Disapperance of Artic sea ice

[Brandon Sullivan]

There are a few things that still confuse me.... Temperature rises in the arctic are happening, I agree.. But the temperatures still come no wheres near the freezing mark... So why is the ice dissapearing??? Also, people talk about the lack of snow on the polar ice caps.. Again, we go to the same issues.. Temps are rising, but no where near freezing.. Also, with the atmosphere warming, wouldn't this simply allow the atmospheric moisture holding capabilities greater.. Thus enhancing the snow totals?

I can see temps are warming.. But I am trying to stick to the whole regular process of mother nature theory

 

[Chris Hayes]

Agree...

Unfortunately, no matter what happens from here on out the environmentalists are going to blame global warming. If we suddenly shift to an ice age then they will blame global warming. It is like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. It can't be done. Global warming is going to end up the same way. Everything from here on out will be because of mankind and global warming.

We will all be SICK of hearing about this subject (if you aren't already).

I got sick of hearing about "climate change" and "global warming" long ago. Ya know, there was a recent poll in Great Britain. More than 50% of the British people believe politicians use "global warming" as an excuse to raise taxes. so true.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

I'll bite.

#1. It is possible the melting polar ice has little or nothing to do with any trend in temperature.

I'd like to think we can ALL agree that if ice dissapears, the average albedo of the northern latitudes will decrease and will thus warming will occur (simple radiative transfer theory... less SW radiation reflected).

The mediveal times experienced a big warm period and they thought that would never change.

I'd also like to think we have more knowledge of the Earth's climate system than people of this period.

Get ALL of the politicians out of science and then I'll believe what is said about it because the scientists wont be under influence from politicians or special interests.

Al Gore secretly reduces my taxes when I post pro-global warming material on stormtrack. SHHHHHHH.

If we suddenly shift to an ice age then they will blame global warming.

Which is perhaps why the argument is really for human induced climate change. I'm sure many of us are familar with the theory of nuclear winter...

How can a glacier on land move?

Gravity for one. Imagine a piece of ice on a tilted surface.

I got sick of hearing about "climate change" and "global warming" long ago. Ya know, there was a recent poll in Great Britain. More than 50% of the British people believe politicians use "global warming" as an excuse to raise taxes. so true.

The sad part is many of these same people become anti green-tech. Regardless of whether AGW is true or not, fossil fuels and their consumption decrease public health and are becoming limited. Our country will be in for a world of hurt if we can't figure out renewable energy sources soon.

 

[Chris Hayes]

[The sad part is many of these same people become anti green-tech. Regardless of whether AGW is true or not, fossil fuels and their consumption decrease public health and are becoming limited. Our country will be in for a world of hurt if we can't figure out renewable energy sources soon

I'm all for getting this country off fossil fuels, and more "green" energy, but I'm not on board the "global warming" bandwagon.

 

[David Douglas]

Don't forget. 82% of all statistics made up on the spot.

 

[Marcus Opitz]

Regardless of the argument of wether or not we are altering the temperature of the earth, the fact of the matter is that we are altering the earth in many negative ways other than this (political) scientific argument I do not have a phd or such, but I can tell you this:

There are many beaches that are to unsanitary to swim in, many forests are almost gone, and air quality is many metros across the globe (even here in Louisville) are more often than not unhealthy. I am not sure of the amount of control and influence we can have on the grand scheme of things. I personally don't have an opinion either way. I would need more research to make a more educated guess.

It is interesting to see how it seems that there are many conservative people are on here talking about taxes in this argument and what not. I guess that may be due to the fact that many of us live in the midwest.

 

[B Ozanne]

There are many beaches that are to unsanitary to swim in, many forests are almost gone, and air quality is many metros across the globe (even here in Louisville) are more often than not unhealthy. I am not sure of the amount of control and influence we can have on the grand scheme of things. I personally don't have an opinion either way. I would need more research to make a more educated guess.

I disagree with much of that. Of course cities have bad air quality, but would you rather be in London now or in 1880? While rapidly developing cities in Asia have horrible air quality the rest of the developed world is improving air quality. How about 1920's Pittsburg or 1790's New York City?

In the United States forests are on the increase. In the 1800's VT pretty much wiped out all their forests. Except for some agriculture in the Champlain Valley the state is completely re-forested.

I'd have to say that clean beaches far outweight the closed beaches you see on the tv news.

 

[Doug Mitchell]

Remember everybody:

1) CO2 emissions from SUVs driven by Republicans are the sole cause of global climate change.
2) There are no benefits to global climate change. There will be less cuddly-wuddly animals like polar bears and more bad, harmful animals like domestic cats.
3) Society cannot adapt to changes in the climate because climate has been static since the dawn of civilization
4) All anecdotal evidence of unusual weather is representative of a shift in climate.
5) People who do not believe tenets 1-4 are not scientists but rather, corporate shills for Big Oil because Al Gore said so.

 

[Marcus Opitz]

I disagree with much of that. Of course cities have bad air quality, but would you rather be in London now or in 1880? While rapidly developing cities in Asia have horrible air quality the rest of the developed world is improving air quality. How about 1920's Pittsburg or 1790's New York City?

In the United States forests are on the increase. In the 1800's VT pretty much wiped out all their forests. Except for some agriculture in the Champlain Valley the state is completely re-forested.

I'd have to say that clean beaches far outweight the closed beaches you see on the tv news.

Things could be much better with the technology and lessons learned from the past....I do not prefer to "settle" when it comes to making improvements in the environment.

Who do you think mandated the changes to improve air quality, ect? China is more concerned with growth and increasing global power than the health of its land and people. Our country was not much different around the time of the industrial revolution.

 

[Marcus Opitz]

Remember everybody:

1) CO2 emissions from SUVs driven by Republicans are the sole cause of global climate change.
2) There are no benefits to global climate change. There will be less cuddly-wuddly animals like polar bears and more bad, harmful animals like domestic cats.
3) Society cannot adapt to changes in the climate because climate has been static since the dawn of civilization
4) All anecdotal evidence of unusual weather is representative of a shift in climate.
5) People who do not believe tenets 1-4 are not scientists but rather, corporate shills for Big Oil because Al Gore said so.

Another rediculous point of view, and from what I have read, sadly by many of the people on this board.

 

[Doug Mitchell]

Another rediculous point of view, and from what I have read, sadly by many of the people on this board.

Funny you should say that given your assessment of beaches, air quality and forests a couple posts up. The quality of all three of those categories has seen huge improvements since the 1970s.

But tell me, do you think we should make policy decisions based on qualitative observations of the environment?

 

[Marcus Opitz]

We should make educated decisions based on scientific observations that do not always benefit the financial outcomes of a few major corporations. There will always be trade offs and I realize that, however I feel that the trade offs were in most cases only catering to economic developement for a chosen few.

 

[Marcus Opitz]

Are you "satisfied" with the way things are? I am not. There is always room from improvement, thats all.

 

[Doug Mitchell]

Are you "satisfied" with the way things are? I am not. There is always room from improvement, thats all.

Yes, why wouldn't I be? The environment overall is fairly healthy. Yes, there's always room for improvement but at what level will you be satisfied? I'm quite content with the fact that improving technology will provide win-win economic situations that will eliminate the need for environmental legislation.

 

[Michael Thompson]

Did anyone see the Wall Street Journal article last week saying that most science is wrong?

Now that is funny. I would rather back Science than the predictions I have heard from economists over the years !