Now I'm just a boy from the bush and don't understand this but how do you explain that for the last 17 years the Earth has been cooling, that polar bears are not extinct, Pacific islands haven't been inundated, the Antarctic ice cap is the biggest it has been for years and some glaciers are increasing?
I've brought up the 17-19 year halt in 'global warming' and the 'ice cap' thing a couple of times. IF someone addresses your question, what you'll get for an answer is the std "warmer" CYA explaination: "It's only a snapshot in time and therefore doesn't reflect the clear upward trend in blah, blah, blah, OR the fact that this glacier over HERE blah, blah, blah..."
IOW, no matter what one may point to as evidence the CC/GW view may be 'all wet', he'll be told said evidence is bogus and irrelevant no matter what the evidence may be or who/what its source.
Well, apart from the polar bears Pete, none of that is actually true, and even for the bears the area of suitable habitat is shrinking markedly. The Earth HAS continued to warm over the past 17 years, albeit the oceans at a higher rate than the atmosphere; Kiribati and Tuvalu are having real problems with rising sea levels; and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking at an increasingly alarming rate. Yes, the sea ice around Antarctica might be increasing, but there are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which are the decrease in salinity of the surface water around Antarctica as the ice sheets/glaciers melt (fresh water floats and freezes at 2 degrees C higher than salt water), and changes in wind pattern as the atmosphere warms. All of this is published in the scientific literature if you care to look.
I will be long gone before the real effects kick in, but our local council are currently facing some very hard decisions regarding what to do about our lowest lying suburbs. Over the past few years the sea has encroached on the sand dunes protecting them, where in the past the dunes and beaches accreted. Some argue that it is all an entirely natural cycle that we just have to live with, or that we should simply wait and see, after all, sea level locally has only risen a few centimetres. However, if the WAIS does collapse in the next 100 years, as some researchers have predicted, we have a huge problem on our hands. Sea level will rise 3 - 3.5 m and that will be very difficult to ignore. Can we do anything about it? As I've said before, maybe not, but shouldn't we at least try.
^^^ As predicted...![]()
![]()
Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.
85 pages of countless, mindless drivel that individually nor nationally nor globally will ever change. Mother Nature, Science of Nature is based on reality of happenstance. Man is like an ant on an elephant touting his ability to f*uck the unknowing beast in the arse.
I admit I am in this BS. thread just to troll (New Zealand you cant catch me) and read some of the most wasted time ever.
I would prefer politics to pollution. But you want us to talk about the weather.
BTW another eruption by another volcano, so who makes more pollution, nature or man? Truth be told by looking at the sediment in the soil. Nature.
Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.
85 pages of countless, mindless drivel that individually nor nationally nor globally will ever change. Mother Nature, Science of Nature is based on reality of happenstance. Man is like an ant on an elephant touting his ability to f*uck the unknowing beast in the arse.
I admit I am in this BS. thread just to troll (New Zealand you cant catch me) and read some of the most wasted time ever.
I would prefer politics to pollution. But you want us to talk about the weather.
BTW another eruption by another volcano, so who makes more pollution, nature or man? Truth be told by looking at the sediment in the soil. Nature.
Perhaps that was true when there were only 2 billion humans on the planet, but not any more. The arrogance of thinking humans cannot impact the planet's ability to adjust or absorb our excrement is wishful thinking at best. It is a closed system. We can't simply open the windows and let fresh air come in to replace the stale air (water, land, etc) we breath out. The planet's systems cannot compensate for an unrelenting or unlimited assault, in the extremely compressed timeline of modern man.
As noted earlier, they'll be patting me in the face with a shovel when/if this plays out as is currently anticipated, but my kids, and their kids will be dealing with the short-sightedness of our current inaction, and will our excuse of "well, we just weren't absolutely positive, or didn't really believe our best science back then. Cautionary actions were too inconvenient for our pocketbooks back then".
Last time I checked, carbon is heavier than air and carbon dioxide is the food for plants...photosythesis...
Keith, what shoes are the candidates wearing today?
Keith, what shoes are the candidates wearing today?
EGG-zackly. And as I've mentioned once or twice before, GREENHOUSE operators often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to get their plants to grow bigger faster. 'Wanna get rid of excess CO2? Plant lots more trees/shrubs/etc.
![]()
If I didn't know you better Larry, I'd say that post qualified for "tree hugger" status. Don't worry, I won't tell.