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

[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. :tasdevil:

[mickoking]

This is one issue that really get's me worked up :mad2: 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]

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. :tasdevil:

[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.

[venus]

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]

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]

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?

[Nightshift]

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]

My only beef with G.W.:shrug: is there will be more serious weather paterns
such as RAIN :doh: 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?display=moreinfo&news_id=151&displayMore=1

[acropolite]

Nightshift wrote. 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/WVFossils/global_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]

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.

[Nightshift]

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.

[Nightshift]

Here it is again, ambiguous comments like "there are growing signs" or "they say", so please explain what the growing signs are backed by actual evidence that spans a period of time valid to the arguement.

The only signs of man's stupidity relate to heavy airborne pollutants, water pollutanmts etc. None of which is proven to cause the "alleged" global warming.

P.S. I just want to remind you that we humans are indignenous to this planet and therefore anything we do to it is natural, just as cows and horses and indeed all animals generate methane, yes another "global warming gas" If we decide to deforest the entire planet it is a natural occurance because we are natural.

[venus]

it may "be natural" but humans tend to like to be able to predict their future survival and don't usually count on having their habitat disappear due to whatever the force of nature it is that's destroying it?
for eg http://www.itvs.org/risingwaters/story.html

[GrampianStars]

[1] By yor definition if a human NUKES the planet and every living mater is destroyed
thats OK because its natural :scared2:
it ranks as high stupidity because humans have a mind to CHOOSE not to wipe out all species it can't be attributed to a "natural occurance"

[2] where is your evidence to support that humans are indignenous to this planet ? :help:

if you exponentialy reverse the reproduction cycle of humans we disapear off the timeline about 5K BC :shrug:
on a planet at least 4 billion years old

[AGarvin]

Well that would depend entirely on your definition of "natural" wouldnt it, such as natural human behaviour.



This is getting ridiculous. Just where are you suggesting we come from ?

[Sonia]

Carbon dioxide missions are not going to stop, and so changes are certainly expected to happen - but the amount depends on how much of these greenhouse gases we are going to continue to use, which in turn is related to the population growth, technologies and the amount of energy that we use. Most commentators would say that it isnt too late to do anything, and need to work together to reduce the emissions and reduce the damage that we are already currently doing to our local environment which in the end will effect future generations. We are already seeing changes happen and will continue to see them. And if the scientific models as we see them are right, then our climate in the next 10 to 20 years will be a different place.

Some of the most obvious signs are visible in the Arctic, as the tempertaures are rising and also the ice melting which is changing the landscape, wildlife and peoples lives.

Other early warning signs such as melting glaciers, plants and animals, and the earlier onset of Spring.

The impacts of the rising temperatures in the artic, is a window open what we may experience in the future, if not us then the future generations. With the continuation of the rising temperatures, there will be more drought, sea levels will rise.
All of the consequences of global warming we cant avoid.

[GrampianStars]

Hee Hee Global Warming :cool: at least the Sunshine Coast would disapear aprox 6Mt underwater :wink2: along with all the foreigners and most of our Aussie grandparents thanks to NATURAL human intervention:lol:
Long Live the Sunshine Coast [aka future Atlantis] :)

[Argonavis]

with all the heat generated by this thread - it is definitely getting hotter and hotter........

There is now ample evidence that the global climate has increased in temperature by 1 to 1.5 degrees over the last 100 years. I don't think that there is any informed opinion to the contrary. There is zero evidence that is is anthropogenically caused from industrial emissions, however it appears to be a reasonable assumption that this change in global temperatures is caused by us humans. No-one can think of any other scenario.

The impact this will have on ecosystems and human society is unknown. I will say that again - it is unknown. I don't know the latest outputs from the models, but sea level changes of 7m seems absurd, as does all the other wild speculation and hysteria. If anything, we have a dearth of hurricanes up here. I don't see ANY climate changes happening. Sorry, one single catagory 5 hurricane does not count as climate change. There was an article in New Scientist recently where a hurricane expert said that with a hotter climate there would be fewer hurricanes as the mechanism that generates them would dampen.

I have no doubt that sea levels may rise, and storm surges may increase and make coastal living a little more hazardous, but sorry, whatever that high profile organisation "Greenlies" says, civilisation as we know it will still be here in 100 years. Maybe 1000 years. The climate may change somewhat, but looking back over history and over deep time, the climate is always changing. Humans and our society will adapt. What do you want to do about it? go back to horses, bullocks and sailing ships? condemn yourself and your children to a worse life? don't need modern pharmaceuticals? like to live on local produce only? This isn't someone else's problem. If you want a lower standard of living, go for it. I don't think it would help in averting a disaster that is not about to happen.

[Sonia]

By the second half of the 21st century, wintertime precipitation in the northern mid to high latitudes and Antarctica will rise
By the same time, Australasia, Central America and sourthern Africa is likely to see decreases in winter precipitation
In the tropics, it's thought some land areas will see more rainfall and others will see less
It is thought the West Antarctic ice sheet is unlikely to collapse this century. If it does fall apart, sea level rises would be enormous
Global average temperatures are predicted to rise by between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100
Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to rise
More hot days over land areas and fewer cold days and frost
More intense precipitation events

[cjmarsh81]

Don't worry about greenhouse emissions or ice melting. YellowStone National Park is due for an eruption. It goes off every 600,000 years. The last eruption was 630,000 years ago so it is due. The yellowstone volcano when it goes off is several thousand times more powerful than Mt St Helens. The last blast from yellowstone(which was the smallest in history) covered the entire united states, canada and mexico in ash. And the park is swelling. The ground has been rising since 1985 which is causing the water to run out of the lakes. If this is one of the big eruptions then it could cover the entire world in ash and smoke and bring about an ice age.

