NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
NotNow wrote:
BAR wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
Ran across this after seeing an article in boattest about a guy
with a
Nordhavn doing the trip Atlantic to Pacific.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...y/1620336.html

Weird when you consider the travails of Franklin and Amundsen.
If the passage gets going good it could affect Panama Canal
revenues.

You could see the Chinese jump on the Global Warming band wagon
at that point.

I wonder how the passage is getting "increasingly ice free" when
the republican politicians are forcing everyone in their party to
be darned near militant in telling everyone that global warming
just isn't happening despite all of the data proving otherwise?

Where is the peer reviewed data.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

NOAA's data is based upon faulty measurements and only goes back a
couple of decades.


http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/globalwarming/end.html
Which states in part:

When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and
paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has
warmed significantly over the last 140 years; Global Warming is a
reality. Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years,
the 1990s, and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global
basis, of the last 600, and most likely 1200 years. It appears that
the global warming of the last century is unprecedented in the last
1,200 years.

Which means absolutely nothing. When you look at the Earth you have
to look using a time scale of geologic proportions. Six hundred and
twelve hundred years don't constitute data points.

Of course they do! If they didn't, then there would be no data
points. It may be your OPINION that they don't, but mathematically
they do.

What caused the glaciers to recede at the end of the last ice age?

Temperatures above freezing.

Just as I thought. You don't want to discuss what caused the glaciers
to melt? Why? Because it doesn't fit into the script of humans are bad
and are killing the earth.


Because it's irrelevant to what is happening NOW.

Cherry picking the most recent 200 years, 1000 years and using that as
the basis for a theory is laughable. The Earth has been covered in ice
before and the poles have seen tropical weather.

What is laughable is that as the right's talking point on the subject,
they always bring up what has happened 50,000 or so years ago. It
doesn't take someone real brilliant to look at a chart that clearly
shows a rise in temperature coinciding with a gain in air pollutants
coinciding with the industrial revolution.

If they looked at the charts, they would see that the temperature has
been warming long before man appeared and we are at a temperature peak
in the long term temperature curves, and ready to descend into the next
ice age.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07158.html