Is it global warming or an ice age?

[Montgomery Burns]

It's global warming!

Policy makers, businesses and individuals must act now on a range of environmental matters or pay a heavy price later" says the European Environment Agency (EEA).

The four hottest years on record were 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, it reports. Ten per cent of Alpine glaciers disappeared during the summer of 2003 alone. At current rates, three quarters of Switzerland’s glaciers will have melted by 2050. Europe has not seen climate changes on this scale for 5,000 years, says the EEA.

No, it's an Ice Age!

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.

The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.

The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

Enviromental Scaremonger: We must retard progress and shackle the economy with very expensive new technology of questionable worth because of global warming...er, I mean the Ice Age...er, I mean, uhhh.

Oh, never mind.

[Montgomery Burns]

I got a kick out of this from the G&M:

Thousands of people ignored frigid temperatures to lead a worldwide day of protest against global warming.

[Black Dog]

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.

A warmer earth and colder regions are not mutually exclusive. As the article states, Europe and North America's balmy temperatures are due to the ocean currents that bring warm surface water up from the equator into northern regions that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered with ice.

Warming is causing more water to evaporate from the tropics, more rainfall in subpolar and polar regions, and more ice to melt at high latitudes. The additional fresh water could disrupt the currents that keep us warm, leading to an ice age here, even as the global temperature increases.

[DarkAngel_]

In the processes of warming an internal atmosphere, rays from the sun are trapped and reflected from the surface to the sky and continue until the ray dissipates, but if there is to much 'solar interference' , the ray is reflected back and stays in a constant, heating the inner atmosphere too much causing global warming. If the 'solar interference' increases, rays will begin to reflect off the outer surface, doing the opposite (no light gets in, no warmth from sun). it's not just us causing global warming (released gas pockets, volcanic pollution and other things can cause it) but we are most definitely increasing it by I guess 500%, so if the problem only decreases, we might have to deal with hot (and I mean very hot) summers.

If we do nothing we will probably get hot weather, and then an ice age. But, if it stops and other 'less' expensive energies are used, hopefully free energy like electricity, then we won't have to deal with the harshness of global warming.

understand?

(and the warm water thing causing ice age works too, so we might have a higher chance of ice age)

and montana is already coold!!!)

[Leafless]

DarkAngel_

Please go over the part where "but if there is to much solar interference"?

What do you mean by solar interference and what is the height of the 'sky' concerning your explanation of global warming.

I think if Canadians simply sit back and relax and if temperatures go according as planned we might all be experiencing Florida type weather sooner than you think.

But in all seriousness it seems world population growth is at the root of certain current conditons and sorry to say I have no confidence in man made apparatus to control this situation in a reasonable way.

[theloniusfleabag]

An interesting note on this issue today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_...ng_temperatures

A nagging difference in temperature readings that had raised questions about global warming has been resolved, a panel of scientists reported Tuesday

The findings show clear evidence of human influences on climate due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone.

But is it true?

[geoffrey]

Average temperatures have stabilised in recent times, yet we are polluting more. Why? How?

I think very little of this has to do with human influence.

Doesn't change our obligation to protect our water and soil from contamination and remove toxins from the air we breathe. These are my environmental priorities, and yesterday Rona Ambrose spoke to these in the HoC.

If we can improve the situation with toxins in our environment, we will save many people from cancer, asthma as well as numerous other diseases. Poision is what we should fear, not CO2. Our blind trust in the fact that Kyoto is all we need to follow to protect ourselves is ridiculous and actually counter-productive to our health.

Money should only be spent on programs that have tangible results, fixing contaminated soil sites and giving tax breaks to companies that remove toxins from their emissions into the air and water.

[Slavik44]

Average temperatures have stabilised in recent times, yet we are polluting more. Why? How?

