posted
Back to Story - Help North Pole Could be Ice-Free This Summer Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor LiveScience.com Thu Jun 26, 10:55 PM ET
Arctic sea ice could break apart completely at the North Pole this year, allowing ships to sail over the normally frozen top of the world.
The potential landmark thaw - the first time in human history the pole would be ice-free - is a stark sign of global warming, according to an article Friday on the web site of the The Independent, a London newspaper.
"Symbolically it is hugely important," said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. "There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water."
Last year, the fabled Northwest Passage opened as Arctic ice retreated more than ever before.
There is no land at the North Pole, but as long as anyone has looked, it has remained a giant block of ice year-round. Scientists have been watching Arctic sea ice melt more and more each year. But each summer in recent years, the amount of ice has gotten thinner and thinner. Each winter's freeze, therefore, results in a thinner pack that, this summer, could melt altogether.
"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice," Serreze is quoted by The Independent. "I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out."
Russia and other countries, meanwhile, have been arguing over who has rights to the region's resources, including potential oil reserves.
Several studies in recent years have predicted that the North Pole could be ice-free within a few decades. Alarm has ratcheted up every summer as the ice gets thinner and thinner. In a study released June 10, scientist said the rapid meltoff in the Arctic could threaten permafrost in continental soil elsewhere above the Arctic circle in a warm version of the snowball effect.
Last summer saw a record melt of Arctic sea ice, which shrank to more than 30 percent below its average. Around the peak of the melt, in September, air temperatures over land in the western Arctic from August to October were more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the 1978-2006 average.
"The rapid loss of sea ice can trigger widespread changes that would be felt across the region," said Andrew Slater, also of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Video: Melting Sea Ice Seen From Orbit Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming North vs. South Poles: 10 Wild Differences Original Story: North Pole Could be Ice-Free This Summer
Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Science, Animal and Dinosaur Pictures, Science Videos, Hot Topics, Trivia, Top 10s, Voting, Amazing Images, Reader Favorites, and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!
posted
Both Ends of Earth Are Melting Melting Ice Caps Could Spell Disaster for Coastal Cities By BILL BLAKEMORE March 2, 2006 —
For the first time, scientists have confirmed Earth is melting at both ends, which could have disastrous effects for coastal cities and villages.
Antarctica has been called "a slumbering giant" by a climate scientist who predicts that if all the ice melted, sea levels would rise by 200 feet. Other scientists believe that such a thing won't happen, but new studies show that the slumbering giant has started to stir.
Melting at Both Ends Recent studies have confirmed that the North Pole and the South Pole have started melting.
Experts have long predicted that global warming would start to melt Greenland's two-mile-thick ice sheet, but they also thought the more massive ice sheet covering Antarctica would increase in the 21st century.
It seems they were wrong.
Two new studies find that despite the increasing snowfall that comes with global warming as a result of the increased moisture in the air, Antarctica's ice sheets are losing far more than the snow is adding.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century, with accelerated warming during the last two decades. Most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities through the buildup of greenhouse gases -- primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Although the heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed, uncertainties exist about exactly how Earth's climate responds to them.
"The warming ocean comes underneath the ice shelves and melts them from the bottom, and warmer air from the top melts them from the top," said NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally. "So they're thinning and eventually they get to a point where they go poof!"
Zwally explains that the ice shelves, which the Antarctic ice cap pushes out into the ocean, are responding more than they expected to Earth's warming air and water. If the melting speeds up to a rapid runaway process called a "collapse," coastal cities and villages could be in danger.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Earth Science Research, said that disaster could probably be avoided, but that it would require dramatically cutting emission outputs. If the proper actions aren't taken, Hansen said, Hansen said, then the sea level could start rising much more quickly, ultimately reaching 80 feet, and be well underway toward that by the time today's children are in middle age.
"We now must choose between a serious problem that we can probably handle and, if we don't act soon, unmitigated disaster down the road," Hansen said.
Scientists looking at ice cores can now read Earth's temperatures from past millennia and match them to sea levels from those eras.
"Based on the history of the Earth, if we can keep the warming less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, I think we can avoid disastrous ice sheet collapse," Hansen said.