Just thought I would let you know there is more to worry about on Earth than just carbon dioxide levels and polar ice caps melting. The Earth is a dangerous place to live.

[shredder]

Oh, just like an American, everything is bigger and better than anywhere else.... just a shame it isnt in Texas.....

[ving]

gawd! theres just too many things to quote here!!! :eek:

"the globe is warming" debatable, someone mentioned that they thought "winters are getting colder"... i think winters are getting warmer and summers are getting colder... its obviously a matter of perception. My theory isnot that the globe is getting warmer but stablising towards some sort of medium between winter cold and summer hot... but thats not based on anything any scientist has said :P

"the polar ice caps are melting"... hey, its not the first time they have done so. I am guessing that because this seems to be a reoccuring event (the melting of ice that is) that there is some sort of cycle happening.... some people in the field have even sugested that because of the melting of the icecaps we are heading towards (ever so slowly) another iceage. the science behind this was explained of course but being me, i have forgetten it :P

as to whether we are contributing to or expediating the melting of said icecaps, I recon our effect is minimal... tho we pollute the hell out of the planet. the melting and creation of the icecaps is part of a cycle that we dont have much to do with.

it's just like the big egoed human race to think that we are so powerful as to be able to change the course of nature in such a big way :P

[cjmarsh81]

I agree Ving. Humans contribute significantly to polluting the Earth and we have made many species extinct. The Earth however does the same thing. If all the events that are happening around the world at the moment cause another ice age (this is likely in my opinion). Many extinctions will occur and then extinctions caused by humans will be irrelevent. The Earth goes through cycles, if it wished to get rid of humans and start afresh it could easily do so. It has done it before.

[mickoking]

Sorry mate, this amateur scientist listens to scientist's not lying pollies, the coal and oil industry or any psuedo scientist connected with them and I certainly don't read dodgy web sites. The simple fact is that we as humans are pumping excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere something that a grade 3 science student could probably fathom. The CO2 levels in our atmosphere are quite low (3 parts in 10000) so in reality it doesn't take too much to change that ratio. You can choose to ignore global warming all you like, you can deride us and our beliefs all you want too but many of us really give a stuff about GW.

[Sonia]

It is the extra greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere which humans have released that thought to pose the biggest threat to Earth.

The global temperatures have risen by over nearly 0.7 in the last 300 years - this therefore does show that climate change is taking place.
Sea levels are no doubt rising globally, the artic sea is thinning and in some parts of the world the rainfall is getting heavier. Snow cover in the Northern hemisphere has declined since the 1960s.

To stabalise the climate change altogether we would need to reduce the emissions of CO2 by around nearly 70%. There is no way they are going to get to a minimal of 70%. But even reducing the greenhouse gases a bit the climate change will reduce slightly.

We are likely to see more precipitation which will increase fooding and will maybe effect us financially. As the gulf stream becomes weaker, therefore it then also may become less stable and possibly in the future shut down completely.

Climate researchers predict that climate will become warmer and in some parts colder than they should be. (like the post up above about winters, here in the uk it was predicted to be the coldest worse winter since 1963, then it changed to 1983, but that hasnt happened, and with spring probably round the corner i dont think it will. We havnt hardly had any snow just a flurry and temperatures arnt really dropping much either. We are expecting a cold blast this week, but nothing exciting.)

The climate change is likely to have an impact on the world and also the population. Will we or the our future generations be able to become adpeted to the changes also the plants and the animals.

[Nightshift]

Micko, the pollies pay the scientists and the scientists are clueless. I'll ignore Sonia as she hasnt offered any basis for her comments, reality is, nothing is changing, sea levels are not higher (could be the british isles are sinking, that'd make more sense) and ice still shrinks when it melts, hey, maybe that's why we are having droughts, the polar caps are melting, and the sky is falling. I'm a little tired of this thread, I think I'll leave it alone now.

[Sonia]

Yeah sure ignore me...

[RB]

Guys, lets not contribute to global warming by allowing this thread to heat up. :doh:

[shredder]

NightShift,

I wouldnt dismiss Sonia so quickly. She has some valid points and I am sure can probably back them up (at least as well as anyone else anyway).

We are pumping CO2 into the atmostphere at an alarming rate, it is deadly (and if you dont believe this try sucking on the average car exhaust for a while), and it is adding to our problems. And cars arent the only source, look around at all the steel products you have, from cars, to boats, to pots and pans, steel is a massive producer of CO2, go look up the figures, any steel is in most things. So maybe you cry out that plastic is the answer, well yes there might be less CO2 but there is a lot of other crap produced from it (note here I have worked at plants that produce steel and plastic and know the topic well).

As for temperatures rising with no proof, well the simple answer is to go look at some glaciers, they are all shrinking. If you dont believe this go look for yourself, a good example is Switzerland (has an abundance of Glaciers) 150 years ago they were in Zermatt down to the local village, now they are no where in sight. Why? Well its getting warmer, and the funny thing is they only started shrinking when industrialisation came along...draw your own conclusion.

Its industiralisation that is causing this, and with countries like China now moving into the consumer market I think it will get worse before it gets better. Do I advocate going back to the stone age, well of course not, but we should put the emphasis on the production of materials in a clean and sustainable way, not just talking about it (as the pollies do) but actually doing it. Everyone says it cant be done but I suspect there just isnt the financial incentive to be bothered, try tying the senior executives wages to how much pollution they produce and see how quickly it drops.

