<p>and the same scientists have been crying about resource scarcity for the past few decades.</p>
<p>there is no legislation short of demolishing the world economy that is capable of lowering emmisions enough to affect the global climate.</p>
<p>kyoto is lauded as the answer to global warming, and bush has been widely criticized for not signing into it. fact is that kyoto excludes developing nations because it would cut their GDP's buy 3 percent. if the US signed it would cost $230 billion and cut per capita income by 5% a year. Even with the US signed on, the total effect of kyoto would be to reduce projected temperatures by at most .04 degrees F. (Global Warming Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications. Geophysical Research Letters 25, no13 (1 July 1998):2285-88)</p>
<p>Only severe reductions in global CO2 emissions, on the order of 60 percent or more, will alter the computer forecasts by enough to stop the predicted global warming.</p>
<p>once again, im not saying its not an issue, but i dont think we should be spending all this time money and effort on something that only "might" hapen.</p>
<p>i never said that we should suddenly cut off our economic engine.
i advocate more research into renewable energy (this kills two birds with one stone, since we are running out of fossil fuels anyway), and then a gradual shift to those new types of energy.</p>
<p>and it IS happening. most glaciers are shrinking at a rate of hundreds of feet a year all over the world, an obvious sign of global warming. </p>
<p>there are 160,000 glaciers in the world. there is mass balance data extending back 5 or more years for 79 of them. how can we say that this tiny sample is representative of all of them? (Braithwaite, R.J. and Zhang, Y. 2000. Relationships between interannual variability of glacier mass balance and climate. Journal of Glaciology 45: 456-462.)</p>
<p>In fact, not all glaciers are retreating. Antarctica is expanding and glaciers in Iceland have been surging and expanding in the midst of a cooling trend since the 1970's. (Chylek P., J. E. Box, and G. Lesins. Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet. Climatic Change 63 (2004): 201-21)</p>
<p>dramatic pictures of melting glaciers and inconclusive studies are a very effective tool, but hardly truthful.</p>
<p>TIME magazine conducts surveys all the time, a small percentage of the population, to gauge patterns on a national scale. Why not with glaciers?</p>
<p>in addition, according to my information, glaciers in iceland have actually been retreating. THe icelandic ice cap (including glaciers) has been losing ice volume since 1930, and has been losing an accelerated 20-30 kilometers squared of ice per year since 1985.
There are 55 total glaciers currently monitored in iceland. </p>
<p>the retreating of glaciers was attributed to a warming trend in iceland that reversed in the 1970's. hardly a harbinger of global warming.</p>
<p>"The rise of the mean summer temperature by approximately 0.6ºC from the first to the second quarter of the 20th century resulted in a rapid retreat of all measured glaciers in Iceland for the first 20 years of the measurement period, interrupted only in very few cases, mainly by surges. A turning point occurred around 1970 when most of the non-surging glaciers stopped retreating and many of them started to advance. Some of the glaciers have been advancing continuously since.</p>
<p>Since about 1970, the glaciers in the southernmost part of the country have regained about half of the ground lost since 1930, in the north about one third, in the west the recovery is about one quarter. In the southeast, some of the glaciers have been stationary for 30 years, while the easternmost ones have retreated slightly. Surge-type outlet glaciers with surge periods varying between 10 and 80 years are represented in the data set. In the period 1991-96 11 outlet glaciers have surged. "</p>
<p>actually the glaciers on kilamanjaro are melting not due to global warming but to deforestation. cutting down the vegetation on the sides of the mountains allows hot dry air to rush up the sides without being cooled leading the the retreat of glaciers there. scientists predict that if the forest is replanted the glaciers will surge again.</p>
<p>granted many of these examples are good arguments for global warming, but isnt it supposed to be just that: global? if it was really a worldwide phenomenon why are we seeing contradicting trends all over the place? why is the antarctic expanding while the arctic shrinking? why are some glaciers surging while others retreat?</p>
<p>ive resigned myself to the fact that the earth is a completely unpredictable and chaotic mess. things like this would be happening regardless of how many greenhouse gases we release, and most of this evidence is more likely local trends or conditions over a much larger and broader scale than is the scope of our current understanding or knowledge.</p>
<p>i would suggest reading the extensive wikipedia article on global warming. brings up plenty of graphs of geological cycles and how the current situation throws a monkey wrench into those cycles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
granted many of these examples are good arguments for global warming, but isnt it supposed to be just that: global? if it was really a worldwide phenomenon why are we seeing contradicting trends all over the place? why is the antarctic expanding while the arctic shrinking? why are some glaciers surging while others retreat?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Antarctica has been plaqued by the pumping of aerosols since hte end of the second world war. trade winds have carried a significant amount of aersols (sunlight blocking particles) over the south pole, creating both a significant dip in amount of sunlight hitting the Antarctic. those winds are also responsible for bring a significant amount of CFCs into the atmosphere above the south pole, and is responsible for the "ozone hole" there.</p>