Okay well science is definitley not my forte but I wonder if the answer to your question rests in Global Dimming, where pollutants such as ash, sulfur dioxide etc... change the properties of clouds giving them the ability to reflect sunlight back into space and away from the earth. I belive this has been linked to cooler ocean tempatures in the Northern hemisphere and droughts in Northern Africa. Another part of global dimming gained more credence after the 9/11 attacks when planes were grounded in the U.S for a couple days, a rise in tempature was detected as well as a greater range in daily tempature. From there it may be possible to make the conclusion that as countries like China and India modernize, they are reallying more heavily on sources of energy that contribute to greater soot, ash, sulfur dioxide etc... in our atmosphere. This not only contributing to Cancers, Asthma, and other dangerous diseases but also an increase in the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight away from the earth.

[geoffrey]

It really seems like environmentalists have no idea what's happening.

Global warming, now global dimming.

Honestly, we have bigger problems to worry about then greenhouse gases. Like soil toxicity and water pollution, I can tell you these actually affect us without a doubt right now. Let's deal with these, and then worry about CO2, which may or may not do anything in the next 10,000 years.

[Slavik44]

It really seems like environmentalists have no idea what's happening.

Global warming, now global dimming.

Honestly, we have bigger problems to worry about then greenhouse gases. Like soil toxicity and water pollution, I can tell you these actually affect us without a doubt right now. Let's deal with these, and then worry about CO2, which may or may not do anything in the next 10,000 years.

Have you ever driven your car and had your foot on the gas and the break at the same time? You see that is to different and opposite forces working simultanoiusly. You ahve the gas pedal which makes the car go faster and the break which slows the car down. Both of these two forces affect the speed the car is traveling. Even though these two forces are different the existence of one force does not exclude the simultanous existance of another opposite force. Global warming can be seen as the gas pedal force on world temperatures, and Global dimming can be seen as the break force on global temperatures. Both are happening at the same time, both are exerting there power on the earths temperature. Even if the Earths temperature stays the same both forces can be at work, they can both exist, but they would at the time balancing each other out. If the earth is cooling the forces of global warming can still be happening, only that they are being out weighed by the force of Global dimming. Your porblem lies int eh fact that you are trying to view Global warming and Global dimming as the speed of the car rather then two forces that affect the speed of the car. Global Warming is used to describe the end result of what the forces behind it cause, they cause warming, if unrestrained, in other words what these forces gravitate towards creating. I belive that is one of the basic priniples behind global dimming, that it has been a force masking the full affect of Global Warming. Like when you have your foot on the break only a bit and your foot on the gas alot, if you take your foot off the break, your car will accelerate swiftly. In the end if you have critisicms of Global warming or Global diming that is perfectly legitimate, but I think in this case you were taking a needless shot on a groundless basis.

[geoffrey]

So we just need to make sure global dimming and global warming work at equal amounts in order to keep the car (our world) at the same speed.

Brilliant. We can emit the same amount, just make it tinted or something to increase the dimming effect and we are all safe!!

Yeehaww.

Anyways, seriously now, do you not agree that we have more pressing environmental concerns other than global warming? Do you not agree that we are spending too much on global warming instead of focusing on the issues that affect us every day, like having safe drinking water and clean soil to plant our crops?

Or how about cancer causing carcinogens in the air we breath and food we eat? How about sour gas flaring, an issue that affects me personally in Alberta, something I'm very concerned about?

These are all issues that concern me environmentally, I'm not a crazy pro-business typical conservative that denies all existence of any environmental problem.

There is just better places for us to be spending our money. Canada can't do anything on global warming unless the US and China ante up, our massive costs will accomplish nothing in the big picture.

Instead we should spend that large sum on issues that are impacting Canadians right now.

Cancer rates are increasing, water is being polluted to the point where it can't be drank and soil is contaminated, right now, today, in Canada. Let's put that money towards these real issues and not towards hot air credit payments overseas that accomplish absolutely nothing in real terms.

[Slavik44]

So we just need to make sure global dimming and global warming work at equal amounts in order to keep the car (our world) at the same speed

Brilliant. We can emit the same amount, just make it tinted or something to increase the dimming effect and we are all safe!!

Yeehaww.

