Topic: So it's global warming is it ?

[Sam Green Racing]

US Weather Bureau Report

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Down

 
 
 
Down
 
 



 

Down

 

 

 

Down

 

 

I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post. 

 

If you don't believe it Google the date and paper's name......

 


Sam.

[seaweb11]

All The Sea Lions from SanFrancisco just moved North to Oregon  Just what I need in my front yard in 80 years.......3000 sea Lions

[1080]

Was that not because of the earthquake?

[seaweb11]

Not sure about an earthquake.
We had some of the California Seals arrive in our waters, 3-7 years ago and they stayed. Probably just a mater of time until they come in more force.

[coldright]

I hear that there's plans to move the docks from fisherman's warf up to Gabriola Island.

[1080]

There was some reports of sea-lions going further up north just before the 6.5 California  earthquake hit. (Heard it on some radio talk show, cannot confirm it to be true ).


I read on Popular Mechanics magazine today that the temperature sensors set up in one Antarctic location has not changed. Not even one degree since they were installed.

[Retro Rocket]

Well while you guys are freezing we are having our hottest period ever, the last 10 years have gotten progressively hotter. Records are being broken weekly.

Mick

[seaweb11]

The plant bulb shoots are out of the ground here.

[mrblasty]

It was 33 degrees here last week

[BeSeeingYou]

The data from one year is pretty meaningless for trying to either prove or disprove a long term climate shift.  I was very interested in the history of the search for the Northwest Passage and have read many of the historical accounts of the expeditions over the hundreds of years.  It turns out that the passage is open on average once every ten years and this usually coincides with a warmer than average summer when the ice retreats and the glaciers melt more than usual.  This is an aberation and things shortly return to normal.  Now there is speculation that the passage will be open more frequently and possibly every year a few decades from now.  That is a trend not a one year wonder.  With this in mind Canada is now reasserting it's sovereign rights to the passage while some countries (including the U.S.) view it as an international waterway.

[Buber]

Well while you guys are freezing we are having our hottest period ever, the last 10 years have gotten progressively hotter. Records are being broken weekly.

Mick

So, as you can see in the above post, point of view depends on place of sitting...
I know, it's "fashionable" now to question and to deny the global warming. Well, then, ask people of Kiribati (who are going to lose their country soon) or simply go to Juno and look at Mendenhall glacier.

It is getting warmer, despite current cold spell - but then again, what is 1 winter in the span of, say 60 of them?

[Retro Rocket]

Well while you guys are freezing we are having our hottest period ever, the last 10 years have gotten progressively hotter. Records are being broken weekly.

Mick

So, as you can see in the above post, point of view depends on place of sitting...
I know, it's "fashionable" now to question and to deny the global warming. Well, then, ask people of Kiribati (who are going to lose their country soon) or simply go to Juno and look at Mendenhall glacier.

It is getting warmer, despite current cold spell - but then again, what is 1 winter in the span of, say 60 of them?

Check out the Maldives,  and there are various south pacific islands that are being inundated as well....somethings going on...

Mick

[Alan F.]

Has anyone been studying the so called effects of global warming in antarctica?  Or is it all centered in the north and somehow referred to as 'global'?
-A

[mlinder]

Antarctica is actually gaining ice mass, from what I recall.

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=19258.msg202464#msg202464

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=19258.msg202045#msg202045

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=48371.msg510913#msg510913

The manufacturing output of the world didn't really get bumping until about 1830. Greenhouse gasses increased quite a bit near the end of the 1800's, though no where near what we produce today. Pretty sure this little ibt of news from a mere 20 or 30 years after any real greenhouse gasses were being produced shows that, again, the "Global Climate Change" is effected by human industry little, if at all.
I'm still wondering when I'm going to be blamed for the climate changes over the last 6 billion years that have wiped out millions of species of animals, for using fossil fuels. I mean, I killed them by using them as fuel, apparently.

[Gordon]

I'm just always amazed at how many people continue to confuse the fact that the Earth's climate is changing with the ongoing argument about what the cause of that change is.  

So many people seem to think that there are only two options to choose from:  Either the climate is changing and Humans are the cause of it, or the climate isn't changing one bit and all of the research and evidence about it is just some part of a larger conspiracy spearheaded by Al Gore.  

[mlinder]

I'm just always amazed at how many people continue to confuse the fact that the Earth's climate is changing with the ongoing argument about what the cause of that change is.  

So many people seem to think that there are only two options to choose from:  Either the climate is changing and Humans are the cause of it, or the climate isn't changing one bit and all of the research and evidence about it is just some part of a larger conspiracy spearheaded by Al Gore.  

It's because most humans are so egocentric. Everything is happening because of us, or to us. We tend to think rather highly of ourselves, at least in terms of influence. People have a hard time stepping back and looking at the big picture, and refuse to see just how insignificant out tiny microcosm is.

[ColinMc]

Lol, thank you thank you thank you!!!!

I've had this argument I don't know how many times...even IF our climate is changing, who the hell are we to say WE are the ones causing it to change? Before we were even around there was massive climate change going on on this planet. Yes I have a more in depth argument but that's what it boils down to. All the sad polar bear pictures in the world won't convince me otherwise.

Manbearpig is real! I'm being super cereal!!!

[Gordon]

I'm just always amazed at how many people continue to confuse the fact that the Earth's climate is changing with the ongoing argument about what the cause of that change is.  

