The North Pole Is Melting

You know Mark, I think it comes down to the fact that I don't fear the Earth changing. As it always has, even if that change is helped by man.

Why, because there is no evidence that the Earth would be unable to support the humans. Yes we may have to move and some people will be negatively affected. (yes a gross simplification of the likely events but, eh)
Just like those inhabitants of that village 8,000 years ago who one day woke up and said, "hey, who put this lake here??"

Hech, this may be a boon for Eurpoe as more exposed oceans may mean more rainfall!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ 2007 09 24 14:12) [snapback]517068[/snapback]</div>

Malorn! Long time no see. How the heck are ya, man?
What you say is true, but misses the point. It's the rate of change that's the problem. Geoclimatic zones could move, given time, but are simply being wiped out. Entire species are dying off at a rate not seen since the last mass extinction. Oh, right, we've had those before, too. Here, have a deck chair...



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ 2007 09 24 14:29) [snapback]517075[/snapback]</div>

"Unable to support"? How many of us? And how comfortably? There is ample evidence Earth cannot support the people who live here now, certainly not the way we're living. Even from a 'humans first' viewpoint, ignoring the fact that's it's not all about us, our quality of life is at risk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 24 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]517114[/snapback]</div>

So who dies and who decides?

 

I'm trying to see the harm in some of the worlds only freshwater starting to melt. Hell, all the talk of droughts makes a little ice melting sound kind of nice. Seeing how most of the worlds water is salt water, a little more fresh water ice cubes in my G and T might not be so bad.

I believe Russia dropped a submersible flag claiming the land rights under some part of the melting cap. Gotta hand it to em, pretty smart for the Russian bear....

What say our planet is DYNAMIC, meaning always in a state of change....

To paraphrase some scribe in Newsweek, "was it better when a massive sheet of ice covered all of Chicago?"...or some part of North America..blah yada blah yada shmear

...will solar panels produce more juice if they are designed to capture heat and UV light too?...wow, think of the savings.

I have stood on the mars like surface of the California desert that is called, the Trona Salt Pinnacles. To realize that it was once a sea that was left over from melting glaciers is truly an awe inspiring location to ponder the state of change on this planet. Death Valley has nothing on this place for what once was an ocean, that is now a desert hell with rising calcium tubes and desert life....

go figure

oh sorry, thought this was the stream of consciusness thread...my bad

 

Please read the Newest National Geogracphic.... Very compelling evidence. We must act NOW.. CO2 is rising and we are rapidly approaching a point of NO Return.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Sep 24 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]517068[/snapback]</div>

I've been trying to find information on oceanic heat induced storms and the amount of energy (heat) that is lost in storm activity. I am thinking that there is a natural replenishment time for heat to build back up to previous levels before truely heavy storms will develop again. Kinda like a geyser that needs to be recharged after spraying it's contents and emptying its chambers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 24 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]517075[/snapback]</div>

You fail to recognize the fragility of our manmande infrastructure that allows us to live the lives we do. The ecosystem service disruption would be enough to critically endanger our current ways of life alone yet our economy relies 100% on these natural systems and resources so to assume that there would be very little effect or that it might even be beneficial is a bit like rolling a 20sided die with 19 sides covered with 1s.

Moreover, I find it interesting that those with the least amount of education in biology, chemistry, atmoshperic sciences, biochemistry, and geology are some of the most vocal when it comes to spreading their opinions about how everything will be just fine. It is kind of like asking a plumber to diagnose the pain under my left arm.

Positive feedback loops can leave the planet a very nasty place to live for quite awhile, especially for over-specialized species like ourselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 24 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]517075[/snapback]</div>

The earth doesn't need to only support humans for the planet to remain habitable for humans. We need, and rely greatly upon, other species for our very existence. Lots and lots of them.

 

I think I've found the solution....

