BF2S Forums Glaciers

The sun... The planet must have been in closer orbit to the sun years ago then eventually it went further away again.

ATG wrote:

Glaciers. I hate to be Captain Obvious, but are they known to come and go, carving mountains and valleys? Long Island in NY is made of  glacial Till.

So, if global warming is man fault what caused the glaciers to start melting twelve thousand years ago?

( btw, I'm against pollution. )
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/01/2 … index.html

Change in the earth's orbit or axial tilt gave us more sunlight.
And yes, glaciers carve valleys. My mother grew up in yorkshire, which is one big set of glacial valleys. There are sodding big rocks all over britain from them. (Although the ones in circles are from the fad for stone circles and big figures on hills.)

Glaciers are melting, but theres more happening than that. The levels of ice in Antartica and Greenland are melting way more than normal.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 49,00.html

The overwhelming body of evidence still points to man made global warming. This isnt a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are generally based on poor science, however Global warming/Climate change has had thousands of articles published in the highest peer reveiw journals. The science is good.

ATG wrote:

( btw, I'm against pollution. )

I actually believe you on this (no sarcasm) , where I differ is that Carbon Dioxide is a form of pollution, the only difference is that we cant see it.

They have little idea what is going on or why.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

ATG wrote:

Glaciers. I hate to be Captain Obvious, but are they known to come and go, carving mountains and valleys? Long Island in NY is made of  glacial Till.

So, if global warming is man fault what caused the glaciers to start melting twelve thousand years ago?



( btw, I'm against pollution. )
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/01/2 … index.html

It's natural, there's nothing we can do about it.  We emit a percent of a percent of the total CO2 output... it's all a bunch of media hype if you ask me.


The earth has natural cycles... usually I like me a good conspiracy but this one.. I dunno

Actually we contribute about 6% to the OUTPUT. However that output is a tiny amount of all the Carbon in the world 0.00001% or something smaller. However that doesnt mean a change in the amount outputted doesnt cause an effect, the world never had all its carbon in the atmosphere, therefore you can safely ignore the fact that there are billions of tons of carbon in the earth and in the sea and instead focus on what causes the changes to climate, which is the OUTPUT.

the greenhouse effect is not bad science, but several climate scientists believe current warming may be more directly related to solar intensity (ie. sun spots).

its very important that scientists clear this up, because limiting greenhouse gasses in the developing world will prevent development and further lock the third world in poverty, utterly dependent on "world trade." our leaders are all talking about different ways to tax our carbon footprint as individual citizens with the assumption that our environmental footprint can pretty much definitely be equated to carbon output, when this is actually quite debatable. i am very against pollution, but if our primary environmental cause becomes about limiting carbon output, when carbon may not be as critical as we believe, then we could subvert and weaken the entire environmental movement and create a new source of taxation for the working classes.

and its very difficult to make generalizations about global warming science, because while thousands of papers are written, the vast majority document warming or its environmental effects, but in no way attempt to confirm or disconfirm the greenhouse effect as a specific cause. for example, there is all this data on glaciers and coral bleaching, which people will take as evidence that greenhouse theory AND global warming are true, when in fact, only global warming is apparent.

John Cristy at UA, Richard Lidzen of MIT and Vincent Gray are all names to look up if you would like to hear informed critiques of global warming science.

ATG, your question about the end of the pleistocene glaciations is one that has not been definitively answered. periodic changes in sunlight intensity resulting from Milankovitch cycles is one explanation (changes in positioning of our wobbling planet throughout its orbit relative to the sun). atmospheric chemical balance (ie., greenhouse effect) is also assumed. sun spots and variable solar intensity is also named as a possible impetus for climate change. other theories include the "big burp" where methane could have risen from the ocean or meteor impacts which affect the atmosphere and can disrupt oceanic currents which regulate global temperature.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-01-22 07:58:01)

Marinejuana wrote:

ATG, your question about the end of the pleistocene glaciations is one that has not been definitively answered. periodic changes in sunlight intensity resulting from Milankovitch cycles is one explanation (changes in positioning of our wobbling planet throughout its orbit relative to the sun). atmospheric chemical balance (ie., greenhouse effect) is also assumed. sun spots and variable solar intensity is also named as a possible impetus for climate change. other theories include the "big burp" where methane could have risen from the ocean or meteor impacts which affect the atmosphere and can disrupt oceanic currents which regulate global temperature.