Just my thoughts....

[GrampianStars]

loved the volcanic show in 93' lunar eclipse :thumbsup:
seen here from SA at DSTO Sailsbury June 4th.
was 1 of the most sensational events i've witnessed

[ving]

:rolleyes:
not very polite. :)

shredder:
Hi mate :)
just about the glaciers melting. how bout this cycle thoery that i mentioned previosly where by one looks at the planets history and notices the coming and going of ice ages. this would sugest that both icecaps and glaciers would have melted and reformed a few times since the "creation" of the planet... maybe its all just part of the cycle of life on the planet?
its hot...
it gets cold
we have an ice age
ice melts and it gets hot again
it gets cold
we have another ice age
ice melts again....
etc.

I did see this thoery somewhere and it would suggest we are in the end of the ice melting and getting hot phase. I dont claim to know much more than this of course :)

what do ya think?
I could try and dig up the article if ya like but I cant remember where i saw it.

[ving]

just google: coming ice age

I still think its rather egotistic of us humans to think we can control the climate on such a huge scale.

[GrampianStars]

G'day Ving
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/195995~Ice-Age-Posters.jpg
:poke: Here is the most difinitive reference you'll ever need :rofl:

[ving]

do you mind if i use it?
:rofl:

[GrampianStars]

Not at all Ving
Here's the "IceInSpace" Global Warming Debate Team
http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/dragonballzcentral_1887_910013175

:lol: :bashcomp: :earth:

[ving]

HAHAHAHA!!!!

which one are you? ;)
damn we should get back on topic...

[GrampianStars]

OK
School Time :D
Take a look at disc2 from "Day after Tomorrow"
"The force of Destiny & The Science & Politics of Climate Change"
a real eye-opener:eyepop:

[venus]

well you have these giant chimneys puffing out hot smoke all over the planet if that doesn't drive some small weather change and also all the heat generated by the thousands of aircraft....must be doing something even if it's only microbial?

[ving]

just polluting the air venus, just polluting the air.... :)

robert: went to the "day afta tomorra" website (based on a hollywood movie mind!) and it showed.... inconclusive information on carbon-neutralisation and changing weather paterns with monotonous background music. I wasnt convinced after reading the said info and listening to the music that we as a species are responsible for global warming or that we are contributing in a major way.... bring on the ice age i say! :D

ITS ALL NATURAL!
:P

[GrampianStars]

:whistle: don't mind the cold much Just WANT clear frigid upper Trop, Strata, & Iono Sphere's for excellent viewing & pin-point Imaging
:stargaze:

[venus]

If that's not enough what about the global urban spread with all that artificial heating and cooling wonder what impact that's making?

[ving]

once again i cant back anything up, but I still think minimal. wish i knew more about this... we could very well be bringing about this natural cycle of which i speak faster, bringing forth what is inevitable anyhow, i dont know.
I just dont think we have that much power. It is far more fesable to me that the conglomerate of human scientific and political egos would think it is so powerful that they can change the complete natural order of things.... this same conglomerate also state that we are intellegent. :P

[GrampianStars]

Might have to invest in a space elevator to get above all this polution ;)
http://www.elevator2010.org/site/shop/images/POSTER1.lrg.jpg

[ving]

cool, how high does it go.... do they sell them at k-mart? ;)

we have to get past the low tech "water world" stage first, good lod kev costner will show us the way tho! :D
http://ianandmanda.typepad.com/blog/day2-waterworld.jpg

[shredder]

Hi Ving, and others.

While I agree there might be a natural cycle of temperature changes, this is not really the issue, if it was natural it would occur over thousands of years as has been experienced in the past, not 10s of years as we are seeing today. As I said before in Switzerland and other countries around the world Glaciers were growing, and quite a rate, in Zermatt one was even threatening the local village. Now it is no where to be seen, the temp changes simply dont occur so quickly naturally. It is too coincidental that it changed shortly after major industrialisation of Europe. Now globally all glaciars are retreating, lakes and rivers are drying up, the climate is changing at a rapid rate. You may say its coincidental, I dont, I see every day the crap comming out of cars, busses, trains, factories, power stations, chemical plants, steel works, none of this is natural (or good for us), none of it has needed to be handled by the environment in the past and it has all occured at the same time a major climate change. Seems logical that its part of the problem to me.

However to keep things on Astro related topics....And this is not to give an alternative to man made climate change...

I recall reading in an Arthur C Clark book about rapid climate change, caused by the solar system passing through a thin particle cloud (space dust) which absorbed some of the light / radiation and caused the rapid cooling of the Earth, sending it into a massive ice age in just a few years. Anyone ever read this, or care to comment on the possibility? Seems to me this might be a bigger problem than Asteroids, and there is nothing we can do about it....

Cheers

M

[venus]

I suppose that we will adapt the best way we know how to whatever the environment changes throw at us maybe make us more "intellegent"

an interesting article here
"There are plenty of harsh environments for life here on Earth. But when it comes to environmental stress, Mars has a corner on the market. The average temperature on the martian surface is about -63 C (-81 F); the atmosphere is a mere wisp of a thing, some 100 times thinner than Earth's; the planet is dry as a bone; and the surface is bathed in damaging ultraviolet radiation."


http://www.astrobiology.com/adastra/extremophiles.html

[ving]

we will probably just build more heaters... :P

interesting article, thanks for the linky :)

[venus]

or air-conditioners...
yes interesting research with plants producing their own form of water!

