scientists find
By David Shukman
Science Editor, BBC News
Scientists in the Arctic are warning that this summer's record-breaking melt is part of an accelerating trend with profound implications.'Unprecedented' The Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) is at the forefront of Arctic research and its international director, Kim Holmen, told the BBC that the speed of the melting was faster than expected.
"It is a greater change than we could even imagine 20 years ago, even 10 years ago," Dr Holmen said.
"And it has taken us by surprise and we must adjust our understanding of the system and we must adjust our science and we must adjust our feelings for the nature around us."
During a visit to the port, one of the scientists involved, Dr Edmond Hansen, told me he was "amazed" at the size and speed of this year's melt.
"As a scientist, I know that this is unprecedented in at least as much as 1,500 years. It is truly amazing - it is a huge dramatic change in the system," Dr Hansen said.
"This is not some short-lived phenomenon - this is an ongoing trend. You lose more and more ice and it is accelerating - you can just look at the graphs, the observations, and you can see what's happening."
Read entire article at BBC News
Here's my take on the issue...but as always, I reserve the right to be wrong! The easiest quick-fix that would solve many short-term problems is switching from gasoline and diesel to natural gas. Some of the benefits include: I am not asking anyone to agree with me. Although, I do recommend you investigate this and other related phenomena for yourself. No one cares what you or I, either one, think or believe unless we can show evidence or research that may validate our position.
Average American stance: Jimmy Crackcorn and I don't care as long as my Bud Lite stays ice cold and you don't interfere with my weekends.
Even though I don't consider myself a tree hugger, there look to be several possible results in the earth's ecological equation that may include the following:
I believe 3 of the main reasons it's not a top priority here in America are:
Ignorance is not a productive basis to formulate one's system of beliefs...but you can always resort to name calling if it makes you feel better.
DC
4 comments:
The whole problem with the global warming discussion is that the debate has been raging for years and now you (Denney) post an article fm BBC and we're supposed to believe it. Never mind that over the past forty years, the public has witnessed a veritable parade of lies from the largest and most powerful governments in the world. Facts are made up and scientists are paid off to lean one direction or the other. Why should I believe a media that seems to be intent on helping to further quash individual freedom?
BTW, like Denney, I like to think I'm paying attention and often watch documentaries touting the destruction of the Earth due to the filthy requirements of human life. Then I'll see another documentary or read an article with the opposite point of view. And now Denney seems to be saying the jury has ruled on the matter and, sure enough, we'll all be wearing high water pants in the near future and fighting over dry land.
I am not asking anyone to agree with me. Although, I do recommend you investigate this and other related phenomena for yourself. No one cares what you or I think or believe unless we can show evidence or research that may validate our position. And I have yet to see anything that has not been challenged.
Denney says, "Ignorance is not a productive basis to formulate one's system of beliefs..." -- and yet who are the experts on the subject of global warning? Are they in agreement? Sorry, pal, but there's still too many conflicting accounts out there. Additionally, the carbon credits taxation scheme is directly related to these chicken little rants.
"...but you can always resort to name calling if it makes you feel better."
I'm not going to call you names, Denney, but I will remind you there are still plenty of leading scientists who believe the global warning panic is nothing but hogwash. Just because it's in print does not make it so.
And no, I'm not supplying references because all are big boys here and can do their own research -- there's a mountain of articles for both sides of the argument.
A contrary view:
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
"...A key change, to which one could point, is the warming of the Earth's oceans, around the globe. This has been measured as a 6 inch rise, worldwide, on all the beaches. The waters have risen because they are warmer, and warm water takes up more room than cold water, as all elementary physics books will report. How is it that the oceans, so very deep and so very cold, have warmed up? Is it the almost imperceptible rise in the temperature of the air, a degree or so, as reported to date? Since heat rises, why would this slight rise affect the oceans? Meteorologists will tell you that the effect of air warming is air turbulence, not warmer oceans. The Oceans are Warmer because the core of the Earth has heated up, and it does so in response to its brother coming closer. This will continue, and increase, until sometime after the cataclysms are past.
Yet another sign is a slowing in the rate of rotation, a forerunner of the actual stop in rotation that occurs at the moment of passage. As with weather and warming trends, this is at first so gradual and slight as to be arguable. Humans in denial do not argue with the current data drawn, they argue with the comparison to past data. The past data was invalid in some way, was recorded with imprecise instruments, or perhaps was not measured at all. Precise weather data has only been gathered for the past few decades, a hundred years at most, and prior to that was only recorded at times of extreme weather like hurricanes and this in the form of tales. There was no mechanism to measure, for instance, the wind velocity of a hurricane, so the estimated height of a tidal wave or size of buildings flattened was recorded. Likewise with major earthquakes, which in the past have flattened cities. Without the ability to capture Richter scale, earthquakes in the past were either termed a trembler, small, or big.
The best way to counter arguments is not to point to the past but to start recording the present. All the trends and signs will only acerbate, with the oceans warmer still, the weather more erratic and unpredictable still, and the Earth gradually slowing in her rotation more and more measurably. If one gathers these statistics now, and gathers them yearly, the trends will become a clear pattern. Thus, the arguments will be with people now living, and with statistics gathered by the same methods. As the trends and signs will increase more rapidly, exponentially, as the 12th Planet enters the Solar System, this comparison can be used as a signal to many who plan to move to safety that the time has arrived. Where weather and warmer oceans will be arguable up to the end, a Slowing Rotation is not arguable." Per the Zeta's
Sorry, I just don't buy into it. They've lied to me too many times already. Besides, if the world's getting hotter (or colder), there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
The world will go on as it always has.
Global warming? Give me a break. Global paranoia sponsored by world governments in the hope of collecting a new global tax? Ah, we have a winner!
Post a Comment