<p>the earth on the short term is seemingly chaotic and unfathomable, but analysis of sediment and ice cores (that can show us the condition of the earth in numerous respects over millions and billions of years of its history) have shown that many, many geological patterns belie the behavior of the earth.</p>
<p>ive read the wikipedia articles while doing research papers on global warming, and to be honest i dont give them much credibility due to the fac that they are, in fact, wikipedia articles, and obviously biased.</p>
<p>before writing those papers i knew what most people now know about global warming - exactly what the media feeds us. i thought it was dire, imminent, if vague, threat to the world and something should be done.</p>
<p>after seeing both sides i find it illogical to claim that a less than 2 percent change in greenhouse gas emmissions spells the end of the world as we know it. co2 emmisions have increased by 60 parts per million since 1957, which is miniscule in terms of the atmosphere. </p>
<p>the flaw in reporting temperatures is most temperature stations are conveniently located near urban centers. the changes in land use and urbanization contribute more to the average ground temperature than global warming, while readings near cities show significantly more warming than those in rural or undeveloped areas. this is called the urban heat island.</p>
<p>closer inspection of the temperature data (mostly from the GISS) shows unusual trends that go against a global warming theory. the most accurate temperature stations, namely those in the US, show almost no increase (~.4 degrees) in temperature. punta arenas, the closest city in the world to antarctica, shows a decrease in temperature of over .5 degrees.</p>
<p>scientists on both sides of the argument will manipulate and massage the data to support their own views. ultimately its up to the individual to look at the data themselves and draw their own conclusions. i just think its absurd to pour billions or trillions of dollars trying to fix the future when we have more pressing problems in the present.</p>
<p>from what I am aware, biased articles are labeled unneutral or biased. i am also not aware of any political leanings of wikipedia.</p>
<p>as for the antarctic decrease, i have already said that we can attribute it to the increased concentration of aerosols above the south pole.</p>
<p>as i have said before, global warming is a problem in the present. it is threatening to close down swiss ski lifts, and many ski centers have attempted to cover their runs with aluminum sided sheets to try and reflect sunlight away from the snow in summer melt.
sea levels have risen 10 inches in the past century, and threaten coastal cities and ports.</p>
<p>perhaps whether or not global warming is a problem is decided by personal points of view, since there seems to be a glut of contradictory data everywhere, at least posted by you (pb32) and me. i have examined both sides, as you have, and i find that it is a pressing issue that should be elevated in importance for citizens of the 21st century.</p>
<p>agree to disagree then. while we reach different conclusions, i still hardly think the world is in danger from closed ski lifts. sea levels is another debatable issue as they have been rising for the last 6000 years, and as far as i know no city or port has had problems with rising sea leves (aside from new orleans maybe).</p>
<p>i dont have any problems with planning for the future, but at what level of importance should the issue of global warming have? i rank it somewhere below racism but above acne.</p>
<p>that said, the problems of AIDS, malnutrition, genoicide, disease, and other global problems are not something we can prevent - we allow these things to happen and focus not on current human misery but on events in the unforseeable future. i'd rather save children in africa than the polar bears.</p>
<p>"co2 emmisions have increased by 60 parts per million since 1957, which is miniscule in terms of the atmosphere." </p>
<p>Since the industrial revolution CO2 PPM are about 25% higher now than the higher point they have been in the past several hundred thousand years. To discount a 25% increase from any previous record is to discount the effect of CO2 concentration entirely.</p>
<p>I am with you though, pb32, in that one must consider what's best for humanity. If there are reasonably economic solutions to cut large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, then I think those should be looked into however.</p>
<p>Even if current or past evidence suggests that global temperatures haven't risen much from human actions, that isn't to say that they <em>won't</em>.</p>
<p>i think that agreement is good; i would also leave with a few final comments about global warming but they would only start the argument all over again.</p>
<p>let us talk about other neighboring issues, such as deforestation.</p>
<p>as you mentioned earlier, deforestation was the cause of the melting of glaciers on Kilamanjaro. Europe's forests from the medieval age are all gone. 50 acres of rain forest are demolished each minute.
The situation is much more stable in developed countries. Canada replants trees everywhere it cuts them down, and this has resulted in a net decrease in forest area of .02 percent in 2003.</p>
<p>we depend much on trees. Trees prevent erosion, which has run uncontrolled in many south american countries. Trees provide us with countless natural chemicals used in rubber, vaccines, medicine, and so many other products that we use everyday. Trees also provide us with shelter (houses).
yet, it is a natural resource that is fast disappearing in many parts of the globe.</p>
<p>Surely, you would agree that this is a serious problem that can be remedied through human action?</p>
<p>
[quote]
if your documentary was meant to discredit the IPCC, i find that a bit too conspiratorial for me. The IPCC is supported by 98.5% of scientists
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NOTHING... NOTHINGGG is supported by 98.5% of scientists... not the Big Bang, not Global Warming, not even evolution!</p>
<p>What kind of scientists? Not that consensus means anything in science, but I am curious. Evolution wouldn't be more true or false if 100% of astronomers supported it.</p>