So many people seem to think that there are only two options to choose from:  Either the climate is changing and Humans are the cause of it, or the climate isn't changing one bit and all of the research and evidence about it is just some part of a larger conspiracy spearheaded by Al Gore.  

It's because most humans are so egocentric. Everything is happening because of us, or to us. We tend to think rather highly of ourselves, at least in terms of influence. People have a hard time stepping back and looking at the big picture, and refuse to see just how insignificant out tiny microcosm is.

On the other hand, however, it would be very irresponsible of us to just assume that what we've been doing for the past 150 years isn't having any effect at all on how the climate is currently changing.  The real answer lies somewhere between those two extremes.
 

[mlinder]

I'm just always amazed at how many people continue to confuse the fact that the Earth's climate is changing with the ongoing argument about what the cause of that change is.  

So many people seem to think that there are only two options to choose from:  Either the climate is changing and Humans are the cause of it, or the climate isn't changing one bit and all of the research and evidence about it is just some part of a larger conspiracy spearheaded by Al Gore.  

It's because most humans are so egocentric. Everything is happening because of us, or to us. We tend to think rather highly of ourselves, at least in terms of influence. People have a hard time stepping back and looking at the big picture, and refuse to see just how insignificant out tiny microcosm is.

On the other hand, however, it would be very irresponsible of us to just assume that what we've been doing for the past 150 years isn't having any effect at all on how the climate is currently changing.  The real answer lies somewhere between those two extremes.
 

If there was quantitative data that showed 'change' outside the norm of natural climate change cycles that have been happening on earth every thousand years or so for the last 6 billion, I'd be happy to entertain it.

I haven't seen any.

[Gordon]

So because there's not any definitive proof that we're having any negative effect on the climate we should just assume we're not and go about continuing to dump huge amounts of carbon dioxide and all the other gases into the atmosphere like we've been doing for generations?  Considering human nature, I'd say it's a safer bet to assume the opposite until it's proven otherwise.   

[sangyo soichiro]

One annoying about the global warming debate, is that when we have a particularly warm or cool year, lots of people try to use it as evidence in support of their position (either for or against, depending on whether it was warmer or colder than normal).  I even hear the radio guys try to use individual days to "prove" their point. 
 

A particular region's temperature, year by year (and especially day by day), resembles the choppy stock market graph, where it goes up and down very often.  It's the long term trend that matters, and of course... that is a catch 22.  But I would rather err on the side of caution.

[Gordon]

A particular region's temperature, year by year (and especially day by day), resembles the choppy stock market graph, where it goes up and down very often.  It's the long term trend that matters, and of course... that is a catch 22.  But I would rather err on the side of caution.

Exactly.  People hear "global warming" and think that it means a general warming trend at all times, and in every place on the planet simultaneously, so if it's especially cold and snowy in an area that rarely sees that type of weather they think it's all bunk.  What global warming means, among other things, is more extremes of weather in what are now considered temperate areas. 

[mlinder]

So because there's not any definitive proof that we're having any negative effect on the climate we should just assume we're not and go about continuing to dump huge amounts of carbon dioxide and all the other gases into the atmosphere like we've been doing for generations?  Considering human nature, I'd say it's a safer bet to assume the opposite until it's proven otherwise.   

I covered a lot of this in the other threads, Gordon.

There are potentially 'lots' of negatives to forcing a green regime on every single living person in the world, potentially disastrous.
Just because you MAY have cancer, does that mean you SHOULD do a crapton of chemo and radiation? No, both of those are poisons, and you better make sure that you ahve cancer before you start introducing other dangerous things into your system.
Unbiased and real scientific data needs to be made, used, and presented publicly without agenda.

That hasn't happened.

Look again at my temp readings from around the world in average differences over the last couple hundred (granted, some of them are far less than 200 years) and tell me where those point to global climate change, let alone global 'warming'?

[TwoTired]

On the other hand, however, it would be very irresponsible of us to just assume that what we've been doing for the past 150 years isn't having any effect at all on how the climate is currently changing.  The real answer lies somewhere between those two extremes.
 

There is no absolute proof that either extreme is correct.  There is, therefore, no proof that the answer lies in between the extremes either.  So, all you have left is personal conjecture, based on your own value of self importance.
 One of the fallacies of compromise is that there may or may not be validity in either extremes.  As an example, a robber confronts you and demands all your money.  Your position is that you wish to keep it all.  Do you then compromise on just how much the robber collects from you?  Isn't a reasonable compromise that he only take half your assets?


Besides that, the global warming advocates are being used as yet another vehicle for population control, or more importantly, service and money expenditures by the population, for the prominent gain of the select few.  In essence, the ruling class is using the issue to force a large mass of persons into a form of slavery, by leaving them no individual choice or the freedom to chose.  And, there is no production of irrefutable truth to support such a per person requirement.  Only political majority vote is required.  Doesn't have to be fact based, just politically expedient, with the majority of those subjugated pacified or impotent.

[Gordon]

I covered a lot of this in the other threads, Gordon.

That's great, but I neither read nor commit to memory everything you type about this subject.  If there's something specific you wish me to know about, then you need to either type or quote it in this thread, not just link to the various threads where this has been discussed.  Otherwise just assume that I don't recall you previously covering it.

Just because you MAY have cancer, does that mean you SHOULD do a crapton of chemo and radiation?

 

Of course it doesn't, but it would probably be a good idea if you at least stopped smoking.