to cut their emissions by 60%. My next car will most likely be a hybrid (maybe an SUV hybrid, but a hybrid none the less ;) .)
[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 05:03 PM
[b] As an atheist your comments about religion offend even me. I know I took a crack at the Dominion Christians, but most Christians do not condone raping the environment. (Atleast I hope so.) [/b][/quote]
I grew up in the church and any flavor of Christianity that endorses the idea of the rapture (usually Born again Protestants) not only could give a rats ass about the environment, but as I said previously they welcome environmental destruction as a harbringer of the end times.
this isn't my OPINION... it's a FACT.
it should offend you - but don't imply that im making this up because i am not...
In the world of the Christian Right, concern for the environment is an atheistic socialist plot to bankrupt godly American industry - also environmental disaster is one of Biblical signs of the return of Christ. Why would anyone want to prevent Christ's return?
it sounds crazy... it is offensive - but it is not slander - it is reality.