The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-08-2012, 02:34 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,609
Default Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed, scientists find

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19508906

All part of the Global Conspiracy to get to the mineral rich wealth that lies beneath, especially in Antarctica!

Conspiracy theorists: Watch the intro speech by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal in the video "The Secret Land". Around 1 minute 25 into the vid.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...18157399663454
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-08-2012, 03:25 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

This is unavoidable.
It's a train set in motion by hundreds of tons of CO2 and CFC dumped into our atmosphere yearly. While it's a small measure of the CO2 cycle it's the displacement which matters the most as well as natures inability to absorb the excess C02. Facts show it is staying in the atmosphere and not dissipating nor being especially being absobed by the oceans.

There is nothing we can do about the melting now.
What is to come is coastal flooding and weather changes which means there is an infrasturucture shift to occur in about 20 years with transportation, Levies and Sea Walls to guard against rising water and increased storm surge.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-08-2012, 08:24 PM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
This is unavoidable.
It's a train set in motion by hundreds of tons of CO2 and CFC dumped into our atmosphere yearly. While it's a small measure of the CO2 cycle it's the displacement which matters the most as well as natures inability to absorb the excess C02. Facts show it is staying in the atmosphere and not dissipating nor being especially being absobed by the oceans.

There is nothing we can do about the melting now.
What is to come is coastal flooding and weather changes which means there is an infrasturucture shift to occur in about 20 years with transportation, Levies and Sea Walls to guard against rising water and increased storm surge.

WRONG! CO2 is in no way shape or form affecting the weather. Michael Mann has intentionally hid the decline in his Hockey stick Chart. And its been proven by unbiased scientists that the temperature is rising BEFORE the increase of CO2. You can reference http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com...=globalwarming , and other references on the wattsupwiththat side links. I'm a natural skeptic when it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I really doubt mankind can have a major impact on the climate, even if we did turn on every powerplant and car in the world, it would still have a miniscule impact compared to Naturally induced Global warming. Also, since we speak of CO2 and Warming, lets not forget that 2 planets in our system has a CO2 atmosphere, and the difference between the two are 180 degree opposites of each other in terms of weather patterns. Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, yet a normal temperature during the day is -67 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas Venus Is 96% CO2, and its average temperature consists of nearly 860 degrees Fahrenheit! Of course, Venus is MUCH closer to the sun than Mars, and it's atmosphere is thicker than that of both mars and earth. To say that CO2 is the leading cause is absolute hooey, otherwise Mars would be boiling as well, even at its distance! The only way we'd get a Global warming where the ice caps are melting, is if the CO2 levels were around that of Venus or Mars, and our atmosphere would have to be much thicker than it is. Thank God that we have plants that are able to compensate the CO2 levels, otherwise we WOULD be like Venus.
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-08-2012, 10:50 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
WRONG! CO2 is in no way shape or form affecting the weather. Michael Mann has intentionally hid the decline in his Hockey stick Chart. And its been proven by unbiased scientists that the temperature is rising BEFORE the increase of CO2. You can reference http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com...=globalwarming , and other references on the wattsupwiththat side links. I'm a natural skeptic when it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I really doubt mankind can have a major impact on the climate, even if we did turn on every powerplant and car in the world, it would still have a miniscule impact compared to Naturally induced Global warming. Also, since we speak of CO2 and Warming, lets not forget that 2 planets in our system has a CO2 atmosphere, and the difference between the two are 180 degree opposites of each other in terms of weather patterns. Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, yet a normal temperature during the day is -67 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas Venus Is 96% CO2, and its average temperature consists of nearly 860 degrees Fahrenheit! Of course, Venus is MUCH closer to the sun than Mars, and it's atmosphere is thicker than that of both mars and earth. To say that CO2 is the leading cause is absolute hooey, otherwise Mars would be boiling as well, even at its distance! The only way we'd get a Global warming where the ice caps are melting, is if the CO2 levels were around that of Venus or Mars, and our atmosphere would have to be much thicker than it is. Thank God that we have plants that are able to compensate the CO2 levels, otherwise we WOULD be like Venus.
It's gratifying to see that you're excited to announce my supposed error. However...

Temperature will not immediately follow the Carbon Levels because of the level of particulate matter in the atmosphere. As was proven during 911 our polluted atmosphere has changed the reflectivity of our clouds reducing the average temperatures of the Earth that would otherwise be 5-7 degrees hotter by redirecting the sun's energy back into space.

It was long concluded that after the planes over America were grounded on September 9, 2001 that if reduction in particulate matter continued that temperatures would rise rather quickly due to the Greenhouse effect. This theory was tested after 9,11,01 in the Indian Ocean just off the coast of Southern India where clouds were seen to have a reflective brilliance and temperatures over the ocean outside of India's pollution cloud were indeed much warmer than the cloud cover over the sub continent.

What has followed the temperature of the planet exactly is the evaporation rate which has a record of 100 years that farmers have used to judge how much water crops would require. This is called the Pan evaporation rate. It's a simple process of adding water to a pan and placing it in the sun and measuring the remaining water. The actual sun light the photons themselves hitting the water is directly attributable to the evaporation. This record shows a decline of evaporation rates over Russia, Eastern Europe and the USA in the last 30 years. And it matches the pace of Industrialization of the last 50 years.


