No Global Warming eh??

[cyyz]

BUT, here's the kicker...

So what if we agree it is happening faster and it's our fault,

Now what???

We sign another Kyoto? Oh, wait CANADA produces more TOXINS vs the US who didn't sign...

More politicians will be paid to create more useless "enviromental departments" and do useless studies???

Sh8t, you people are daft, You want something done, you want to "save our environment"

tell your gov't

to stop cutting trees, and supporting countries that cut trees.
to stop producing and using oil
to stop buring coal and use natural resources
To stop producing tires and Cars that run on "gas"(redundant cause of oil)

Oh, wait, you can't that would kill the economy... millions out of work....

So, looks like your great X 16 grand-children will end up mutated and born in a world that isn't very "hospitable," who cares....

Dinosaurs lived and died, Man lived and will die... GET OVER IT.

The irony is, even if we do go "uber-green" a big commet/asteroid will probably come and take us off the map anyways...

[Mitch Cronin]

Interesting train of thought there cyyz.... somewhat existential perhaps, but interesting...

So I take it you see no need in trying anything at all to try to slow our destruction of this planet?... because you won't be here by the time it's inhospitable, so you don't care, is that it?
You don't have any kids, do you?

[cyyz]

because you won't be here by the time it's inhospitable, so you don't care, is that it?
You don't have any kids, do you?

Yes, and no kids, but want kids, and even if I had kids, like I said, centuries away before the politicians will be going "oops, guess they were right about that global warming stuff"

Do you drink? Well it's bad for you...

Do you enjoy the sun? Well it's bad for you...

Do you enjoy fries, well bad for you too... Everything in this world is "bad" for you, none of that "moderation, bs" some people eat Candy like it's water stay slim and don't have diabetes, some kid will have a few bars over their child-hood get fat and diabetes. People who have smoked their whole lives 80+ years, no cancer, people who did it a few times and die at 30...

Live life the way you want to live, but don't "force" your(PITA et-al) type messages/propaganda on me.

Go ahead and force it on the gov't and if the gov't decides to "change" legislation I'll abide by it. Might not like it, might biatch and comlain and think it's idiotic, or what not, but I'll do as told.

PS. "globalization" even if Canada did go isolationist, and green, we'd still have china, russia, USA polluting the world, so it wouldn't matter again.. Just like the UN, "No US in Iraq" and where is the US right now...

No one important cares, those who do care, don't care enough and why am I going to frustrate myself with making my life harder when the next guy will just use/abuse the system(I ride my bike to save on pollution, but the neighbour will still take his SUV)

[Driving Rain]

So, looks like your great X 16 grand-children will end up mutated and born in a world that isn't very "hospitable," who cares....

Dinosaurs lived and died, Man lived and will die... GET OVER IT.

The irony is, even if we do go "uber-green" a big commet/asteroid will
probably come and take us off the map anyways...

Would that fall under the elegant design theory or the evolution theory?

[DeskDriver]

I was asked:

If this is you're own, nice post

It is my own, and thank you for the compliment.

In the debate about global warming, both sides are rather heated. The debate, itself, has become one of a lobby rather than a hypothesis. One side saying "We must enact change". The other side saying "No change is needed". But if we are a thinking creature, let us ask whether we need to make a change (or is the problem itself trivial). If we need change, where best do we apply it? Or is it merely one of those annoying aspects of the universe which will change without our input? When science looks to fit facts around a conjecture, or when a conjecture looks to simply conform to a feeling, logic is cast away.

I've always believed that it is best to think about the question itself. What questions and proofs are needed? What data? What refutations are acceptable by the construction of the hypothesis?

[DeskDriver]

DeskDriver,

I like your Mensa avitar. Are you a member? If so, why are you dumb enough to be in aviation??

This is a good question. See, in aviation I have a vast amount of time which allows me to... no.. that's not so.

Okay. By working in aviation I can.. No that's not so either.

Okay, I'm flat-out lazy. Fine!!

Well, you asked!

[ehbuddy]

Its me again........

I guess the real point to my Global Warming comment stemmed from the fact that a couple of years ago today when the Heritage Classic outdoor hockey game was played here in Edmonton it was a chilly..........minus 28!

Today it actually made it to plus 17 which ends up being a 45 degree change in temperature........

[cyxe]

In the debate about global warming, both sides are rather heated.

[Hedley]

Global warming is happening

Then why is the Antarctic ice cap cooling and growing?

I'm amazed that people think that if you repeat an untruth often enough, it somehow becomes the truth.

[Lost in Saigon]

Here is a website that seems devoted to the topic of global warming:

http://junkscience.com/

Personally as a Canadian, living in a cold climate, I welcome any warming trends.

I also think that we tend to put much to "self-importance" in ourselves on this planet. I have flown countless hours over vast expanses of every corner of this planet looking down at absolutely NOTHING. This includes some of the most densely populated areas of the planet. (Asia, India). Mankind is just a little speck on this planet and I seriously doubt that we have much overall influence on ANYTHING.

Flying over the vast Pacific Ocean for 10 or 12 hours is one way to humble yourself of these ideas.

Every day millions of gallons of oil seep naturally from the ocean floor into the oceans.

I have seen forest fires caused by lightening, that burn millions of acres of land in areas so remote that the authorities don’t even bother to control them.

There are countless examples that this huge planet continues to evolve without any direct human involvement.

So I say just sit back, relax, and watch it unfold. (Very slowly)

[Hedley]

Liberal, city-dwelling environmentalists would be hilarious if they weren't so dangerous. Keep in mind their ancestors, who were similarly short on science, but long on conviction, were certain the earth was flat, and anyone who thought differently was obviously mentally incompetent.

Sound familiar?

