Greenland ice loss double in past decade, Nasa says

[Sonia]

The loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its
glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer
climate, according to a NASA/University of Kansas study being published
Friday. The study concludes the changes to Greenland's glaciers in the
past decade are widespread, large and sustained over time. They are
progressively affecting the entire ice sheet and increasing its
contribution to global sea level rise.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/16greenland/

[acropolite (Phil)]

Yeah this one really gets to me, we have more than enough evidence of global warming and the only action we get is spin doctoring by government and big business to convince us that all is well and everything that can be done is being done.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by acropolite

Yeah this one really gets to me, we have more than enough evidence of global warming and the only action we get is spin doctoring by government and big business to convince us that all is well and everything that can be done is being done.

This is one issue that really get's me worked up We have a situation that will effect the whole planet in time doing untold damage to our planet and our society and yet spineless and short sighted pollies would rather appease groups like the coal and oil lobbies for very short term economic gain. What on earth are we doing?

[acropolite (Phil)]

I wouldn't label myself a greenie, but I have voted green for the past few elections and will continue to do so from now on. Tasmania has an election coming up and if the polls are correct, the greens in this state stand to gain more seats. This is no mean feat since both the major parties re-jigged the parliament (decreased the number and distribution of seats) a few years ago in an attempt to engineer the greens out of parliament (they managed to rid the parliament of all but one green with this move). IMO the two major parties simply represent two different flavours of the same corruption. Hopefully Joe average will wake up before it's too late.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by acropolite

I wouldn't label myself a greenie, but I have voted green for the past few elections and will continue to do so from now on. Hopefully Joe average will wake up before it's too late.

Same here. Global warming is the biggest problem facing our planet at the moment. As Astronomers all we have to do is look at the planet Venus.

[venus (Lydia)]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mickoking
"Same here. Global warming is the biggest problem facing our planet at the moment. As Astronomers all we have to do is look at the planet Venus."

True, though Venus aquired it's runnaway greenhouse over millions of years.
The Earth is doing the same thing at a much more accellerated pace.
An interesting article about venus on page 46 by Bruce Dorminey in this months "Astronomy" mag.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Scarey stuff.
The consumerism that is eating our planet shows no sign of stopping. Each and every one of us is responsible. No doubt about that.
We choose to buy a car that runs on petrol when there are available alternatives such as gas/electric hybrids or biodiesel fueled vehicles.
We choose to buy a bigger telly, a better computer, a new lounge suite etc etc when we don't really need to.
How many people do you know who will voluntarily lower their standard of living to the level necessary to save the planet?
Sorry, but I see no happy outcome to Earths predicament.
Scarey Stuff.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

Scarey stuff.
The consumerism that is eating our planet shows no sign of stopping. Each and every one of us is responsible. No doubt about that.
We choose to buy a car that runs on petrol when there are available alternatives such as gas/electric hybrids or biodiesel fueled vehicles.
We choose to buy a bigger telly, a better computer, a new lounge suite etc etc when we don't really need to.
How many people do you know who will voluntarily lower their standard of living to the level necessary to save the planet?
Sorry, but I see no happy outcome to Earths predicament.
Scarey Stuff.

I think we may have to lower our standard of living to help our planet and future generations. Our so called leaders don't seem to mind sending others to war so they may sacrafice their lives for some warped political ideal. But when it comes to financial sacrafice, Pollies show no leadership, they are gutless. But we can all do something even if our pollies don't. I used to drive to work (70km round trip) in the family car a 4 litre Falcon. But what I did was purchase a 250cc Motorcycle for my daily commute. Not only does it guzzle much less fuel and produce less pollution, I am saving money and having a lot of fun

Whats the point of a $6 a week tax cut when our planet is screwed?

C'mon people, I know your all a bit more intelligent than that. Don't just take global warming on because a few well intentioned greenies with whacky computer models tell you it's true as gospel. here's some facts to ponder, there is no true evidence that the earths atmosphere is warmer today than it was 100 years ago, melting of sea ice will REDUCE the volume of sea levels not increase them as water expands when it freezes and contracts as it thaws (yes land locked ice can contribute but is offset by the amount of sea ice melting), man can not make carbon, it already exists, by burning it we are only moving it from underground to above ground, is Man not a natural inhabitant of this planet? If so then what we do IS natural.

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

My only beef with G.W. is there will be more serious weather paterns
such as RAIN affecting my astronomy bug

[mickoking]

Up until the 17th century people were persacuted for saying that Earth was not the centre of the universe and went around the sun. We all know what happened to Galileo for daring to question the order of things and poor Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his troubles. Galileo and Bruno tried to find the truth but they were percieved by those in power to be a threat.

In the 20th century scientist's working in the former Soviet Union were constrained by its politics. If research contradicted the tennets of Marxism it was dismissed and the scientist's responsable often found them selves in the Gulags. Apparently Marxism is incompatable with 'bourgeois' theories like the Big Bang and Black Holes. It is obvious that scientific enquiry and truth were a threat to Communist, Soviet Union.

In the 21st century we have a bunch of scientist's studying global warming. But the problem is that global warming is a percieved threat to the existing political ideology in some countries like the US and Australia. NASA scientist's have been alledgedly censured by the US government for talking up Global warning and in Australia apparently the same has happened with our government leaning on CSIRO scientists. Sounds a bit like 17th century Rome and 20th Century Moscow. And what is our current political ideology? It has names like 'neo-libralism' and 'economic rationalism' which in a nut shell is the free flow of capital, allowing the market forces to determine everything ( it is almost the opposite of communism). The problem is that in reducing the amount of CO2 that is put in the atmosphere by human activities requires regulation of the free market. And that means the Ideology does'nt work.