-----
If evaporation is being effected then droughts would be the result.
No precipitation means no snow over the Arctic. Less snow means more light penetration into the ocean and gradual warming of the Arctic. And it's cumulative the Arctic works on it's own reflectivity to maintain a steady cold cycle to transition from Summer to Winter.

-----

Political views have become a rather dangerous obstruction to progress in the area of environmental science. Rather than treating the Earth's Climate as a nearly orgainic ever changing difficult to predict system of varribles certain ones will offer a singular juxtaposition of facts with out relating them to the whole chaotic theory and summarily assume all is well.

Everything renewable is being consumed, Everything natural is being bulldozed for more human development and somehow some people still think everything is proceeding just as it always has.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-09-2012, 09:02 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
Also, since we speak of CO2 and Warming, lets not forget that 2 planets in our system has a CO2 atmosphere, and the difference between the two are 180 degree opposites of each other in terms of weather patterns.
Nice try but the greenhouse effect is simply a fact.

Climate change denial works analogous to Freud's story about the borrowed kettle (I gave you the kettle back undamaged, it was already broken when I got it from you, I never borrowed it in the first place.), i.e. mutually exclusive arguments are used:
There is no climate change, there is but it is all due to some funky solar flares, greenhouse gases do heat up the climate like on Venus ... but then again not really because of Mars.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-09-2012, 11:37 AM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Nice try but the greenhouse effect is simply a fact.

Climate change denial works analogous to Freud's story about the borrowed kettle (I gave you the kettle back undamaged, it was already broken when I got it from you, I never borrowed it in the first place.), i.e. mutually exclusive arguments are used:
There is no climate change, there is but it is all due to some funky solar flares, greenhouse gases do heat up the climate like on Venus ... but then again not really because of Mars.
I never said there was NO climate change, I just cannot believe that MAN has any major effect whatsoever, but the excuse that CO2, especially manmade, as the leading cause of temp increase is flawed. Unless we LITERALLY had everything on this planet that emitted manmade CO2 nonstop for a certain period, we'd hardly put out more than the planet itself would. Also, ever since the transition from the wording Global Warming to Climate change, it seems like the perfect way to blame someone a "denier" when in truth, those that ARE skeptical are the ones who truly are scientific. Those that say that AGW is a stated fact, and that is the status quo amongst the community of scientists are flawed as well. In science, you cannot simply state that its fact. when 30,000 scientists have stated that that "fact" is flawed and is unscientific. The issue with the whole AGW/Climate Change theories is that it's veered from being scientific, to being a political tool in over regulation. Here within the states, with the use of that unscientific, biased information, the EPA and Government are using Michael Mann's hockey stick chart as an excuse to put horrendous regulations against small things as LIGHTBULBS for goodness sake! I have stated manytimes on my political views, and I can remember having similar discussions on the matter of Climate Change here, but the main issue I ALWAYS have is that people are taking the Issue of Climate Change (which before the neutral name change, was always mentioned as global warming) and turning it into their own cultist and biased belief that its happening, its going to happen and we're doomed. Wasn't it stated as well that in 13 days or so, the Arctic would be ice free? I DID do a quick research into the melting ice, and from unbiassed sources HAVE confirmed that the ice record is just below the 2007 all time low, but in case it WASN"t seen, after the 2007 drop, in only a matter of 2 years, the ice returned above its previous high cover record before the 2007 low. As you can also see in these sea ice charts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/) , the pattern has been steady as an EKG pattern since records have been taken, so in truth, if the melt show IS happening, it would be shown to happen during the spring and summer months. I theorize that within a year or 2, you will see the ice back in its normal, or even ABOVE normal size. Call me a Denialist or skeptic, but I prefer to keep scientific studies over political ones in this case.
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-09-2012, 08:33 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
I never said there was NO climate change, I just cannot believe that MAN has any major effect whatsoever, but the excuse that CO2, especially manmade, as the leading cause of temp increase is flawed. Call me a Denialist or skeptic, but I prefer to keep scientific studies over political ones in this case.
Incredulity is not a logical function of reason.
You presented conclusions that sustained your beliefs but not as result of deduction. This form of "reasoning" is a function of politics not of realities and empirical evidence and the reasonable interpretation of them.

The primary concern at the source of the denial is (anti regulation) and it's always extremely transparent as a means to continue business as usual.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 09-10-2012 at 02:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-08-2012, 04:48 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

And further economic instabilities resulting from a rise in natural disasters, plus a widening spread of disease vectors.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-08-2012, 04:52 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Despite the inability of modern science to cure anything of the last 40 or 50 years, disease has been mostly kept in check. In fact considering transportation as conveyor of vectors it's amazing some disease hasn't already run unchecked across the world.

Caulk it up to be sanitation and cleanliness.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-08-2012, 11:43 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

There will always be controversy over the hockey stick in terms of everything before the spike at the tail end. The tail end is not particularly controversial because that data more or less comes from direct temperature measurements an records. When you get to pre-industrial decades, there's fewer records to work with and you very quickly run out of records. After looking back about just over 200-300 years, you're pretty much going off of proxy measurements instead of direct ones. The upward trend from industrialization to present day isn't where you see the fighting, it's everything before that. The tragedy is that the controversy has left the realm of science and into that of politics. Scientists' careers have been destroyed for much much less such as finding data that doesn't fit with conventional thoughts even if the scientist makes no claims as to the meaning of the data.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 09-09-2012 at 12:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:30 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.