[[1ponders]]

Funnily enough ( or maybe not so) while we hear about the effect of global warming by increasing greenhouse gases (valid or not) there is one topic that I find discussed very little. And this does have a direct impact on our environment and climatic conditions and is difficult to argue against. Concrete, bitumen and steel.

I'll tell you a little story, and see what you think.

Once upon a time our verdant little country (well around the edges anyway), and many other countries, were covered with a funny sort of green stuff called trees, shrubs and woody plants, that had the remarkable ability of taking in radiant energy (sunlight) and converting a considerable portion of it to chemical energy (the molecular bonds of sugar molecules) and storing it for later use, or until it was further converted after millions of years to another type of quiescent heat storage called coal or oil.

Now sunlight is funny sort of stuff. If its not absorbed completely, some of it is reflected as light (maybe with a few colours deleted) and some of it is re-radiated as heat. Now when we had plenty of these green things quite a considerable amount was not re-radiated but absorbed and used and stored, sometimes for all intent and purpose, permanenty. And not only that. Any light that made it past the leaves of these funny green things called trees, often fell on a ground covered in moistish decomposing leaves. Now water is a great medium for temporarily holding heat til certain organisms can use it to break down dead and dying leaves that in turn help blanket bare ground and prevent it from heating up, drying out and blowing away (but that's another story).

So here we have these green things, growing, and acting like a living heat sink. Sure some light and heat was reflected back or re-radiated, but eventually a balance was reached whereby what wasn't used was eventually re-radiated back out into space. This balance was achieved by a number of things but principally by certain gases in our atmosphere that acted like a sort of regulator valve or "space" blanket made of gaseous wool.

Now along comes Mr Natural human. Cutting down the green things and replacing them with hard things to make his/her life easier. Now one of the problems with these hard things, like bitumen, concrete, steel and roofing tiles, is that while many do absorb light, that light isn't transduced into chemical energy but is re-radiated directly back into the atmosphere as heat. But that's ok as our space blanket made up of gaseous wool will only hold in so much heat. (But what happens when we start to put more gas wool into the blanket. But I won't go there, that is for another disussion). Any way back to our re-radiating heat.

What is that heat doing? Well its likely to be doing a number of things. Remember our once upon a time green things? Well when they were here regulating how much heat was re-radiated back into the atmosphere, they were also releasing huge amount of water into the atmoshere as vapourous sweat. Yes plants sweat. Huge amounts of sweat. And like many things in nature like calls to like and soon this sweat started to pool together into tiny droplets which absorbed heat from the atmosphere which cooled the atmosphere which caused more droplets to form which called to other droplets who joined with them until clouds started to form. And when the cloud droblets were heavy enough they fell as rain, cooling the earth and carrying the heat they absorbed into the soild where it raised the vast bulk of the soils temperature just a tiny tiny tiny bit. So these green growing things were not just energy transducers but they were rain bringers too, which helped plants grow by replenishing the water tables and also by removing some of the latent heat in the atmosphere and putting it in a place where the temperature was normally very stable and could tak e alot of extra heat without detriment.

So what is happening now. Have you noticed over the past few years that we are getting less and less rainfall...hmmm could be a long term variant we aren't aware of. If you were to check the rainfall records for the past 150 years (yep longer than that actuallY) in some places in our country the rainfall is less than half now of what was received 150 years ago. :shrug: Oh and when it does rain, areas that were once relatively unknown for flooding now flood regularly. Maybe it's because the water can no longer get into the ground (the best place to store water) and is funnelled away to somewhere where it's someone elses problem.

Have you ever stood way off in the distance on the top of a hill and noticed the heat haze coming of a town or city? Funny I cant recall seeing that coming off a forest. I wonder how high that column of heated air goes up? Oh and it's not just convected heat, it's radiated heat as well. Far more heat than our poor little sweat drops can absorb and still join with other sweat drops, even if there were as many as there was before. So the thing I can these cities is rain deterers. But unfortunately it's not just the cities. If there did happen to be a lovely moist airstream heading towards the city the column of hot rising air may well force that moist airstream to divide and go around it, there by creating a rain shadow behind the city. I bet thing would get dry there, and hotter without the rainfall to cool the air down.

I've waffled on long enough so I'll leave the rest of the story for another day, or maybe you'd like to make the rest up for yourself. Because after all it's just a story, isn't it?

[cjmarsh81]

Yes. Your arguments are interesting. However, you are saying the root of all problems lies with humans. Well maybe not but that is the impression I got.

The Earth has had several Ice Ages, all before Humans had the ability to cause one themselves. These Ice Ages have lasted for tens of thousands of years because the Ice and snow covers the Earth reflecting the Sun and keeping the Earth's surface nice and cool.

If we go into another Ice Age it is possible that it will never end. We have been lucky up until now.

I agree that Humans are a terrible influence on the Earth. We eliminate species, we eliminate plant life and we pollute the Earth. I do believe however, if the Earth is plunged into another Ice Age, it will have very little to do with us.

[[1ponders]]

Hmmm...no I'm not saying that humans are the root of all our problems. We do however seem to have a habit of carrying on activities regardless of the potential consequenses to ourselves and every other living thing on this planet. The localized reduction in rainfall is only one example. Oh and btw, the records I spoke of are human records. Geological and biological rainfall records go back along way further than that. When taken over a few thousand years of time these current hydrological activities are anomolous.

There are no guarantees. Either way. Yes the earth has swung from iceage to tropical paradise and back again a number of times. This usually happens over tens of thousands of years though. Our current activites have the potential to act as a catalyst and bring about changes over periods of hundreds of years, not thousands. And the out come of this is pretty scary. For one thing I would imagine that mankind would be very lonely. Living things take time to adapt. Hundreds of years is too short a time for this to happen. Our decendents could find that our current activities have a similar effect to that well known incident 65 million years ago.