Hansen and other scientists point out that a rise of at least 1 degree Fahrenheit -- and another few feet of sea level -- seem virtually certain to happen because of the carbon that mankind has already put in the atmosphere.
quote:Experts have long predicted that global warming would start to melt Greenland's two-mile-thick ice sheet, but they also thought the more massive ice sheet covering Antarctica would increase in the 21st century.
It seems they were wrong.
Finally, some truth. The scientists don't know what they're talking about. I agree!
quote:Antarctica has been called "a slumbering giant" by a climate scientist who predicts that if all the ice melted, sea levels would rise by 200 feet.
Let's hope so! I'm counting on that Ohio River property becoming Ocean Front Property!!!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The potential landmark thaw - the first time in human history the pole would be ice-free - is a stark sign of global warming, according to an article Friday on the web site of the The Independent, a London newspaper.
... the first time in human history, which is what, less than 1% of the Earth's entire age?
I wonder what the economic ramifications of a north pole permanently free of ice would be. Think about how much you money and time you could save by taking the new "northwest passage" if you were shipping something. Places like Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Iceland would thrive.
Russia would finally have a major port that was ice free year round and not subject to the whims of the US, NATO, and their allies which, IMO, kind of puts the seriousness back into that article a few months back that everyone in the US (including me) laughed off about Russia planting a flag on the bottom of the arctic ocean.
It seems to me that some have moved passed arguing about whether or not global warming is happening, or whether or not humans are to blame, and are taking steps that will give them an advantage when the reality of Global Warming finally sets in for the rest of us....
Just my opinion though, and what do I know?
NR.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sure Al Gore will come out with something to say about this. I just wish he would shut up....im not going to get science from a politician...sorry. Also, what kind of revenue is in Al Gores mind with carbon tax? Al Gore is the kind of person who would want you to believe that the Earth is flat back in the 1400s.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I am sure Al Gore will come out with something to say about this. I just wish he would shut up....im not going to get science from a politician...sorry. Also, what kind of revenue is in Al Gores mind with carbon tax? Al Gore is the kind of person who would want you to believe that the Earth is flat back in the 1400s.
who do you want to tell you then CCM? Al didn't invent it.
how about if Bush tells you? He did. a bit late, but it's in there if you go back and read.
do you want to hear that when the ice melts, the ocean absorbs even more solar energy and the global warming accelerates?
or that the polar ice cap is melting years/decades earlier than than the predictions?
California is burning. The midwest is flooded.
China just had one of the most brutal winters ever, not because of cold, but because of moisture in the air.
During the last ice age? NYC might have been under 500 feet of ice. But Egypt wasn't desert either. Egypt was green as was much of Northern Africa.
Do not allow political hate for individuals cloud your judgment. Climate change will happen much faster than we can react.
people are angry now? just wait.
in 1980? our RELATIVE gasoline prices were not much different than they are now. and mortgages cost in the TEENS for percentage.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by a surfer: "... the first time in human history, which is what, less than 1% of the Earth's entire age?"
.0001%
And to think that just 10,000 years ago New York city was under 500 ft. of ice.
It comes and it goes....just happens to be going right now.
So shouldn't we just accept that the climate of Earth changes, and not only take steps to stop contributing to global warming, but take steps to ensure that we will be ready for the inevitable warming, and then subsequent freezing?
Humans should take heed. History has shown that those who do not adapt, perish.
Long term? Problem is IMO, the human lifespan. It is too hard and too difficult to get millions of beings with a 70 year lifespan to comprehend what 10,000 years really is, let alone get them to plan that far into the future.
Short term? Stopping the human contribution to global warming and ensuring that we remain the dominant species on this Earth will require a sacrifice who's bounty will not benefit those that make the sacrifice. Tough sell if you ask me... Most will either refuse, or refuse to care.
But then again, it only takes a few exceptional men, or women for that matter, to light the way for the masses, so perhaps there is still hope.
JMO, NR.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Humans should take heed. History has shown that those who do not adapt, perish.
"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it". It seems to be a saying that humans tend to forget ironically enough.