Let's see; doesn't feel like  copy paste
Milankovitch cycles, check
wobbling planet, check
methane burps, check
Pleistocene is always capitalized, and if you had copied that it would have been.
Verdict;

You sir, are not an idiot.

Marinejuana wrote:

ATG, your question about the end of the pleistocene glaciations is one that has not been definitively answered. periodic changes in sunlight intensity resulting from Milankovitch cycles is one explanation (changes in positioning of our wobbling planet throughout its orbit relative to the sun). atmospheric chemical balance (ie., greenhouse effect) is also assumed. sun spots and variable solar intensity is also named as a possible impetus for climate change. other theories include the "big burp" where methane could have risen from the ocean or meteor impacts which affect the atmosphere and can disrupt oceanic currents which regulate global temperature.

Also, explain me this;

We have all the best minds saying about the past  " okay we have these historical spikes in temperatures and coming and going of glaciers, we KNOW it happened, but we're not really sure WHY it happened."

And now we have all the same best minds saying " we KNOW the climate is changing and we know WHY it is changing. "

when we also have a large number of ' best and brightest minds ' saying " we don't know WHAT is happening, HOW it is happening or IF it is happening. "

And the curious part is that the portion of the population that most embraces the alarmist is also the portion that most rejects the fairy tales of religion as blatant political manipulation.


So, as religion fades from our lives, those in power need something as mysterious and serious to scare us with.


Suckers.

Frankly, there is so much controversy in this topic that I don't know what to believe. I think polluting the air is bad, but there is no concrete evidence for or against Global Warming. There is evidence for both claims of it, so they cancel each other out.

I guess we just have to wait and see. Even if that is the most dangerous thing we can do. Either choice has its repurcussions and they are quite heavy on both ends of the sticks.

This is my mentality:

Although I understand full well why the melting of glaciers, as a result of pollution, is debatable, I choose to be "ignorant" and believe every article/report I read that pin points this phenomenon as a cause of emissions, etc. We need to cut down on the amount of crap we release into the atmosphere and, to be honest, even if it were a lie, it would be a very effective way in kickstarting promotion for positive externalities to benefit the environment.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2008-01-22 08:48:23)

I gave up giving the media's version of Climate Change any attention a while ago.  They love to tell us how half of the UK will be submerged and how Polar Bears will all die and about the deaths of millions of people.  What they don't tell you is the timescales, most of these predicted disasters would take hundreds of years of pollution at the current rate to happen.

Even if we invested nothing in Global Warming prevention the natural progression of technology would right most of these anyway.  I mean even if climate change is bollox we still need oil free cars at some point as one day oil will run out.  Anything that uses less energy and thus energy bills would also be popular so I don't actually think Joe Public need go out of their way, it's just overcompensating

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

I gave up giving the media's version of Climate Change any attention a while ago.  They love to tell us how half of the UK will be submerged and how Polar Bears will all die and about the deaths of millions of people.  What they don't tell you is the timescales, most of these predicted disasters would take hundreds of years of pollution at the current rate to happen.

Even if we invested nothing in Global Warming prevention the natural progression of technology would right most of these anyway.  I mean even if climate change is bollox we still need oil free cars at some point as one day oil will run out.  Anything that uses less energy and thus energy bills would also be popular so I don't actually think Joe Public need go out of their way, it's just overcompensating

Global warming will give us a climate similar to Southern France if the temperature rises by 2 degrees.

I learn to see the good in the bad a long time ago.