Christmas wish???
;>)
Stay safe; stay armed.
Posted on 12/22/2002 7:36:29 AM PST by freeforall
Arctic ice cap to vanish in 80 years, study says Kyoto climate treaty came 'too late' to save polar ice from melting
Jonathan Leake The Times, London
Sunday, December 22, 2002
The ice cap covering the North Pole will vanish in less than 80 years as climate change melts it away, say British meteorological researchers.
The area covered by ice has shrunk by 20 per cent since the 1950s and its average winter thickness has reduced by 40 per cent since 1970. From detailed measurements of the rate of melting, the Met Office's Hadley Centre for monitoring climate change predicts the ice-cap will disappear around September 2079.
The Met Office research, to be published next year, assumes emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will continue to rise at their current rate. Many believe this will happen since the U.S. rejected the Kyoto climate treaty that would have cut emissions. Canada ratified the treaty Monday.
Geoff Jenkins, head of climate change prediction, said only a few icebergs would be left. "Our figures suggest that virtually all the ice will be gone," he said.
Even if the world reduced emissions by the maximum possible, it would only give a few years reprieve, says the Met Office.
"The greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere mean we will keep getting warmer for decades, whatever we do," said Mr. Jenkins. "Cutting emissions is important, but the effects will come too late to save the polar ice cap."
The loss of the ice cap will open up the Northwest Passage and enable ships to save thousands of kilometres on journeys between Europe and the Far East.
It could also change weather patterns. The larger expanse of open sea would increase evaporation and rainfall, possibly causing wetter summers in Europe. It might also allow more plankton to grow, thus boosting fish stocks.
For other wildlife, however, the change could be disastrous. Polar bears and seals would be hit hard because they rely on floating ice to hunt and breed.
"The north polar wildlife is unique, but it is going to have to adapt fast if it is to survive," said Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University.
The thinning of the ice has already hampered some expeditions to the pole. David Mill, a Briton, had to be rescued last May after finding his way blocked by thin ice.
The melting of the North Pole will not raise sea levels as all the ice is floating. There are, however, fears the temperature increases could melt Antarctica, the southern ice cap. This sits above sea level on a buried continent so melting would sharply raise sea levels.
© Copyright 2002 The Ottawa Citizen
Please don't misunderstand. My point is refuting the proposition that nuclear plants produce NO greenhouse gases. Water, in whatever atmospheric form, is reported by those who know to be the predominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
Of course the output of cooling towers is not even a small fraction of what evaporates from the oceans.
...I think I know why you are "Lonesome in Mass......."
Christmas wish???
;>)
Stay safe; stay armed.
I have seen anti global warming petitions signed by thousands of meteorologists and climatologists but this never gets discussed.
One example.
Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Specifically declaring:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields.
Thanks, I think. I'm still not sure I understand anymore than I did before. I understand the basic physics, to a first order, it's the conclusions that are difficult understand. People have spent their whole lives studying climatology and atmospheric physics and are not sure what conclusions to reach.
The non-physical problem is that people with an agenda will trumpet conclusions on one side or the other of the argument. This is an intellectually dishonest and tendentious approach and is contrary to the scientific approach. Personal bias can creep in and color the results. It is difficult for anyone to accept facts contrary to cherished beliefs. The "scientific" approach is intended to remove personal bias from observations and conclusions.
Global warming is too inviting an opportunity for some people, -neoluddites, power mad politicians, tenured communists, you get the drift - not to seize on to promote their agendas. Few of them even understand the basic physics "to a first order". They see this "docrine" as a holy writ, they rehearse its catechism and become more Catholic than the Pope, without only vaguest idea of what they are talking about. Celebrity poseurs in the media and public life fall in line in legions. (At one time - prior to Ptolemy and long before Columbus - "everyone" knew the Earth was flat. Few in the media today can cite any direct evidence for believing that the Earth is round, other than photographs from space. How can one take them seriously when they talk about global warming.)
The danger is, that in recognizing the shallowness of the proponents, we fall into the same trap. The facts are elusive, conclusions tenative. I suggest keeping an open mind. Just because Jane Fonda believes something to be true is not scientific proof of its falsity. Just generally a strong inference.
The facts are elusive, conclusions tenative.
Then I would suggest pinning our economy on such conclusions(e.g. Kyoto or similar accords) is not the smartest thing in the world to do.
The conclusions of the global warming folks are not based on measurement or predictive capacity of science but rather incomplete and imprecise modeling based on clearly false premises rooted in a invalid assumption of an inverted cause and effect relationship.
I suggest keeping an open mind.
I will continue to go along with scientific fact based in measurement as opposed to the modeled "storylines" of the IPCC:
Just because Jane Fonda believes something to be true is not scientific proof of its falsity.
Nor is it an indication of validity, OTOH these folks have a substantive weight to their "opinions":
Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Specifically declaring:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields.
I suggest keeping an open mind.
An open mind to scientific method and verifiable measurement. All else is merely speculation.
|
Globally Averaged Atmospheric Temperatures
This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up. The temperature in this region is more strongly influenced by oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena, which originate as changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulations in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The overall trend in the tropospheric data is near zero, being +0.04 C/decade through Feb 2002. Click on the chart to get the numerical data. |
|
Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Figure 1-1 Global warming
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years
Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years
Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice |
According to the atmospheric CO2 is driving the show theories of the IPCC modellers, the temperature measurments of the troposphere should be hotter than the measurements at the earth's surface. CO2 being imputed cause of surface heating according to the model theories and output of the models.
The reality is that current surface temperature is rising while atmospheric temperature is remaining essentially constant(after compensating for the effects of periodic el Nino/ el Nina & geophisical phenomenen, in contridiction to the model. The earth's surface temperature is not being driven by CO2 content of the atmosphere but rather variability of factors (e.g. solar variation, oceanic currents, geophyisical and astronomical events) other than the minor contributions of anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses.
Do you have a good "balanced" reference on global warming?
Balanced? Science is not a matter of balanced "opinions", it is a matter of measurement and application of scientific method with it's strict testing of theories against the results of measurment.
What I have presented is based in measurement as opposed to agenda driven speculations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
