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: 4,613
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, 04:48 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

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

Reply With Quote
  #4  
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
  #5  
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
  #6  
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
  #7  
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
  #8  
Old 09-09-2012, 12:09 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Regardless of the records verification we know what we're doing to the planet currently can have no good consequences for any of it's life. What's worse it will take thousands of years to reverse even if we stopped now and I fear idiocy will prevail long before the scales visibly tip to make the corporatist world take action but that is the folly of allowing governments to be dictated by commercialism.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-09-2012, 12:33 AM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Even though I'm inclined to agree, but there seems a be a certain philosophical shift that needs to take place in society before any progress can be made. Or perhaps it's a shift that needs to be made by those who are the most vocal and influential on such issues. It seems that when you take the extreme opposing viewpoints you get one thing in common which is the idea that there is humans, and then there is nature. One side is that humans are destroying nature. The other side is that nature will do whatever it wants regardless of what humans do. The truth is any organism has the capability to drastically alter its environment to its benefit or detriment. One extreme example would be locusts. Physical, behavioral, and social adaptations all contribute to the organism's ability to do so. Humans or no different. It's just that behavioral and social adaptations play a much much much bigger role for us (I mean let's face it. Humans aren't physically impressive as opposed to say a grizzly). The archetypes of the opposing viewpoints of environmental issues need to go away and we need to think in terms of 1) we are part of the environment and thus are inevitably going to alter it in some way. 2) because we will alter our environment, how can we do it safely and sustainably.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-09-2012, 07:07 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Indeed, those are the key fundamentals, safe sustainability as a variable in climate, habitat and ecology rather than separate.

Just look at Earth at night and you can grasp how drastically we've effected the planet in our favor.
__________________

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 12:20 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.