AGW Solution

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Sep 25 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]517428[/snapback]</div>

You jest, maybe,
but I've heard people make the argument that about 4 billion people need to die for the earth to be in equalibrium, and advocated policies to bring that about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 25 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]517472[/snapback]</div>

Or.... reduce their massive consumption levels. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 25 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]517472[/snapback]</div>

Maybe we won't have to advocate or engage in policies that correct human population over growth. Nature and our diminishing resources may correct this without any such intervention. It just may not be in time to preserve the many other species that face extinction as a result of our inaction.

 

We can colonize greenland. All the africans who are displaced can be moved there. Africa is going to be even more unlivable. We can make it the new liberia, and name the capital georgebushia. I hear there's no malaria in greenland. That might be a rumor though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 22 2007, 12:38 PM) [snapback]516213[/snapback]</div>

Where was it 1,000 years ago???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(07touringprius @ Sep 25 2007, 05:17 PM) [snapback]517644[/snapback]</div>

Well, I can tell you that in 1845 it was considerably larger than now. The Franklin Expedition was doomed as a result of the ice floes that trapped it in Norther Canada.

We face two issues, DA. As F8L said, we consume way too much and as more people gain affluence the problem gets worse. Second, there are too damn many of us. SSimon pointed out what's the likely outcome of our cavalier, uh, well... Population growth needs to be negative. However, the places that have the highest population growth rates are the places most vulnerable to food and water shortages. As a result, they'll suffer the most from any corrections that might happen.

The good news is that both of these issues are on us and we can change. The bad news is that humans don't like change. Personally, I don't think it's going to end too well, but then, I'm a bit on the pessimist side. Time will tell, but Americans need to step up to the plate and correct our ways. We can't continue on the path we're on, not if we care about our own future.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Sep 24 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]517068[/snapback]</div>

Actually, "AGW" is contributing to unsteady, unpredictable weather patterns.
Unpredictable, which is why forecasters are missing the mark so much more.
As the wind patterns change, as the atmospheric moisture levels change, and as vegetation levels change (yes, they have an effect on weather, too), the number, intensity, and paths of storms will change. Some areas will get more. Some will get less.

The patterns will get more and more disrupted. There will be more storms... less rain... more wind... no rain... it will all be confused, which is why some people, living in areas that are experiencing 'unseasonably mild weather' aren't getting the message that it is SCREWED UP!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(07touringprius @ Sep 25 2007, 04:17 PM) [snapback]517644[/snapback]</div>

1,000yrs ago we had very little in the way of modern technology nor did we realy on it so heavily. There was a much higher number of farmers and other food generators. IE people could have their homes flooded and their village/town wrecked and have a decent chance at getting by. Today if the Escalade driving power mom can't get her latte because our energy grid is whiped out due to storm activity or sabatoge than the world comes to an end. lol

Seriously, you cannot compare the infrastructure of 1,000 yreas ago the the infrastructure of today or our increasing reliance on technology. I urge people to study the effects of rapid urbanization in developing countries. The effects on available clean water and healthy resources are stagering and a very real concern for the U.N. and nearly every major city in the southern hemisphere.This will give you a feel for some of the effects we can expect in near future. Remember, your money will only help you so much when plagues of immigrants come to the U.S. because their country cannot support them anymore. At some point in 2008 we will reach a benchmark in human history. This will be the first time in the history of man that over 50% of the population lives in an urban environment. This means we are losing more and more farmers and food producers. It is left up to corporate farms to produce the majority of our food and what happens when the economy or energy sectors collapse? The lack of diversity could cripple us. Mark my words, overspecializaiton will be our undoing.

 

It is curious to me that the "record low" ice extent in the arctic - which is only a "record" in the past 30 years - is such big news but the record high ice extent in the antarctic is not news. I guess that wouldn't sell as many newspapers and magazines.



You really don't hear anything about the antarctic except for the "collapse of the Larsen ice shelf" which is often used to imply that the entire antarctic is melting away. Clearly, there is a long term upward trend in antarctic ice extent as seen here (but as never mentioned in the popular press):

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 26 2007, 01:33 AM) [snapback]517791[/snapback]</div>

I really dislike the media.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 26 2007, 08:57 AM) [snapback]517844[/snapback]</div>

Today's media is good at reprinting press releases and creating hysteria.