Murphy Jnr Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 the weight is transferring from south to north. The water around the North Pole is heavier than the ice around the South Pole. Ice floats in water doesn't it. Water is much denser. That'll be cancelled out when the polar bears move in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 the weight is transferring from south to north. The water around the North Pole is heavier than the ice around the South Pole. Ice floats in water doesn't it. Water is much denser. The ice at the South Pole isn’t floating on water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The Arctic ice has completely melted many times. I only found this out through watching an excellent series called 'Earth Story'. By studying mud cores, geologists found stones in vast quantities buried under the ocean floor. these stones could only have come from the Arctic Circle, but they were way further south. The geologists concluded that the only way they could have got there in such quantities was by being carried in vast flotillas of icebergs. They calculated such quantities of icebergs could only occur if the whole Arctic ice pack melted and broke up. Furthermore, they found evidence of many of these events at different depths in the mud cores, indicating that not only has it happened before, but it is - in geological terms - a relatively frequent occurence. It is stumbling on stuff like this which has turned me from a strong believer in the climate change 'consensus' to a complete skeptic. We have been led to believe that the melting of Arctic ice is almost unprecedented and indicates ecological disaster. Those putting such a message out must be aware that it is not the whole story. It has become common practice to present misleading or incomplete information about climate change, in the interests of convincing the public. At what point does it stop being science and instead become propaganda? Another thing I found out recently is that CO2 is extremely limited in it's ability to cause warming, because as its' levels get higher, it becomes increasing less effective at trapping heat. Not the impression generally given! http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "2) The impact of CO2 is nonlinear in the sense that each added unit contributes less than its predecessor. For example, if doubling CO2 from its value in the late 19th Century (about 290 parts per million by volume or ppmv) to double this (i.e., 580 ppmv) causes a 2% increase in radiative forcing3, then to obtain another 2% increase in radiative forcing we must increase CO2 by an additional 580 ppmv rather than by another 290 ppmv. At present, the concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppmv. The easiest way to understand this is to consider adding thin layers of paint to a pane of glass. The first layer cuts out much of the light, the next layer cuts out more, but subsequent layers do less and less because the painted pane is already essentially opaque." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I remember being taught at school many years ago about glacial activity, the ice age and how the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. Just because it’s happened before doesn’t imply that human’s aren’t having an effect on climate, if we are in the warming part of the cycle our activity will be accelerating it, and if we are in the cooling part of the cycle our activities will be slowing it. Natural changes to our climate have also been linked to mass species extinctions; I would say no one will fully understand the consequences of our action or inaction, to me it’s not something that can be ignored and any action that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels, forest destruction, pollution, and population growth is worth pursuing. We either ignore it or do what is necessary according to scientist’s best guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I would say no one will fully understand the consequences of our action or inaction, to me it’s not something that can be ignored and any action that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels, forest destruction, pollution, and population growth is worth pursuing. We either ignore it or do what is necessary according to scientist’s best guess. Yeah, I think i'm in this camp though I can respect 'donkey's scepticism. There are a lot of conflicting views surrounding global warming/cooling and a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that the truth is being withheld; this in public interest of course. If only to end the vast amount of money oil companies make I would like to see our dependency on fossil fuels done away with. I'm no tree hugger but it's easy to see that our exploits are destroying where we live and not just for ourselves but every living thing on the planet. As a part time realist i'm certain its too late and its nice to see the panic but we're too stupid to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Just watched this slideshow, and was shocked at what it shows. You certainly can't deny the evidence, though what how you interpret it, i'm unsure. That depends on whether you mean global warming, global climate change, or anthropogenic GW or anthropogenic GCC really. Nobody is arguing that thinks don't change, the one constant in the history of the climate is change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Heat rises. he North Pole is at the top. You were being fascetious right? That wasn't serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I remember being taught at school many years ago about glacial activity, the ice age and how the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. Just because it’s happened before doesn’t imply that human’s aren’t having an effect on climate, if we are in the warming part of the cycle our activity will be accelerating it, and if we are in the cooling part of the cycle our activities will be slowing it. Natural changes to our climate have also been linked to mass species extinctions; I would say no one will fully understand the consequences of our action or inaction, to me it’s not something that can be ignored and any action that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels, forest destruction, pollution, and population growth is worth pursuing. We either ignore it or do what is necessary according to scientist’s best guess. There is a mass extinction occurring at the moment. In terms of the speed at which is occurring, it is up there with the three greatest mass extinctions on geological record. It is being caused by overpopulation (which continues to get worse) and the reuslting destruction of habitats as more people seek land and resources. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also a result of increasing human populations. Overpopulation is the elephant in the room. If there is an impending ecological catastrophe, it is because of this, yet the politicians who so keenly trumpet the dangers of 'man made climate change' (which are unclear) have their heads in the sqand on this far more urgent issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If only to end the vast amount of money oil companies make I would like to see our dependency on fossil fuels done away with. I'm no tree hugger but it's easy to see that our exploits are destroying where we live and not just for ourselves but every living thing on the planet. I agree. I'd love to see a move away from fossil fuels, and an era of new cleaner technologies brought in. Yeah, I think i'm in this camp though I can respect 'donkey's scepticism. There are a lot of conflicting views surrounding global warming/cooling and a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that the truth is being withheld; this in public interest of course. As a part time realist i'm certain its too late and its nice to see the panic but we're too stupid to deal with it. In the early days, the credibility of climate change sceptics was severely damaged by the open links many high profile ones had to the oil industry and right wing politicians. However, the credibility of the alarmists has now also been called into question, and there is a more moderate brand of scepticism emerging. Many in the consensus camp now seem to be toning down their predictions and speaking in terms of much greater uncertainty than before. The whole debate seems to be moving more into the middle ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 There is a mass extinction occurring at the moment. In terms of the speed at which is occurring, it is up there with the three greatest mass extinctions on geological record. It is being caused by overpopulation (which continues to get worse) and the reuslting destruction of habitats as more people seek land and resources. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also a result of increasing human populations. Overpopulation is the elephant in the room. If there is an impending ecological catastrophe, it is because of this, yet the politicians who so keenly trumpet the dangers of 'man made climate change' (which are unclear) have their heads in the sqand on this far more urgent issue. Is there a solution to over population? A closer look at whether or not we should be sustaining an individual life for as long as possible might go someway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.