Unfortunately I don't know many people who take the philosophy that we are only custodians of this planet for our children ad infinitum. It is not our personal play thing to do with as we want, or ignore at our peril.

[ving]

G'day paul :)

Looking at our wonderful lot of land here in Australia, what percentage of it would you say is er... concrete or bitumen or other such substances? 3%? maybe 4%... am i being too generous? we are, as a race confined to smallish dense patches along the coastline and most of the country west of the great divide (and east of perth and surrounds) is sparsely habited and would not factor into your concrete theory. the heat radiated by said structure would be localised and minimal in the big scheme of things i think.
:)

[ThunderChild]

No, in fact, very inpolite. But worse, hypocritical. He has offered plenty of comments of his own without offering any basis. Calm, rational & logical discussion and debate can quickly dissapate when people come pre-entrenched on one point of view. This applies to both sides.

My take :
It does seem a quite logical and likely outcome that, given our human numbers and technology and our inclination to [ab]use it, that we are going to have adverse effects on our environment. In fact, I would have thought it outright expected.

As time moves forward and our understanding of things increases, more and more members of the scientific community accept that GW is happening. All else being equal, I'd personally be inclined to listen to the vast majority of scientific opinion.

[ThunderChild]

This graph below shows the record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research of the UK Meteorological Office.

Lots of data can be found here :
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html

As you would expect, you can see normal variation and fluctuation in temperatures. However, it seems clear that we have moved from "normal variation" to a clear upward trend. 1 degree C sounds quite small, but on a global scale, 1 degree average is statistically incredibly significant.

The saddest part of all is that most models I've seen indicate that we've already passed the point where human activity is the only main driver of warming - feedback has begun. All data modelling is, of course, never going to be a 100% reliable method of prediction and understanding - but they are yet another tool for grappling with issues. I truely hope it's not the case.

[ving]

very interesting Mr Thunder (if thats your real name! ;)). can you exlplain the rsudden rise from 1910(ish) to '45? if that is pollution induced that it sugests that we are polluting at the same rate as '75 on based on the rate of temp increase... which i doubt. :)

I saw sometime withing the last 6mths a similar graph that showed temperature fluxuations in the same way as this one but going back thousdands (maybe millions i cant remember) of years. it showed very much a wave formation.

heres one that measures icesheet temperature in antartica (votosk station) for the past 400,000 years. it clearly shows much fluxuation in temperatures. year 0 on the left i believe is now (or 2000 anyhow) and as you move left it goes back in time. As you can see we are currently on a rise in temperature ans still have a bit to go up in temperature to reach previous highs before we head on down again....
http://www.rideforclimate.com/climate/climatescience/images/Vostok-ice-core.gif
taken for 'ere
http://www.rideforclimate.com/climate/climatepast.php

[ThunderChild]

Hello Mr ving. I can not claim to be an expert (or even particularly knowledgable) in this field and so have no immediate answer - although I will look into it further when I have time (after Snake Valley this weekend! :) ).
I would note however that using 1910(ish) as the start of the upward trend is a *little* mischievious since that would be picking the very bottom trough of the local variation as the base point. It would have been no less valid to have picked 1930(ish) until 1940(ish) for instance.
While the graph can still have variation and anomaly, I personally find it interesting that the change toward upward trend more or less matches the time we humans developed the capability to really mess-up our enviroment (and did).


Yes, there is a large variation of temperature over earth history - but those peaks and troughs take place over millenia, not decades. What we have now is significantly sharper within the context of the time period under scrutiny.

What I find even more interesting is how they obtained that data. That dat a was taken from polar ice samples. Those ice samples show not only changes to temperature, but also CO2 levels among other things. And the levels of green house gases present now completely blow out of the water anything we had in our entire past history.

Never presume that the presence of previous cycles and changes precludes us from inducing changes of our own. It's the first time in history we've been able to do so.

In fact, if you trace through the sources of the article you mention, you will find that the writers conclude with great concern over our current situation.
QUOTE: (major source from your article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3792209.stm)

"There is great controversy as to whether human beings have changed the climate," said Professor McManus. "But there is no doubt about the fact that human beings have changed the Earth's atmosphere. The increased levels of greenhouse gases are geologically incredible." He added: "It is something of grave concern to someone like me, who sees the strong connection between greenhouse gases and climate in the past."

:(

[ving]

now you are just making me jealous! :P
you make it sound like our last iceage was just last week :P. according to the graph i posted the past 2000 or so years have been on a plateau, proir to that there was a really steap climb and undoubtedly we are in for yet another increase for the peak to reach that of the previous peak. this peak will come at a fast rate just like the rest of the peaks over the last 400,000 year and we may or may not be contributing, but regardless of weather we contribute or not (and i dont think we make that much of a difference despite the CO2s being released) there is no stopping it cause its a natural cycle.
gee we know how to stuff up a planet dont we! :(
I believe once again that we are in the middle of a cycle and we may interfered with said cycle as shown in the plataeu that has occurred for the last 2000 years (per graph again). prior to the plateau there was a really fast rise, then it just stopped going up... did we cause that? it was within the last 2k years... I think its due for a fast rise again.

yeah we are stuffing up our very own air, but are we really causing climate change?

[ThunderChild]

It's not too late to come! :D


That last "really steep climb" from my rough guestimation looks to be an approx 8 deg C change over 6500-7000 years. That is in the ballpark of 0.001 deg change per year.