I still do not get why people are so against the idea of Global Warming. When back in the 80's we were told the Ozone layer was thinning , no one was so adamantly against the idea that it is a possibility. But nowadays because this country is so divided along political party lines they make it out to be a Dem or Rep issue and not a Human issue. I think that is what the problem is with Global Warming. People will not accept it because they make it a political issue.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still do not get why people are so against the idea of Global Warming.
In the 1400s, scientists were absolutely certain that the earth was flat. Those that didn't agree were scorned. Of course, the scientists were wrong.
In the 1970s, we were told that we were on the verge of the next ice age. Wrong again on the part of the scientists.
In the past few years, we were told that global warming was ready to cause a catastrophe. Now we find out that the planet hasn't been warming for more than 10 years and isn't expected to warm for the next 15! Let's face it - these scientists are idiots and don't have the slightest understanding of how the climate works.
Will the climate change? Yes - it always does. Will the temperature go up or down? No-one knows and certainly not Al (I invented the internet) Gore and the wacko left!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun.
Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.
"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."
the volcano erupted almost ten years ago:
'Our endeavours now concentrate on reconstructing and understanding the explosive volcanic episodes from 1999 and 2001 by means of the accompanying earthquakes. We want to know, which geological features led to a gas pressure so high that it even enabled an explosive eruption in these water depths.'
The pervasive and ongoing movement of methane gas—from seeps, decomposing hydrates, gas washing, and microbial sources—leads to some fascinating phenomena and important questions.
Methane is a greenhouse gas that traps heat about 20 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. If methane deposits and seeps prove to be ubiquitous in the oceans, they are a potentially significant contributor to global warming.
Relatively modest changes in global ocean temperatures or sea level could trigger a massive release of oceanic methane. If a change in ocean bottom pressure or a rise in water temperatures passes a certain threshold, sizable methane hydrate deposits could decompose rapidly and release a large quantity of heat-trapping gas back into the atmosphere. This scenario has been proposed as a possible cause for some past episodes of rapid global warming.
Evidence from the past suggests that upward-seeping methane may pose another threat: underwater avalanches. Landslides at the edge of the continental slope just off the East Coast of the United States may have been triggered by pockets of methane gas that had built up pressure under a lid of overlying sediments and exploded. Similar landslides today might generate tsunamis that would hit the U.S. coast. An offshore oil-drilling platform that accidentally hit such a gas pocket would also be endangered.
Huge amounts of methane gas released NATURALLY. Not bovine flatulence. Natural gas releases.
So, we have increased natural methane production and natural volcanic eruptions under the artic ice....hmmmm....
Yeah, it HAS to be man that's causing global warming.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huge amounts of methane gas released NATURALLY.
true dat. do a search for Storegga Slide methane... you'll find out why the last ice age might have ended.. or not, most real scientists are careful to use qualifiers...skip the wiki article, it's shallow...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
actaully, this methane hydrate is pretty scary.
some scientists calculate that there is 80 times more of that "flaming ice" laying all over the ocean floor than there is oil.
and it only needs to be heated up a couple of degrees (1.5-2 F)in most places to sublimate. That would mean it would come out of the water like when you open a soda....
so? it is very possible that we could be the trigger for that 1 or 2 degrees.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I see is that we are at the peak of this particular warm cycle. Odds are incredible that we trend reverse from here.
Another problem I have is all the morons claiming this day hotter than yesterday.. or this year warmer than the last three.. sure signs of man made global warming... Truly idiotic. Look at the 600,000 year chart and it is quite clear that this year or even decade is nothing but a blip and no trend can be defined by it. It's disinformation flatulated by governments hell bent on enslaving us all completely.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'd agree with you if it was "the govt" that was doing all of the research...
research funding even inside the govt is a peer reviewed process..
the politicians have alot of influence, but the BIGGEST single influence on government sponsored research, by far and away is industry, and the lobbyists see to that...
one of the things alot of the naysayers to global warming point to is deep ocean conveyor currents.. some of the papers suggested (meekly) that deep ocean currents might affect weather..
they do, nobody questions that, but how much they do is in question, and none of the papers ever did anything more than suggest the possibility.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see it that way exactly. I do not at all see corporations running government. I do see this as a huge opportunity for government to exert more and more control over us. I'm not a scientist.. I'm not a collegian... I'm not many things. But I can read a chart like few. We're looking at a reversal.. not a breakout. And the timescale of the chart says it could easily be ten thousand years or a thousand before the reversal is confirmed or even felt.
