Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
right.

Right, WHAT then?
And tell us more about THE transatlantic cable, okay?!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?

Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

It's only by applying research science, observational science and
differing opinions converging on a consensus that will begin to
uncover if it is or if it ain't.

My comment was not focused on your debating style, but the "Global
Warming Debate" among the vast majority of people. To me finding
alternative energy solutions and improving the efficiency of the fossil
fuel we use has benefits to all of us, EVEN if the global warming issue
is moot. I really think some people, especially some in rec.boats only
like to debate or discuss Global Warming so they can scream "See all you
do damn Reps. do is goosestep to your party line". My guess is they
would be depressed if we solved the Global Warming problem, because it
would be one less insult they could deliver. That being said, I
personally agree with most scientists who say an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere is having an effect on our climate. This by no means says
that man is the only or even the major reason for the increase in global
temperature, but we do need to do everything possible to leave a smaller
footprint on the world's ecosystem.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?

Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?

Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.

Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?

Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.

Yeah, what would you need Wiki for when you have Hannity, Rush and Karl
Rove telling you that man has no impact on global warming?!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?
Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Bassy,
I missed the part where Tom said "man has no hand in global warming",
can you show me that quote in his post?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

What is your conception of totalitarian thought?

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

It's only by applying research science, observational science and
differing opinions converging on a consensus that will begin to
uncover if it is or if it ain't.

To my understanding that is basically what has been going on for the
last few decades within science, and so far the outcome has been that
greenhouse gases are the most likely culprit for the upward trend in
temperatures. The issue is theoretically complex - eg. there exist many
negative and positive feedback mechanisms - and the long-term data is
quite limited. Nevertheless broad evidence and professional judgement
points to a cause that can be manipulated by humanity. Even if there
were other strong contributing causes, the issue of greenhouse gases
can be addressed and the actual climate change hopefully made less
rapid and less severe.

Risto

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?
Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Bassy,
I missed the part where Tom said "man has no hand in global warming",
can you show me that quote in his post?

He's stated here several times in the past that man's actions are of no
consequence in regards to global warming. He INSTANTLY ****ed on the
article as bunk. Enough said.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?
Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.
To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Bassy,
I missed the part where Tom said "man has no hand in global warming",
can you show me that quote in his post?

He's stated here several times in the past that man's actions are of no
consequence in regards to global warming. He INSTANTLY ****ed on the
article as bunk. Enough said.


Since you have not shown me one link I guess you can not find one place
where Tom stated "man has no hand in global warming".

If he has stated it several times, it should be very easy to find one of
them. Maybe you can do what you insist on everyone else doing and
Google up one instance where Tom stated man has no hand in global warming.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

If he has stated it several times, it should be very easy to find one of
them. Maybe you can do what you insist on everyone else doing and
Google up one instance where Tom stated man has no hand in global warming.

Oooookay:

Here on Oct 1, 2004, Tom states that global warming is only someone's
pet theory and doesn't even exist:

The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's
about it

Here, Calif Bill says:
You forgot Clinton, LBJ, Nixon and "global warming", plus the oil refinery
blast in Texas.

To which Tom replied:

There is only so much conspiracy to spread around.

Thus saying that global warming is just a conspiracy. How could man
have a hand in global warming if it's nothing more than a conspiracy?

There's plenty more where that came from!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice and the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year when the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick out a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as gospel.


--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200612/1