What we have now appears orders of magnitude faster.



Well, we know for sure that we're pumping scary amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - the likes of which has never occured in history. It's actually harder to imagine that we can continue to so with no effect. Especially since the rate at which we do so is increasing at scary levels - the amount of influence we humans exert is only going to increase dramatically.

Sure - there will still be natural variation, to which we add our own. Left to itself, perhaps the earth was/is going into an iceage in the future - but the thought of a possible 'iceage' thousands of years away seems somehow less pressing than a runaway greenhouse which will have direct impact within the lifetimes of our children.

At the end of day, anyone who right now says they know the answer with 100% surety is being quite brave. But on the balance of probabilties, I would say "yes - it is more likely that we are".

[cjmarsh81]

Thunderchild. Humans have had the ability to pollute the Earth for well over 600 years. I read somewhere once (sorry I didn't keep it) that sulphur pollution levels back in Roman times when they were making swords and nice chariots were on a par with current pollution levels, even more so.

This 'discussion' has got quite technical and very interesting. There seems to be one recurring them in all the arguments however. Humans=Bad

[[1ponders]]

G'day ving.

Your point/s are well taken and you hit on exactly the issue I was trying to put across (maybe I needed to be more specific, but at least it got you thinking and away from the computer for a while even if you weren't doing the work you are paid to do :rofl: )

The issues I described do tend to be localize to a larger degree, though we are missing an aweful lot of trees all up the east coast of Australia and its these guys that help us the most (yes there is still alot of nice green grass between Bass Strait and Cape York. Unfortunately most of that used to be trees once upon a time. For helping climatealogical issues grass is as about as useful as the proverbial on a bull).

It's the microclimatealogical effects that can tend to be overlooked because of the amount of noise being made about worldwide issues. These incidental localized effects can have a far greater effect on the highest population density areas in a much shorter timeframe than the overall global effects. And they are exactly the ones that we are in a position to do more about. There is not much we can do to prevent the overuse of fossil fuels in developing countries, (and why should we, don't they deserve the same standard of living as we do?) but in the mean time we can do something to alleviate the effects on our own localized climate.

I spend a lot of time teaching, tutoring and working with conservation land management students and one of the most important things we try to instill into them is that trees are weather conditioners, ameliorants to the climate. Whatever the magnitude of the existing climatic conditions, large healthy forest soften the blow.

And this is something we can do now. Plant more trees. Help your local climatic conditions to stabilize and buffer possible future problems. Oh and of course they may even just help reduce some of that other stuff that's causing so much worry. ;)

[cjmarsh81]

1Ponders. Do chilli trees count? If so I am doing my part.

[[1ponders]]

Hmmm, mixed with onions they will probably make the problem worse :eek:

[acropolite]

They also must have told you in grade 3 that Antarctica is a continent and not an Icecube, try the experiment with the ice above the cup and see what happens. if you're gunna do science at least get it right...:whistle:

[janoskiss]

It follows from Archimedes' principle that when you melt ice floating in water, the water level will not change. But like Phil points out, the real problem here is that the polar icecaps are not floating in the oceans but sitting above it.

[gaa_ian]

Boy has this thread got some legs !
I'm with Paul though ... plant more trees, if we all did just a bit our local areas would be a better place.
To quote an old green adage "think globally ... act locally"
Of course as astromomers, we need to make sure that they are low growing trees that dont obstruct our views of the night sky :P

[[1ponders]]

How about redwood sized trees planted in concentric circles from the center of cities outward so that light pollution is blocked or kept reflected back into the city so we don't have to drive so far for dark skies Ian ;)

[Nightshift]

Yep and if your going to quote me at least get it right, I said "floating ice" and specifically excluded land locked ice in my comment, besides, janoskiss, check your facts, the north polar cap is 100% floating, the south one is about 60% land mass. I did by the way quote a book for people to check facts, but of course you would have to go to the library for that and that means if it aint on the internet it cant be right, right? Stop postulating about the environment and think about what gains could be had and by who for this Green hoax, then you'll be heading in the right direction, you are all doing exactly what the Rothschilds and others want you to do. By the way Paul, a small correction on your comment about tree's, yes every tree is important and I for one cant get enough of them, but the greatest percentage of oxygen on the planet comes from the oceans and their life forms, the kelp forests of southern Tasmania for example produce more oxygen than the forests of Tasmania, we need to protect our oceans far more than our lands, but dont get me wrong, re-build the forests too.

[GrampianStars]

101 :atom:
Another issue everyone has ignored is the ocean temperatures are rising due to greenhouse climate change .
Hell I was in Fiji recently and the sea was as warm as a bath :doh:
and we all know that warm water expands therefore higher sea levels :evil:
There seems to be some of these people here concerning climate change

http:.../head-in-sand.jpg (http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/image-files/head-in-sand.jpg)
:rofl: :lol: :D

[janoskiss]

Any change in ocean temperature so far would be well under 1 degree, and you certainly would not notice it by swimming in it. A few localised observations such as the experience you describe cannot be used to draw any sort of conclusions about the global climate. The water just happened to be warmer than usual when you were in Fiji that is all. (But the massive amounts of long term global climate data indeed strongly suggest global warming is under way and is going to continue.)

[gaa_ian]

I'm with you there Paul.
Would it look great too !

[gaa_ian]

I'm curious nightshift, just what do the Rothchilds etc have to gain by this "Hoax" ?
I would have thought that the gain would have been to deny the problem so more coal & oil can be sold !

[ThunderChild]

Wow - there's about 3 or 4 threads within this thread - getting harder to keep up!