More than anything.. You are NOT telling me that monotone moron Al Gore is right about anything.. let alone the complexities of a multi-billion year gaseous environment.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
i might be wrong, it's late, but i beleive you and i were "discussing" this before he came out with his movie....
he didn't invent the idea. he's not a scientist.
i see the same chart you do, and i understand what you are saying.
the problem really is simple straightforward mathematics. we are taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. every day we add more and we increase the rate..
heck, i'm guilty too, i'm not pointing fingers, i'm saying we have to demand a new system.
we can't depend on oil from our own country, the math isn't there for that either.
nukes? i'm for.. we do need to dispose of the waste properly. solar, wind, and whatever new stuff we can find. the US has been an innovative country and i beleiv in our ability to do just that if we see the need.
IMO? what we have been is lazy and happy to coast on the status quo as far as oil goes...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone here believe that the Earth's climate is static?
The Earth warms up, the Earth cools down. Either way, we are screwed unless we learn to adapt.
Instead of asking what the Earth's climate is doing, or why it is doing it, we should be asking what we can do to protect ourselves from what the best science shows us to be the worst Mother Earth is capable of.
If we can figure that out, it will not matter what the Earth does and then we will have the luxury to figure out the big mystery of what makes the whole thing tick...
NR.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: al gore means nothing to me.
i might be wrong, it's late, but i beleive you and i were "discussing" this before he came out with his movie....
he didn't invent the idea. he's not a scientist.
i see the same chart you do, and i understand what you are saying.
the problem really is simple straightforward mathematics. we are taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. every day we add more and we increase the rate..
heck, i'm guilty too, i'm not pointing fingers, i'm saying we have to demand a new system.
we can't depend on oil from our own country, the math isn't there for that either.
nukes? i'm for.. we do need to dispose of the waste properly. solar, wind, and whatever new stuff we can find. the US has been an innovative country and i beleiv in our ability to do just that if we see the need.
IMO? what we have been is lazy and happy to coast on the status quo as far as oil goes...
"Discussing" is a flawlessly incorrect term for it.. LOL The thing about the CO2 is that it lags the temperature of the atmosphere. Always has... always will. Therefore.. can't be the cause. I don't doubt that there are "greenhouse" gasses. I don't doubt that in sufficient quantities those gasses could effect a change in temperature retention. I do doubt that this hundred thousand year peak is the result of a hundred years of oil burning.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...FWIW, I do see some progress being made here and there and people are begining to wake up to the reality of global warming, human induced or not.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...FWIW, I do see some progress being made here and there and people are begining to wake up to the reality of global warming, human induced or not.
Global warming is just a big joke. Remember the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in history - WRONG! It was 1934. Remember the claim that the 10 warmest years in history occurred since 1990 - WRONG! They did not. How about the claim that 2007 would be the second hottest year in history - turns out that it was the COLDEST year this century!!! WRONG AGAIN!
If these IDIOT SCIENTISTS can't even get the temperature right, how could they possibly understand climate change?
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
idiot scientists? you wouldn't even begin to be able to understand how they calculate it.
Instead of showing the impact of the flaw in our analysis program via a graph such as Figure 1, as a scientist would do (and as would immediately reveal how significant the flaw was), they instead discuss ranking of temperature in different years, including many false statements. We have thus been besieged by journalists saying “they say that correcting your error caused the warmest year to become 1934 rather than a recent year, is that right!?” Hardly. First of all, many journalists had the impression that they were talking about global temperature. As you can see from Figure 1a, global warming is unaffected by the flaw. This realization should be enough to make most journalists lose interest, as global warming refers to global temperature. But what if you are a chauvinist and only care about temperature in the United States? Did correcting the flaw in the program change the time of calculated maximum temperature to 1934? No. If you look at our 2001 paper, and get out your micrometer, you will see that we found 1934 to be the warmest year in the United States, by a hair, of the order of 0.01°C warmer than 1998, the same as the result that we find now. Of course the difference in the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is not significant, and we made clear in our paper that such years have to be declared as being practically a dead-heat.