The facts are that global warming is being contributed to by us humans, enought scientist's and experts have come out and said so and to me it make's sense. It is a problem that will dwarf terrorism unless something is done about it NOW. But of course global warming is a threat to market forces and political idealogues.

I hope I didn't bore you all to death

[AGarvin]

This article on the Greenland ice loss is interesting. I never actually read it, but I think it was originally reported in the magazine Science. The interesting thing is that apparently Science also ran research results last October by Norwegian and Russian scientists led by Professor Ola Johannessen that reported that the Greenland ice levels were actually increasing by about 5cm per year.

Go figure.

The difference being the yanks only used data models, whereas the Russians and Norwegians used real data. I'd like to read the article but haven't been able to find a copy of it yet.

Sounds like a good way to sell your magazine though: alarmist snippets rather than coordinated reporting of all the research.

[AGarvin]

FYI, here's a link to the Russian/Norwegian research I mentioned in previous post.

http://www.nersc.no/index2.php?displ...&displayMore=1

[acropolite (Phil)]

Nightshift wrote.

Don't just take global warming on because a few well intentioned greenies with whacky computer models tell you it's true as gospel. here's some facts to ponder, there is no true evidence that the earths atmosphere is warmer today than it was 100 years ago, melting of sea ice will REDUCE the volume of sea levels not increase them as water expands when it freezes and contracts as it thaws (yes land locked ice can contribute but is offset by the amount of sea ice melting), man can not make carbon, it already exists, by burning it we are only moving it from underground to above ground, is Man not a natural inhabitant of this planet? If so then what we do IS natural.

I really don't believe that satellite photos of our rapidly shrinking polar icecaps are telling us lies. As for the statement that sea levels aren't going to rise, the evidence is here already, they are rising, despite what some people in denial would like you to believe; weather patterns are rapidly changing and extreme weather events are becoming increasingly more common. If you don't believe what you read or are told, use your eyes and common sense, look at the polar icecap change in satellite photos and remember back to what the weather was like when you were a kid and you'll realise that climate change is real.

[mickoking]

Whether You believe in global warming or not is irrelevant because It's happening regardless.

[AGarvin]

But do we have anything to do with it?

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...l_warming.html

There's alot of BS and misrepresented data out there on this subject.

[mickoking]

Yes I firmly believe we as humans are significantly contributing to global warming. I am aware there is a natural contribution to global warming as well, but mankind is the one releasing excessive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. You have to remember CO2 only exist's in small quantities in our atmosphere 3 parts in 10000, and the huge quantities of crap we pump into the air does have an effect.

There is a great article on global warming in the March edition of Rolling Stone magazine, the one with the great Neil Young on the cover.

[AGarvin]

There is a great article on global warming in the March edition of Rolling Stone magazine, the one with the great Neil Young on the cover.

Hey, that's unfair. This is a science forum so no dragging God into the equation. (Ok, so I've been a Neil Young fan since I was 15. Now I'm 40. The man rocks, but I'm digressing.).

Back on the subject though, what should the natural levels of CO2 be versus natural plus the man made contributions? I would be very sceptical of any science article published by Rolling Stone.

I'm not at all saying the globe isn't warming, but I've yet to see any valid proof that man made contributions are at all significant.

Originally Posted by mickoking

Whether You believe in global warming or not is irrelevant because It's happening regardless.

On what evidence???? I dont reckon it's any hotter now than when I was a kid (Im 43 now) in fact, I reckon the winters are colder if anything. As for comparing satelite photo's, oh please, I have looked high and low for satelite photo's taken in 1906 but guess what!!! There isnt any, comparing say 1980 pics to today is useless, it isnt long enough, even elnino has an 11 year cycle, polar ice comes and goes regularly, and what sea levels???? Where is there evidence that they ar higher? Dont tell me they are higher in the north Pacific coz water levels are the same everywhere thanks to gravity, the jetty I used to swim off when I was a kid is still there today and is not one centimetre closer to the water. Please please dont post dumb comments like it's warmer or they tell me so unless you have irrefutable evidence to back it up, evidence based on at least a thousand years of measurements. In the 70's it was ozone depletion due to CFC's today it's global warming, whatever happend to that poor old ozone layer??? Oh yeah, we woke up to the fact that even the lightest CFC is 7 times heavier than air and cant float up that far, it was all a furphy computer model scam designed by Dupont to make you buy the new gas (R12) because they couldnt renew the copyright on the old one's they owned, that is fact and you can research it any time you like. Billions were made out of that scam, in fact the old CFC's were far more efficient at refrigeration and saved lives by the thousands in hosptials but that didnt stop us believing the multi national compaines, go to the library and borrow a book called the Green Hoax Effect, it might just wake a few of you up. If any of you truly believed for one second that burning coal was destroying your way of life you'd turn your computers off, hmmm, maybe no one will respond after me saying that? I guess I'm a little shaken that my fellow amatuer scientists are gullable enough to believe this nonesense without actually getting off the internet and doing some basic tests. Fill a glass with ice, top up with water to the very rim and watch it melt, if any of you can make it overflow I will shut up, in fact, if you care to measure it you will find you have less water, it's simple chemistry that we all learned in grade 3.

[Sonia]

Life began on Earth at least 4 billion years ago, possibly beside hot underwater springs. It has been suggested, as past of the 'Gaia hypothesis', that life acts as a regulator on the Earth's temperature, keeping it within tolerable limits bu adjusting the balance of gases in the atmospere. However, there are growing signs of a human-induced global warming upsetting any natural balance by industrial and agricultural release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.