Well, to be completely correct, we've had the ability to "pollute" since the dawn of time... but I think you know what I mean when I say we've only had the ability to really pump out pollution on a monster scale within the last century or so. We may have had some localised pollution of a specific sort in some place (like sulphur - I'll take your word for it), but I think that's not in the same league of what we're capable of now. The romans weren't technological capable of doing the same damage as millions of cars, coal driven power stations, mass production, etc etc etc....


No, not really. More like Humans=="Bad for the environment". Small difference, but an important one. I personally see most people as "good" - but not in an ecological sense.
Let's face it, from an environmental viewpoint, the earth really doesn't need us at all, and would definitely be better off without us - unless an asteroid comes in our direction and we need to send up Bruce Willis - then all those animals will be glad we're here!!!! :rofl: :D :anaut:



Damn! Before I got my telescope, I loved trees. But my place has a huge tree canopy which blocks out too much precious sky. Is it bad if I start wanting a freak storm to take them down? :P

[[1ponders]]

I don't know where you got the idea I was talking about producing oxygern. If you mean this statement



I was actually referring to the fact that trees remove carbon dioxide, one of the green house gasses that started this thread, not that they produce oxygen.

[ThunderChild]

That is a point I was thinking about too. I've been listening to various conspiracy theories saying that GW is made up for alterior motives ... but common sense points the other way. There is far more at stake for some to maintain the status quo (fossil fuels for a start). It reminds of of an old "MAD" magazine where there was a comic saying "You're a genius if you can invent a water driven car ........ BUT an idiot if you think the oil companies will let you make it", while the illustration showed the men in black suits with guitar cases leading a man into their limo. :P

History shows that the powers of the day have a far greater tendancy toward wanting to keep the status quo maintained, which makes sense, because the status quo is normally WHY they have some power.

[ThunderChild]

Actually, both acropolite and janoskiss were making very valid points. They responded to your experiment of filling a cup with ice to the top.
It's an unfortunate distraction if you feel they didn't quoted you 100% accurately, but they did correctly point out that your "ice in a cup" experient is a flawed representation since you arranged the experiment so that no ice stuck out above the rim of the cup.

Moving away from polar ice caps (and I'm not sure how much impact this would have - will need to look this up), wouldn't the expansion of the liquid ocean as it warms have some impact on sea levels? I'm guessing here, but wouldn't even a modest temperature rise to such an enormous volume of water have some kind of impact?

Note that in some ways, the "water level" issue is yet another distraction - if GW is happening as many think, then rising water probably wouldn't be our worst challenge facing us.

[ving]

:lol:
now I am not into conspiracy theories but thats giggleworthy :)
makes you think....

different tangent: how much scientific research is held off and how many of the worlds problems could be solved if the govt paid more attention and funded said projects? unfortunely they are only in for 4 years and because of that dont think long term... BOO HISS!!! :poke:


the outcome of this experiment might depend on whether the cup is half full or half empty ;)

[Nightshift]

It's too involved to reply here, once again I draw your attention to a book by Peter Sawyer called, The Green Hoax Effect". ask your library, search google for "Green Hoax" and read your heads off if you dont like libraries, Peter sawyer has been dismissed on some subjects but he isnt the only author of this subject, unlike many in the scientific community who are funded by Governments or Corporate Giants he has nothing to gain by his comments, lets not forget that there is no money to be made by scientists, they exist due to grants alone, take away their grants and they are over educated unemployed people. NASA wouldnt exist if it wasnt for government funds. (possible exception here is drug companies but thats another story). If you want to doubt my comment just look at the new CSIRO diet emploring you to eat tons of meat (and i aint no vege lover) that diet and all the research was funded by the Meat Board, yet our government tells us this is the best thing for us, no nutritionist in the world will recommend this diet and in fact they have been up in arms over it, it is a good example of what I'm talking about though.

For example, here's some questions.
Q. Why do we have catalytic converters on our cars?
A. To clean up our exhaust emissions by removing Lead.
Q. Who owned the worlds biggest lead mines?
A. Rothschild family enterprises. Why? in 1910 they realised by adding it our petrol it would stop pinging and high quality spirit could be replaced by cheap-to-produce petroleum or gasolene, they bought most of the lead mines.
Q. Whats in a catalytic converter?
A. It has a honeycomb of expensive metals in it which react with the gases converting them to more harmful gases than they started such as Sulpher dioxide (causing the rotten egg smell) but I digress, the metals is question are platinum (Pt), rhodium(Rh), and/or palladium (Pd).
Q. Who bought up and now owns the mines for these metals back in the early 70's? The same Rothschild companies that own(ed) the lead mines.
Q. Why not clean up fuel instead?
A. Coz us dumb consumers can pay for the converters when we buy the car and the rothschilds can go on selling us the metals and the petro chemical giants can keep making cheap nasty fuel and charging us $1.20+ for it.

For those that dont know, before petrol as we know it we used to burn spirit in cars that was much much cleaner and didnt need either lead or catalysts to achieve it but it cost more to produce reducing the profits of the fuel companies. I for one would pay more for clean fuel than pollute the air we breathe more by way of a cataytic converter, yes we removed lead but introduced a cocktail of worse chemicals, but you see the worse chemicals are invisable, it was mostly the lead that causes the brown smog in california.

[Nightshift]

Ummm yes but, trees produce carbon dioxide at night due to the lack of photosynthesis, they produce oxygen in daytime due to photosynthesis.

But I take your point, they help filter CO2 from our environment.