Let’s look (Figure 2) at the temperature anomalies in the four years that yield the warmest U.S. in our analysis. The U.S. mean temperature anomalies that we obtain range from 1.25°C in 1934 to 1.13°C in 2006. Thus the total range among these four years is just over a tenth of a degree. The uncertainty in the U.S. temperature is at least that large (see our published papers), so we can only say that these four years were comparably warm and the warmest year was probably either 1934 or 1998.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
what's REALLY happening is that the scientific papers are scanned by journalists looking for headlines. they half-understand what they are reading, and make up a good headline. then they post a provocative headline designed to sell papers or grab attention on TV.
then, when the new headline sounds even better? they do it again. the scientists are not to blame for any of this. every well-written scientific paper presents arguments for other scientists and ANYBODY who bothers to read and understand them to argue and debate over. that IS the scientific method.
the JOURNALIST are the ones that put out the whacky statements.
the fact that we utilize 83 million barrels of oil per day resulting in aminmum of 45 billion pounds of CO2 per day is not in dispute. neither is th fact that CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gases. the cumulative effect of this process over a period of decades is not in dispute either. how to deal with it is the only real dispute.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...FWIW, I do see some progress being made here and there and people are begining to wake up to the reality of global warming, human induced or not.
Global warming is just a big joke. Remember the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in history - WRONG! It was 1934. Remember the claim that the 10 warmest years in history occurred since 1990 - WRONG! They did not. How about the claim that 2007 would be the second hottest year in history - turns out that it was the COLDEST year this century!!! WRONG AGAIN!
If these IDIOT SCIENTISTS can't even get the temperature right, how could they possibly understand climate change?
one last note here:
2007, the coolest year this century?
i looked for where you found that because NASA doesn't agree: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
2007 was at minimum according to different scintific researchers either the 8th or 9th warmest year on record depending on whose data you use... yes, even the scientists disagree about about 1/100ths of degrees
so i began looking for who is actually making these fraudulent (YES lies) claims:
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
You claim the scientists don't know crap, so for the sake of discussion, let's set all articles and science aside for a minute and hear what you have to say about the state of the Earth's climate.
What do you propose the Earth's climate is doing at this particular time? Do you think it is warming up, or do you think it is cooling down? Do you think it is static and doesn't change?
NR.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you propose the Earth's climate is doing at this particular time? Do you think it is warming up, or do you think it is cooling down? Do you think it is static and doesn't change?
I think that the earth is always changing and that the scientists don't have the slightest idea which way it will change next. The global warming nuts are using this made up "crisis" to promote their socialist agenda. It's as simple as that.
As evidence, I would point out that these idiot scientists were predicting that temperatures would keep rising. Then, they decided that (oops), temperatures hadn't been rising for the past 10 years and won't rise for the next 15. They don't know what they're talking about - it's as simple as that.
posted
As evidence, I would point out that these idiot scientists were predicting that temperatures would keep rising. Then, they decided that (oops), temperatures hadn't been rising for the past 10 years and won't rise for the next 15. They don't know what they're talking about - it's as simple as that.
you're just repeating what Rush told you to say.
idiots believing bigger idiots it's as simple as that
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you propose the Earth's climate is doing at this particular time? Do you think it is warming up, or do you think it is cooling down? Do you think it is static and doesn't change?
I think that the earth is always changing and that the scientists don't have the slightest idea which way it will change next. The global warming nuts are using this made up "crisis" to promote their socialist agenda. It's as simple as that.
As evidence, I would point out that these idiot scientists were predicting that temperatures would keep rising. Then, they decided that (oops), temperatures hadn't been rising for the past 10 years and won't rise for the next 15. They don't know what they're talking about - it's as simple as that.
Mike
Ok, so you are saying you believe the Earth's climate changes constantly. Do you have any preference as to which direction you think it is currently going?
I mean, unless you think the satellite pictures of the North Pole Ice are FAKED, isn't it pretty obvious that the Earth is warming up at the current time?
NR.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
