Immense ice shelf breaks off in Canadian Arctic

[hb06]

Starting to sound like the movie "The Day after Tomorrow".

"What is important and interesting is that it is sudden, quite large even. In the past, we looked to climate change (and) thought perhaps ice shelves ... would just melt apart by losing a little piece day by day, but it now seems that when you reach some kind of threshold, when you reach that level, the whole thing just breaks apart."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061229...p/canadaarctic

[Devil's Advocate]

1) this happened a year and a half ago
2) the ice shelf was only 3,000 years, how old is this planet? about 4,000,000,000. Ice shelves come and they go, pretty arrogant to think YOU did don't you think.
3) The question isn't "is global warming real?" the questions is "are we causing it?" and seeing as the Earth has been MUCH warmer in the past (when no humans were around) I would say not likely. (possibly alterering a cycle of warming yes, but not CAUSING IT!)

[mayathystle]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Dec 29 2006, 06:46 PM) [snapback]368457[/snapback]</div>

1) this happened a year and a half ago
2) the ice shelf was only 3,000 years, how old is this planet? about 4,000,000,000. Ice shelves come and they go, pretty arrogant to think YOU did don't you think.
3) The question isn't "is global warming real?" the questions is "are we causing it?" and seeing as the Earth has been MUCH warmer in the past (when no humans were around) I would say not likely. (possibly alterering a cycle of warming yes, but not CAUSING IT!)
[/b]

you might want to check out an inconvenient truth or go to their website: climatecrisis.net

[TonyPSchaefer]

Hey D.A. I see you're back. It's been a few months.

Anyway. I can not prove empirically that mankind is having any effect on the environment. I am not a scientist of any sort. However, I know that there are eight planets even though I'm not a licensed astronomer. Likewise, I know that there are tectonic plates though I'm not a geologist.

But what all these things have in common is that there are peer reviewed - PEER REVIEWED - (PEER REVIEWED) research papers indicating that the actions of mankind have caused changes in the very recent history.

Some of these research documents support your fact that the Earth has seen temperatures higher than mankind has seen as well as periods in the Earth's history that were colder. The difference in this case is the time period of the transition. For example, on an annual basis, the average temperatures in Chicagoland range from 100F to below freezing. That transition takes about 5 - 6 months and we accept it as normal. If that transition were to ever occur in a day, we would all freak out.

That's all I got. It's not factually based because, like I said, I'm not a scientists. But I will openly and honestly consider that mankind MAY NOT BE AFFECTING the Earth's environment when you provide more than two peer-reviewed scientific documents. Of course, the authors and reviewers must meet the same educational and institutional credentials as their "global warming" counterparts. That is to say, "no shills."

[chogan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mayathystle @ Dec 29 2006, 10:30 PM) [snapback]368469[/snapback]</div>

you might want to check out an inconvenient truth or go to their website: climatecrisis.net
[/b]

On a much earlier thread, somebody posted an excellent on-point website. I was too dumb to bookmark it at the time but just found it again via Google, so let me post it here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

This is a systematic list of all the arguments that skeptics bring bring up against the notion of human-caused global warming, with (what I judge to be) even-handed discussion of why these arguments are wrong.

The really funny thing about this is that, because global warming skeptics keep bringing up the the same incorrect information, you can just reference the specific item on this page that addresses the incorrect information for any particular post. Since finding this website, I have yet to see an anti-global-warming post whose points had not already been considered and dismissed by this analysis.

So, it's a real time-saver. In this case, see items 3a and 3b on the abovementioned website for a reasonably comprehensive dismissal of the "earth has been warmer" and "it's not humans" arguments.

From the tone of the second post, I have to assume the poster isn't actually going to bother to read any contrary opinions, so I'd like to offer my all-time favorite quote from an economist: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" J.M. Keynes.

[F8L]

Its funny when you can predict the resonses of skeptics before they even open their mouth or post. Sadly they do not want to do the research and are very quick to form an opion based off their worldview before taking in data. Same goes for non-researching environmentalists. They suffer from the same problem.

[tripp]

Certainly the Earth has been warmer. There is a lot of concensus on that point. However, can a significantly warmer earth support 9-10 billion human beings? That's a question that we don't really have an answer for. As chogan's link points out, it's not a warmer stable climate that's the problem. It's an unstable transition that is worrisome.

[DaveinOlyWA]

i guess pointing out the severe weather in the gulf last year, the western US and Australia this year and blaming it on GW is an exercise in futility to a non believer.

sure weather runs in cycles and extremes like Australias (they are in the hottest summer ever with ground temps averaging more than 10ºC or about 20ºF higher than normal in many parts of the country) happens. after all, that is how records are set and thousands are set every year....

now just because tens of thousands of weather extreme records have been set across the western US this winter have happened, the only real thing we can do is watch and wait and see if the weather extremes continue despite a now unanimous opinion by the scientific community that we are accelerating GW onset.

or maybe sitting and watching is simply too much like being a deer caught in the headlights.

as for me, i'd rather not be a deer

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Dec 31 2006, 10:20 AM) [snapback]368950[/snapback]</div>

i guess pointing out the severe weather in the gulf last year, the western US and Australia this year and blaming it on GW is an exercise in futility to a non believer.

sure weather runs in cycles and extremes like Australias (they are in the hottest summer ever with ground temps averaging more than 10ºC or about 20ºF higher than normal in many parts of the country) happens. after all, that is how records are set and thousands are set every year....

now just because tens of thousands of weather extreme records have been set across the western US this winter have happened, the only real thing we can do is watch and wait and see if the weather extremes continue despite a now unanimous opinion by the scientific community that we are accelerating GW onset.

or maybe sitting and watching is simply too much like being a deer caught in the headlights.

as for me, i'd rather not be a deer
[/b]

The miserable drought in Oz is probably a blessing in disguise. It has certainly raised awareness of the issue at hand. They'll probably go nuclear. They have tremendous "reserves" of sunlight too. CSP would work very well for them. Sequestering coal fired CO2 would help too, if it's actually feasible. It seems like it could be but does anyone know of a coal plant that is actually doing this now? FutureGen isn't due to be online for another 5 years.

[hobbit]

It would be sort of nice if the people running climatecrisis.net
actually had any interest in making the web site work right. It is
run by Paramount, and the person I reached over there to try talking
to about it was like "can we wrap this up? I've got other stuff to
do." i.e. not caring in the slightest that the SITE IS BROKEN.
.
[Before you tell me I'm wrong, turn off that dangerous nonsense in
your browser and try it again]
.
_H*