Originally posted by Muaddib
Outland, sorry but the opinion of that scientist agrees at least partially with the latest model of abrupt climate change, he should have said abrupt
climate change in"less than a decade" instead of decades.
Really? Perhaps in some other piece, but the article behind the link I posted doesn't state anywhere that Balling agrees with any model in
particular.
Volcanic activity in the polar regions is not new. I remember a PBS episode of Nova on the topic many years ago. I have no doubts that undersea
volcanos have some responsibility for melting some polar ice and I never refuted that. 80% of the world's known volcanos are under the sea. An
interesting related (although dated) story is at this link:
Article
What I do refute is that any proof exists that human activity is in any way responsible for the melting of
some glaciers. I say "some"
because many others are growing. While the image you referred to at the NASA website does indeed show shrinking coverage of sea ice, it also shows (1)
coverage has shifted at the same time, and (2) no apparent change occured between 2002 and 2003. Interesting.
Whether Dr. Balling agrees with any particular climate model was irrelevant to the points made in the posted excerpts. Those points are that (1) there
is no consensus among the different climate models, (2) previous changes in climate did not necessarilly occur with changes in "greenhouse" gases,
(3) there is no consensus (only theory) as to the actual effect of high concentrations of "greenhouse gases" or what thresholds become a threat.
One matter that is in consensus is that Earth's climate has always been in a state of flux. Since I believe that any current changes are more due to
nature rather than human activity, there's nothing to do and little use in worrying about it.
When you have one group of
scientists with their data and models in conflict with another group of
scientists and their data and models,
their is no consensus. And on both sides of the issue, it's all just
theory with little as yet proven. Some agree with the IPCC, others
believe it's a sham. Arguably, there is more money to being doled out on the side for "global warming" than the side of the non-believers in the
way of U.S. government, UN and NGO (mostly socialist green groups) funds. All of the aforementioned have polictical motives mixed with greed.
At this point, the only thing that is solid fact is the past. And the past shows that worse things have happened to our climate way before any human
activity existed. Worse things have happened and sometimes, nothing had happend when "greenhouse gases" were way higher than present day.
While it can be argued that we are in a trend of unnatural warming, it can also be argued that we are coming out of a longer term of cooling.
Considering that long missing plant growth near modern polar regions is now returning in some areas, who is to say what is normal?
Change is
normal.
Back to the polar ice for a moment...
It never fails that during the Spring/Summer for the northern hemishpere, the "greens" start screaming that the Arctic ice is melting... never
mentioning that the Antarctic ice is growing. Then the reverse occurs during the Fall/Winter months.
Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades
Antarctic Ice Grows Thicker
Scientists: Ice Sheet Growing
Originally posted by scottsquared
It doesn't surprise me that you except NO responsibility for climate change, Americans are expert at sluffing-off responsibility of any
kind!
"Responsibility " based on
what? Theories? Climate models that don't agree with each other/ignore variances in solar emissions/leave much of
the unknown dynamics of atmospheric circulation out of the equation? I don't agree on acting solely upon unproven "what if" scenarios.
We don't need to play the "global warming blame game" on Americans especially when much of it is based on bias rather than science. I can't blame
the citizens of overtaxed nations for being envious of relatively cheap energy in the U.S.. Don't strike out at us if you're paying 2-3 times for
petrol than we are.
[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Outland]