Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks like the Greenpeace hippies were wrong in their predictions...
Quote:
The amount of floating ice in the Arctic's Bering Sea - which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace - reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites.
The US National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that ice extent in the Bering for the month of March has now been collated and compared, and is the highest seen since records began.
Actually, those who believe the amount of floating ice in the Arctic's Bering Sea is retreating believe this to be a long-term trend. Anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the way weather works knows departures from average will always happen. A departure from average does not represent a long term trend.
This year, the jet stream spent the Winter over Canada, like Tek_Freek said, causing milder-than-normal Winter weather in the eastern continental US and a colder-than-average Winter in the northwest.
It doesn't mean the "hippies" are wrong. It doesn't mean they are right either. It proves absolutely nothing.
-------------------------------------------------vvvvvv
In fact, according to the Cryosphere Today website run by the Polar Research group at Illinois uni, it's down by 443,000 square km. However the sea ice around the Antarctic coasts is above average by 452,000 km2, so overall the planet's sea ice is at the moment slightly above average in extent
The earth has been around for billions of years, it is not logical to claim that the average Ice extent from this small time frame of 1979-2000 is better or worse than at other times. We might find out that the world is better off a little warmer on average.
The earth has been around for billions of years, it is not logical to claim that the average Ice extent from this small time frame of 1979-2000 is better or worse than at other times. We might find out that the world is better off a little warmer on average.
Not without evidence, it isn't. But then, we do have plenty of scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the average extent is much lower than it should be, and that the bulk of the reason falls on anthropogenic global warming. Moreover, there is ample biological evidence to support the rationale that global warming is detrimental to life as it exists today. As an example, it has been found that while warmer temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 content generate a temporary increase in plant growth, in the long term, such conditions are detrimental to plants, particularly in the tropics.
Not without evidence, it isn't. But then, we do have plenty of scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the average extent is much lower than it should be, and that the bulk of the reason falls on anthropogenic global warming.
Than it should be? Who are you to decide what it should be?
Tell me what the maximum ice extent was in 1682, how about 1345 or maybe a billion years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Moreover, there is ample biological evidence to support the rationale that global warming is detrimental to life as it exists today. As an example, it has been found that while warmer temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 content generate a temporary increase in plant growth, in the long term, such conditions are detrimental to plants, particularly in the tropics.
Warming will lengthen the growing seasons in colder areas that have short growing seasons now, I am sure Canada wouldn't mind. If warmer weather is so detrimental to life than how the hell am I still alive after leaving Minnesota and moving to California? The average temperature difference from where I used to live in northern Minnesota and where I live now is huge and yet I feel fine.
Than it should be? Who are you to decide what it should be?
Well, for one, I'm a geologist. Who are you?
Quote:
Tell me what the maximum ice extent was in 1682
We know from shipping logs back then that the extent was much more than it is today.
Quote:
how about 1345 or maybe a billion years ago.
Since people didn't exist a billion years ago, since the poles were in a different geographical position than they are today, and since the sun was warmer then than now, that question is irrelevant.
Quote:
Warming will lengthen the growing seasons in colder areas that have short growing seasons now, I am sure Canada wouldn't mind.
Actually Canada does mind, since the lengthened growing seasons will be offset by massive increases in the insect population and thawing of the permafrost, which will release vast amaounts of methane, a much more potent GHG than CO2, setting off a positive warming feedback that will only make things much worse. And for the record, nowhere is global warming being felt more than in the Arctic, which includes much of canada.
Quote:
If warmer weather is so detrimental to life than how the hell am I still alive after leaving Minnesota and moving to California?
It is quite arrogant to assume that this only impacts you. Clue - You are not the sum total of the Earth's biosphere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