[Nightshift]

Now you have mis quoted me, as I said, "if you fill a cup with ice, THEN add water to the rim" then the ice (because it floats above the surface) will be above the rim, but when it melts it wont overflow, the main reason for this is the oxygen bubbles that get caught in ice helping to expand it, about 12% of ice is air, therefore about 12% of the polar caps is NOT water.

And..... Water expands ever so slightly as it is warmed, but, no where near enough to raise ocean levels by 6 metres or as some same hundreds of metres, certainly not if we are talking 1 to 3 degree's, even if the oceans boiled (100 degree's C) it wouldnt rise that high, it would be uncomfortable though especially in Fiji.

[Nightshift]

and here's me saying I was done with this thread.

[ving]

Mr Night,
the problem with that is that the icecaps were created on top of the water and not the icecaps created and then water added.... fill your cup with water then add ice... :)

[ThunderChild]

Sadly ving, I think you're on the money - and it's hard to blame them in some ways because a government tends to get hammered when they're not producing the best short term outcomes. If we as a voting public rewarded long term thinking, more of it would happen - but unfortunately we don't.
Similar goes for our purchasing choices too I guess - we want companies to be socially & environmentally responsible - but at the end of day, we will tend to choose the cheapest product.


Hehehe - very good! :rofl:

[ving]

gotta keep the shareholders happy Mr Thunder ;)
lets dump another 500 staff and reduce running costs by polluting more so shares go up...

[ving]

who'd 'ave thunk it!?

[mickoking]

Plant ornamental Eucalypts. My yard is full of em. They also block the steet lights a treat :thumbsup:

[mattweather]

Very interesting guys, i can see that global werming is not real at all but it feel likes it because it comes in the natural cycle. For example, the single matter explodes as the big bang and make universe around the space interoir and everything starting to come closer again and make one matter again and it doing repeat all the time. I can see that earth is doing the similar cycle in weather patterns. I wonder who made this universe?

Matt

[ving]

or what. mant thoeries on this. who's to say which is right and which is wrong :) they are talking about "multiverses" now.... :eek:

it all a realy interesting topic hey :)
enjoy the read?

[GrampianStars]

There is also known that the perihelion and aphelion points of earth orbit is precessing later in the season. Meaning the Spring and Summer seasons arrive earlier on the calender about 1 day every 6 decades regardless of man made global warming.

"Marking Time by Dr. D. Steele"

[robagar]

True, but autumn is coming later. The point is that the growing season is longer than it used to be.

[mickoking]

I found this article in todays West Australian newspaper.

[ving]

warming schwarming...

to think global warming doesnt exist would mean that you obviously are on another planet, not awake or possibly not alive. We all know that the global warming issue is real and its causing melting of ice and freakish weather, but the big question is just how much of what happening is human induced?
I believe that while we have added to the global warming issue (or climate change as the pollies call it now) our input is not as significant as we are lead to believe. We all know that warming is part of the natural cycle and as part of that cycle ice will melt and weather patterns will change...
is what attenborough say that global warming is natural but we cause the ice to melt and the cyclones?

signed
devils advocate.

[mickoking]

I have always believed global warming is part natural, part man made. As Attenborough states:

" The coincidence of the curves made it perfectaly* clear we have left the period of natural climatic oscillation behind and have begun on a steep curve in terms of temperature rise, beyond anything in terms of increase that we have seen over many thousands of years".



*My itallacs.

[Argonavis]

"many thousands of years..." ?


like this temperature history:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Sargasso.htm

Considering the difficulty of measuring "global climate" that is a bold statement from Sir David. There are a number of temperature proxies, and the data does show some ambiguity.

[Argonavis]

I plead guilty



try:


http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[xelasnave]

So will anyone of us change our behaviour?:shrug: and if we do will it change things now?:shrug:
I am minding 200 acres of trees that will never get cut down whilst I am alive and live off solar power when at home there.:D That not green thats just the place I find myself in... if I had the cash I would have a v8 and an airconditioner and if I wanted a black tin roof I would have it and but yet another airconditioner..as they do..The reality with the world getting richer things can only heat up that is inevitable...in fifty years you will need to be really rich to enter the hobby of astronomy because you will need a hubble space scope ..the clouds of "mist" over Earth wont permit viewing from the surface of the planet..So dont wait to buy that bigger scope..time is running out:)
It is my opinion that Global Warming is happening however I have seen evidence to suggest it is not just humans contributing, so the prospect of natural and "artificial" contributors may need to be reconed with.
It is also my opinion that certain "clean fuel of the future lobbiest" are using our guilt of over consumption to grind their own axe however. Well folks what do you want cancer or slow grill.:eyepop:
alex

[JimmyH155]

Roll on the next ice age, I say. It is already 2000 years late. I reckon property prices in Brissie will go through the roof and I can make a killing and then retire to a colder climate where they are all bailing out from....:)

[xelasnave]

The Gold Coast may become a skin divers paradice with the predicted water level rise.
alex

[ving]

the question now i guess is, do we try and stop nature from doing its thing or let the ice caps melt, water levels rise and ice age roll on? :)

[xelasnave]

I think if you look realistically at the rapid development world wide, not withstanding the best intentions of reduction setting goals, caring people who do the right thing or cutting your shower time by half, the problem will get worse. Any effort to "fix" it will be only by those with a vested interest in the product they present as part of the cure... commercial considerations say we will have to face and manage the consequences of no action. But there is sometimes some good from even the worst case, the eventual degrading of the planet may see more advanced political and economic systems than humans had needed before.
But what a neat part of history we are living in.. the begining of the end or the end of the begining.
alex