So what your saying then is you would rather have the break and the gas pedal slamed to the floor, rather then decreasing the force beign applied to the break and gas pedal? There are a number of ways to slow down. It is interesting of course that you chose the most deadly method. It is not as though this is an epic battle between Good and Evil. Decreasing both would probabley be in our best interests.

Anyways, seriously now, do you not agree that we have more pressing environmental concerns other than global warming? Do you not agree that we are spending too much on global warming instead of focusing on the issues that affect us every day, like having safe drinking water and clean soil to plant our crops?............................................................

Okay well first off, I belvi eit is important to recognize there are a number of problems, I belvie right now we are disscussing one of these supposed problems, just because we are discussing Problem A doesn;t mean that we do not also acknowledge problem B through Z. I think the scarey thign for Canada is that for us Environmental Degradation is like a feel good industry. We sit around and talk about what needs to be done, then we sit around and talka bout hwo we can achieve it, and then we praise ourselves for talking, and then we sit on our ass and take no action. The fact is we really are not doing anything to truly solve the environmental problems facing us. Myself personally I have never been 100% sold on the Kyoto Protocol and I still am not sold on it. In fact I probabley would highlight and hold the same concerns you do. I originally was drawn into posting in this thread not actually to defend the Kyoto Protocol but to help answer a question you had. Why has the earths tempature been static if we are expirencing Global Warming? That is what I tried to provide a possible solution to. You asked why you asked how, what I tried to do was explain that.

[gerryhatrick]

It is incredible to see this level of ignorance still exists.

Tell me someone has enlightened you in the meantime.

Tell me your ignorance is accidental and not willful, please!

[BHS]

It is incredible to see this level of ignorance still exists.

Tell me someone has enlightened you in the meantime.

Tell me your ignorance is accidental and not willful, please!

Who are you talking to?

[gerryhatrick]

It is incredible to see this level of ignorance still exists.

Tell me someone has enlightened you in the meantime.

Tell me your ignorance is accidental and not willful, please!

Who are you talking to?

MBurns. Black Dog. Anyone else who doesn't have the basic knowledge about global warming and it's expected results.

Probably you as well...

[Drea]

My take on it...

for one thing "it" is called global climate change -- not global warming or cooling.

for another "it" is the natural cycle of the earth and there's nothing we can really do about it. If a volcano erupts and spews tons of carbon dioxide into the air, are we to lessen it by driving one less SUV?

What is going to happen? Why is it called climate change not warming?

Warming causes the polar ice cap to melt and release fresh water (lots of it) into the Atlantic Ocean which stops the Gulf Stream current that keeps Europe warm -- Europe then begins to experience an "ice age" even though the event was initially brought on by warming the end result is cooling.

Check it out:

Wikipedia

Or this:

Where have all the icebergs gone?

Chilling facts The truth about ice loss and global warming

By Adam Jacques

140 cubic miles - The amount of overall ice mass lost from the Greenland ice sheet in 2005, enough to fill Loch Ness 70 times over.

5 degrees - The average air temperature increase in the Arctic over the last 100 years.

60% - The increase in ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet since 1996.

22ft - The rise in sea levels if the Greenland ice sheet melted, which would deluge Florida, the Netherlands, Bangladesh and most of London.

14% - The drop in Arctic sea ice since the 1970s.

20% - The decrease in the polar bear population in Canada's western Hudson Bay in the last 17 years, due to loss of sea ice.

10 - The number of years since 1988 that have been the hottest on record.

30 - How many times faster greenhouse gases are being released compared to the last period of extreme global warming.

$150bn - The cost to the world's economies of fully implementing the Kyoto agreement ­ the benefits of which would not begin to be felt for 100 years.

0 tonnes - The amount of Arctic ice that will be left during the summer months, within 80 years.

[betsy]

It is incredible to see this level of ignorance still exists.

Tell me someone has enlightened you in the meantime.

Tell me your ignorance is accidental and not willful, please!

Who are you talking to?

MBurns. Black Dog. Anyone else who doesn't have the basic knowledge about global warming and it's expected results.

