It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The U.S. Geological Survey predicts two-thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear by 2050, based on moderate projections for the shrinking of summer sea ice caused by global warming. If climatic trends continue polar bears may become extirpated from most of their range within 100 years.
Due to long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bear will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic.
Polar bears exposed to oil spill conditions have been observed to lick the oil from their fur, leading to fatal kidney failure. On May 14, 2008 the U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing the melting of Arctic sea ice as the primary threat to the polar bear. en.wikipedia.org...
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.
Climate model projections indicate the global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 deg C (2.0 to 11.5 deg F) during the twenty-first century. The uncertainty in this estimate arises from use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions and from use of models with differing climate sensitivity. Most studies focus on the period up to 2100. Warming is expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This results from the large heat capacity of the oceans.
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface.
Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of particular greenhouse gases.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 deg C (59 deg F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable. On Earth the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime.
CO2 concentrations are expected to continue to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise depends on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.
When a warming trend results in effects that induce further warming, the process is referred to as a positive feedback; when the effects induce cooling, the process is referred to as a negative feedback.
The primary positive feedback involves water vapor.
The primary negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature. The hotter it gets, the more heat it radiates which tends to bring the body into equilibrium.
Another important feedback process is ice-albedo feedback. When global temperatures increase, ice near the poles melts at an increasing rate. As ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are on average less reflective than ice and thus absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and this positive feedback cycle continues.
Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.
Global temperatures have increased by 0.75 deg C (1.35 deg F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 deg C per decade against 0.13 deg C per decade).
Paleo-climatologists have argued that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation.
Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the clathrate gun hypothesis) have been hypothesized as both a cause for and an effect of other warming events in the distant past, including the Permian - Triassic extinction event (about 251 million years ago) and the Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago).
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate or methane ice, is a solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure (a clathrate hydrate). Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth
Although it is difficult to connect specific weather events to global warming, an increase in global temperatures may in turn cause broader changes, including glacial retreat, Arctic shrinkage, and worldwide sea level rise.
A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report made for the IPCC Third Assessment Report by Working Group II. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-04-13).
Glossary of climate change
Originally posted by donwhite
I like polar bears. There are about 20,000 polar bears. The Discovery channel shows the congregating of 100s of polar bears in Churchill, Canada every year. I'm told polar bears are about to go extinct. 5 of the 19 known populations are declining.
Most people would assume that Bush and Gore have no common agenda. Each have completely different primary agenda's, and each are highly critical of each other's agenda's, but there is one common thread: Fear.
As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote:
The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one— for there will be a next on—could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.
This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website. All four major global temperature tracking outlets -- Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS -- have data showing that global temperatures have dropped big-time.
Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
The Earth climate goes in cycles which have included the Ice Age. Global Warming is without a doubt a hoax and fraud. Notice when we didn't fry and parts of the world faced colder temperatures the name of the hoax changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.
The motive behind the fraud is to tax people and commerce. After the fraud has been found out once and for all the Carbon Trading emission schemes will of course remain in place.
I’ve already written above that any carbon control plan must be laid on at the SOURCES of fossil fuels. Not on the end users.
I am all for the proper and responsible use of our natural resources. What I am NOT supportive of, is being "hoodwinked" by any political party for any agenda.
While the current aspect of Global Warming is being debated some facts are inescapable. 1. We do NOT know everything. In fact we are just beginning to understand the smallest fraction of the planet we live on.
As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote: “The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time . . The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one - for there will be a next one - could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.”
This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website. All four major global temperature tracking outlets - Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS - have data showing that global temperatures have dropped big-time.
The Democrats have come right out and said that they are in favor of high gas prices in order to get the public to drive less. Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly . .
They [Dems] don't want us using coal, but they want electricity. They [Dems] don't want us using Nuclear Power [Bush43 authorized 80 nuclear power plant permits in 2006], but again they want electricity. We can't mine shale for oil, or drill where there is actually oil. Oh the list goes on and on. So what about the hype on electric cars? Go ahead and buy one. The Libs are all stopping the building of any coal power plants so what are you going to plug it into? Now how about those Hybrid cars? RIP OFF
I actually looked at one [hybrid] just a few months ago when buying a new vehicle. By the time I paid the extra price for the vehicle, I could have filled it up for the expected life of the car. My work vehicle takes E85, guess what? I get around 25 mpg on regular gas and 12 on E85 . . How is that saving anything? Please stop falling for every myth that comes down the pike and start asking yourself "why they want you to do it" and figure it out yourselves.
Originally posted by jdub297
Second, AGW itself is, as most of your replies here show, are largely discredited under unbiased scrutiny.
There have been several threads dealing with this. No AGW advocates have refuted the underlying raw data supporting the reports in these threads that man is not causing the climate to change.
See these for additional info:
"Is 2008 the Year They Disproved Global Warming?"
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
"650+ Scientists Protest IPCC Global Warming Report"
That sounds great in theory, but exactly how do you propose we tax the source without that increased cost of operation being passed on to the consumer? Everything you buy has a price based on the willingness of a consumer to pay it, but always higher than the cost of producing it.
Semper hit the nail on the head above. The current 'crisis' is manufactured through biased scientific study . . The scary things begin to appear when you follow the premise of controlling CO2 production to its limits.
Want alternate energy? Let's assume that someone built an alternate energy source in their basement, and that it was pollution free, low-cost, and reliable. The problem is that they can't afford to start manufacturing it now, because in order to do so, they have to buy carbon credits to cover the cost of running the factory.
All they can do is sell the idea back to an already-established company to manufacture, because that company already has carbon credits. Of course, that company also doesn't want to make anything that jeopardizes the profits they are making on the status quo, so the idea is politely forgotten, and this wonderful alternate energy is not revealed.
Ask yourself these questions, and realize that pure hydrocarbons produce only two components in their exhaust: CO2 and water. Now, if you wanted to make people deathly afraid of letting just anyone burn hydrocarbons, which of those two exhaust components would you attack? TheRedneck
In order to be able to make a valid prediction, you need several things:
1.) All of the contributing factors contributing to the event you are trying to predict.
2.) A long-term history of data for all of those factors.
3.) The degree to which each factor contributes, and the degree to which the interaction of ALL of those factors relate.
4.) A way to accurately measure the long-term actual performance versus the predictive model you have developed.
5.) The ability to make modifications to that model, if the actual measurements do not correspond to your first-phase model.