[DeskDriver]

An interesting note: There has yet to be a generation in recorded history which was not certain that the end of times would come within their lifetime. We've progressed from christians saying that armagedon was just around the corner, to people believing Nostradamus prediction that the end was just around the corner, to the Heaven's Gate cult thinking the space ship was just around the corner. Now we have the green movement saying the end of times is just around the corner.

Thus far, they're 0-for...

[North Shore]

DeskDriver, agreed the end of the world is not imminent, however there are big changes ahead for humans due to our disregard for the natural systems of the world. Two small examples are the demise of the Atlantic Cod fishery - mainly due to overfishing and habitat destruction from bottom-dragging trawlers; and the Pacific Salmon - also facing population decline due to past logging practices leading to spawning habitat destruction.

[Mitch Cronin]

Then why is the Antarctic ice cap cooling and growing?

Please cite your source for that?... I was under the belief that in fact huge chunks of the Antarctic ice shelf have been breaking off and it's overall size has been reduced as a result.... ?

Additionally... Arctic ice has dwindled to the point where the Polar Bear's future is very uncertain....

[Hedley]

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281

Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.

Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.

Surface vs. satellite readings

Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.

However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.

"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations.

"While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world's climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4 Chicago Tribune.

[Mitch Cronin]

That seems to be a little dated Hedley... in more recent years:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0319-01.htm ... : http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/ ... _loss.html ... : http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 20320.html
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2003103001

....etcetera...

Here's one quote:

"The Antarctic Peninsula is undergoing greater warming than almost anywhere on Earth, a condition perhaps associated with human-induced greenhouse effects. According to the cover article published in the August 4 issue of the journal Nature, the spectacular collapse of the Antarctica's Larson B Ice Shelf, an area roughly the size of Rhode Island, is unprecedented during the past 10,000 years."

...and another:
" Using data collected from six sediment cores in the vicinity of the former ice shelf, Domack and his colleagues conclude that the Larsen ice shelf had been intact but was slowly thinning during the course of the current interglacial period. They attribute the recent collapse to the effects of climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, which is more pronounced in this region than elsewhere in Antarctica or the rest of the world. The Larsen B ice shelf is not alone in its demise. In recent years, the Antarctic Peninsula has lost ice shelves totaling over 4825 square miles."

Seems there may be some hard evidence for global warming that some o' y'all hillbilly's and rednecks ain't been payin attention to, maybe huh?

[DeskDriver]

Very well Mitch, but lets use our reading skills a bit more carefully.

The Antarctic Peninsula is undergoing greater warming than almost anywhere on Earth, a condition perhaps associated with human-induced greenhouse effects

...

Domack and his colleagues conclude that the Larsen ice shelf had been intact but was slowly thinning during the course of the current interglacial period.

There is no mention of demonstrated causality from human influences. The shocking discovery that we're not in a glacial period (i.e. ice age) almost made me crap my pants.

[Canus Chinookus]

Argue all you want people, this planet will survive us all... and easily I might add. After a few thousand years after the last human dies, there will be very little evidence we ever existed.

[cyyz]

Argue all you want people, this planet will survive us all... and easily I might add. After a few thousand years after the last human dies, there will be very little evidence we ever existed.

My son, how are you?

[DeskDriver]

With vast respect and credit to the late Mr. Douglas Adams, "Space Is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you might think it's a long walk down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

(continuing his thoughts)..And to the time. And to the Earth compaired to us..... And small.... Small things are really small but very important. Very very important. Bacteria do a far better job of "hanging about" and existing than any of us clever big walking things.

For those who are curious: Look up oxygen regulation and compare cyanobacter to rain forest. Notice the pure science view vs. the lobby.

For those who say "We're killing blue-green algae too", look up mRNA transcription mutation. Notice it is steady. Notice that this wee aspect of bacteria make them almost invincible.

Brush with colgate, bow to mRNA, and enjoy the brief time (a few million years or so?) we have as clever primates.

[Sparks]

After 9-11 the sky over the entire planet was clear of contrails for a few days. I think some scientest used that window as an opportunity to conduct some tests. Never did hear or read the results.

I saw a programme on this a while back and it was quite interesting. There was a marked change in temperature highs and lows during the three-day hiatus in air travel.

A quick Google found the below:

From: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/scien ... s.climate/

(CNN) -- The thin wisps of condensation that trail jet airliners have a significant influence on the climate, according to scientists who studied U.S. skies during a rare interruption in national air traffic after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.

While the temperature range is significant, whether the jet clouds have a net effect on global warming remains unknown.

"I think what we've shown are that contrails are capable of affecting temperatures," said lead scientist David Travis of the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. "Which direction, in terms of net heating or cooling, is still up in the air."

In many ways, contrails behave in the same manner as cirrus clouds, thin high-altitude floaters that block out solar energy from above and trap in heat below.

As a result, they help reduce the daily range in daytime highs and nighttime lows. Contrails, by providing additional insulation, further reduce the variability.

With air traffic growing and contrails becoming more prevalent, the natural variation will further decline and could disrupt regional ecosystems, some scientists speculate.

Certain trees, crops and insect species depend on specific daily temperature variations for their survival.

In some ways, contrails differ from their natural brethren. Cirrus clouds let less heat out than in overall, producing a net increase in the Earth's temperatures, according to climate scientists. With contrail clouds, they said they are not so sure.

"Contrails are denser and block sunlight much more than natural cirrus clouds," said Travis, who conducted the study with Andrew Carleton of Penn State University in University Park, Pennsylvania. They reported the findings this week in the journal Nature.

"And contrails are much more prevalent when the sun is out," he said. "When this is factored in, there is a possibility that they offset global warming, and this is what we are trying to determine now."

Cheers, Sp.

[Dust Devil]

I'm sick of -40 weather. Global warming kicks ass.