Probably you as well...

I have searched this thread for any input you might have had about the argument...and I have not found a single one...except for your short comment calling everyone "ignorant." At least the others have had something to say about the issue...whereas your only "contribution" to the thread is to hurl insults to those who had given their two cents. I can't help but conclude that what you said so far is all you know.

I think you've mistook this for another topic. This thread is not about "Show and Tell Your Ignorance."

[KrustyKidd]

I have searched this thread for any input you might have had about the argument...and I have not found a single one...except for your short comment calling everyone "ignorant."

I don't have in depth knowledge of this subject so just tend to stay on the sidelines and read, try to learn more type of thing and never noticed that Betsy. He never did give an opinion or information on this subject, at least on this thread. Very strange. Possibly this is all a throwback to another thread or something where Gerry did provide his opinion, if so, he should provide a link.

[BHS]

This is the first thread I found on the topic of global warming, so I'm posting this link here:

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_a...sponse_to_.html

Scott Burgess is an American blogger living in England. He's been having a bit of a back and forth with a reporter for the Independant about global warming, and about the work of Bjorn Lomborg in particular.

I've changed my mind about the nature of global warming recently, and what Scott explains as his own beliefs on the matter in this post is more or less in line with what I currently believe, for those who care to know.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Sadly, many 'scientists' have to stake reputations on predictions, so they go to extremes. They will be right or wrong, and the most fervent espouser of a theory will get the biggest grant. Mind you, some are employed by companies with vested interests one way or the other, so their predictions are..well...predictable. So, trying to find an impartial 'scientist' can be difficult. I would say NASA might have some.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

From my perspective, strong evidence is already accumulating that weighs heavily against the skeptics contentions that there is no significant global warming and that climate sensitivity is low. These issues will become even clearer over the next several years.

I agree somewhat with the information in your link, that it would make sense that changes in the earth's atmosphere are cyclical. However, these changes are usually so slow that a human would never see them in a lifetime.

[Johnny Utah]

According to Al Gore Humans are the cause of Global Warming and the clock is ticking to Dooms Day..

[Leafless]

Johnny Utah

You wrote:

"According to Al Gore Humans are the cause of Global Warming and the clock is ticking to Dooms Day.. "

And he could be right as the more humans the more water vapour the #1 greenhouse gas also responsiple for smog retention over major cities as well as contributing to the heating effect.

[gerryhatrick]

I have searched this thread for any input you might have had about the argument...and I have not found a single one...except for your short comment calling everyone "ignorant." At least the others have had something to say about the issue...whereas your only "contribution" to the thread is to hurl insults to those who had given their two cents. I can't help but conclude that what you said so far is all you know.

I think you've mistook this for another topic. This thread is not about "Show and Tell Your Ignorance."

Scratch that conclusion. I'm just not wasting my time with ideological nitwits who have decided what their opinions on global warming are in spite of the obvious fact that they've been too lazy to find out the first thing about it.

But just for you betsy, I'll give you a clue.

Go look for information on global warming and ice age.

Do some reading....then come back and waste your time trying to alleviate the ignorance here.

[gerryhatrick]

According to Al Gore Humans are the cause of Global Warming and the clock is ticking to Dooms Day..

Uh.....yeah. And....?

My theory is that weak minds...minds who cannot fathom new realities that call for drastic change...those are the people who will cast off all logic and knowledge available and hide behind their denial.

Fear of the truth drives them to not only hide but to actively work to hide the truth. It's sad.

[geoffrey]

Like I've said a billion times, we'll all be dead of cancer and lack of clean drinking water/soil before we ever get cooked to death. It's all about priorities, if your priority is a massive hate on for the oil industry, have at it, but don't cook it up with science. Growing cancer rates are a much bigger concern to me, lets clean the toxins up before cleaning up a naturally occuring gas that is less than 1% of the greenhouse effect.

We can't do it all, but preventing each and every one of our children from getting cancer might be a start. Better than trying to heat/cool/heat/dampen/dry out the earth depending on the tree hugger catch theory of the week.