... tracking the ongoing Arctic meltdown are sounding new warnings about the state of the polar environment in an era of evidently rapid climate change.
www.canada.com
Google News: polar climate
Post sponsored by the Energy Issues Directory
Aug 26, 2008
US scientists sound alarm over Arctic ice as Harper poised for trip
Canada.com, Canada
... tracking the ongoing Arctic meltdown are sounding new warnings about the state of the polar environment in an era of evidently rapid climate change.
www.canada.comrelated articles
Google News: polar climate
Post sponsored by the Energy Issues Directory
... tracking the ongoing Arctic meltdown are sounding new warnings about the state of the polar environment in an era of evidently rapid climate change.
www.canada.com
Google News: polar climate
Post sponsored by the Energy Issues Directory
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ The summer is over in the Arctic. Temperatures are now in the sub zero readings.The Summer Ice is done melting and his short of the 2007 summer ice melt by 2.5 Million Km2. So My guess is the ice due to wind shifting for another few weeks might move some ice away from the Arctic and this might be interpreted as "melting" for the next two weeks.As usual time will tell.
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/menu_e.html?timeframe=1&Prov=NU&StationID=99999&Year=2008&Month=8&Day=24
Why are people so afraid to imagine that humans have the capacity to screw things up?
We screw everything up! Get used to it...
"Why are people so afraid to imagine that humans have the capacity to screw things up?" Imagination is one thing and very easy to do ..Like 99% of 5 years old believe in Santa Clause! but we adults know better don't we? But reality is another.. Why are we saying we screw up the Arctic Summer ice when we are in Summer? Look at those graphs the Arctic is not melting and it did what it does in summer time and now it will freeze again. So let me say.. Why is it so hard to understand that we do not control climate? Can control our pollution? Yes! but the weather? No.
Controlling the elements has been human dream since the beginning of time. From rain dances to the reading of pebbles and entrails nothing worked! Today we are more sophisticated and we attempt the same things with computer models ...but that's only an "imaging" scenario.
You are willfully blind if you don't recognize the damage that has been done from time to time due to pollution.
You may not care, but you shouldn't confuse your desire for humans to have no impact with thinking we really do have no impact.
Anyway, it's a pretty simple (perhaps idiotic) argument to claim it's summer, so what. We are talking about events happening that have never happened before in terms of recorded history.
You'll have to do a little better to be taken seriously.
And, once again, why is it so frightening to you to imagine that maybe, just maybe, billions of people and huge mega-corporations have the ability to influence (who said anything about control) environmental issues?
You also aren't right just because you want to be.
"We are talking about events happening that have never happened before in terms of recorded history."
Like what? Ice melting? Droughts? floods?Tornado's? storms ? Kidney stones? snow ? rain? cold? I am told the poles are melting..I take a look and they are not. I am told GW cause bigger storms..I take a look and turns out no to be so. Pleaseeeee! if you know a secret place were I can find finally the proof that this is not some gigantic emotional fraud let me know.
Your need to rephrase my statements so that you can then knock them down is far too common these days.
If all you imagine is that "ice melting" is the issue... then please just stick your head in the sand and move on.
If you don't understand that a one or two degree rise in ocean temperatures makes it easier for hurricanes to gather energy... then please just stick your head in the sand and move on.
This isn't a kindergarten issue and I'm afraid your five minutes of feigned ignorance are up.
There are good ways to discuss why global warming might not be the issue it is thought to be, but all you've got is political rhetoric.
Too bad. I'd much prefer that global warming was not an issue...
"Your need to rephrase my statements so that you can then knock them down is far too common these days."
I learned to do that from Realclimate.org
But the oceans are Cooling not warming! read the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO.
PS I do not like politics.
Rephrashing, and twisting, peoples statements to attack them is very shoddy.
It doesn't speak well of the discussion on realclimate.org if that is where you learned to argue so poorly.
Did you happen to check out the resources pointed to by the site itself, such as:
FAQ Index
FAQ 2.1
FAQ 4.1
Whether or not you like politics, you should be aware that it is difficult to regurgitate public commentary without getting into politically motivated issues.
Again, I'd like you to be right, but you can't smugly toss out some minor things that appear to run counter to the general trend and consider it proof.
Nobody argues against the desire to reduce pollution, or assumes that reducing our footprint on the planet is a bad thing. There is no downside to accepting that we may have to exercise caution with respect to byproducts of civilization.
The reason it is fought so strongly is purely because it may cause political and financial shifts... faster than changes in the climate would do so, which means you have to look very carefully at who might be motivated to cloud the issue.
For example, did you hear about the fact that scientific reports were edited by the white house staff prior to passing them along to the media? The messages were shaped for political purpose... instead of by the best efforts of the scientists responsible for generating those viewpoints.
It is very difficult to discern the truth on an issue like this. However, the fact that there is no real downside to reducing pollution and environmental impact gives me a touch point when considering the vehemence of arguments on this topic.
Must be the James Hansen from NASA who claimed The White house was muzzling him your pointing at.
Yes the government did ask James Hansen to have his speeches checked before he talk on behaves of NASA. Hansen took that as an insult and was upset at being ask to check with his boss before he made his speeches public. He was use to not to have to do this under Al Gore and Bill Clinton. I work for a company and I have to sign ..like everyone else, a company policy. If I want to say something publicly as a rep for the company ..like it or not it must be approved by the company. Hansen wanted to makes statements that were contrary to the policy and it could have cause lawsuits toward NASA if these statements would have been proven wrong! And since the science Hansen keep talking about is base on Computer models not on field research! they were removed. I fail to see were this is a problem.
Yes I have read all the RC arguments and I do not like Gavin S.
Post a Comment