Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

It's not Global Warming
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BigBlackEquus



Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Lotte controls Asia with bad chocolate!

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:01 am    Post subject: It's not Global Warming Reply with quote

http://www.iceagenow.com/


Looks like the evidence is stacking up against global warming. Although I'm all for cleaner air and controlling emissions, I don't buy the direct link to everything all of the time.


"Katrina - Sep 3, 2005 – My heart goes out to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. With that said, let me address some misinformation. I keep hearing that Katrina was caused by "global warming" … and that it’s all our fault because we haven’t signed the Kyoto Treaty.

Rubbish. Katrina may be one of the most devastating natural disasters in US recorded history, but to say that it was caused by humans is just plain wrong.

It’s not global warming, it’s ocean warming, and it’s all part of the ice-age cycle."



"New Zealand glaciers growing - 30 August 2005 - The most recent survey
of the 50 glaciers in New Zealand’s Southern Alps monitored by the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) revealed that the glaciers gained much more ice than they lost during the past year.
See more at New Zealand glaciers."


"Antarctica snow pack increasing 5 feet per year - 18 Jul 05 –
Snow is accumulating over an area bigger than the continental United States. See expanding glaciers."


"Greenland glacier advancing more than seven miles per year!
- 23 Jul 2005 - The Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier southeast of Greenland is now moving towards the sea at the "astonishing" rate of more than seven miles (12 km) per year. See expanding glaciers."


" “Will compasses point south?” -13 Jul 2004 - The odds of a reversal are “more likely than not,” says Dr. John A. Tarduno, professor of geophysics at the University of Rochester.

I have evidence that there have been at least eleven magnetic reversals in the past 780,000 years - probably many more - and that extinctions and reversals go hand-in-hand. To see a list of the magnetic reversals that have occurred in the past 780,000 years, see: Ice ages and magnetic reversals"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bulsajo



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Environmental issues don't begin and end with global warming, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wannago



Joined: 16 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bulsajo wrote:
Environmental issues don't begin and end with global warming, IMO.


Countdown to rapier telling BBE how full of hooey he is, although I find BBE's evidence to be compelling and definitely worth thinking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hypnotist



Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guys, no offence but promoting the views of a former architect over the weight of the scientific community is like posting here about politics using only counterpunch as your source.

There are a couple - not very many, but a couple - of peer reviewed papers calling into question aspects of the global warming theory (let's ignore for now how the overwhelming number support it). Why don't you use them to argue, rather than a website showing a penguin trying to wake up a polar bear (despite the fact they're poles apart... something you'd have thought an expert on ice would know Rolling Eyes )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Red



Joined: 05 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shhh... stop making sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How many monster hurricanes does it take before governments and
individuals, as a matter of prudence, start taking precautions in response to climate change? Anyone who spends time outdoors and is in touch with nature and ecology can tell the climate is changing dramatically.

Humanity must embark now upon a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions to be achieved by the year 2050. This is the best scientific estimate of emission reductions necessary to stabilize the Earth's climatic system in a condition largely similar to the present, while avoiding the most egregious catastrophic impacts of abrupt climate change. Individuals must start changing their lifestyles and governments their policies in order to limit and adapt to increasingly evident climate change.

As the second human intensified hurricane in a matter of weeks looms
over America's gulf coast, it is readily apparent that humanity is witnessing climate change of their own making. Melting glaciers and permafrost, rising seas, deadly heatwaves and scorching droughts apparently were not enough. More fundamentally, these dual hurricanes and other demonstrations of climate change herald the beginning of a more systematic collapse of key regional and global ecosystems and their processes as the result of humans' overbearing presence upon the Earth.

Those that say these hurricanes are the result of natural variability point to no scientific studies. All they have to offer is their opinion, clouded by an inability to accept that humans are capable of transforming the Earth. On the other hand, there are decades of studies, modeling and science that predicted stronger hurricanes as a result of global warming.
When media ask whether the hurricanes have anything to do with
climate change, I would like more than a shrug and some platitude like
"we are not sure". Media needs to delve more into what we do know, while indicating where we need to learn more, thus informing the search for answers.

Recently the journal Science published research showing that the number
ofCategory 4 and 5 hurricanes worldwide has nearly doubled over the past 35 years as global sea surface temperatures increased. Earlier a paper in Nature revealed that major storms in the Atlantic and Pacific since the 1970s have increased in intensity by about 50 percent. The phenomenon of warming oceans is well studied, and it is known that in the past 50 years oceans have on average warmed by one degree Fahrenheit (about 0.5 degrees Celsius). Indeed, a major study published mid-year in Science by a group of Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientists found clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world¡¯s oceans.

The U.S. with four percent of the world's population is responsible for a
quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, and Americans are
laggards in supporting policies to address climate change. As American
citizens are battered by these hurricanes, America has a special responsibility to determine whether and to what degree these nearly
concurrent catastrophes are human caused. The logical place to start
is investigating further why and how gulf waters are warming.

Katrina and Rita's demonstration of the deadly potential of human
intensified hurricanes needs an urgent response. Their ferocity would
ideally lead to the American government facing up to the threat of
climate change, and acting with strong resolve in response. Whether you accept the preponderance of climate change evidence or not, the prudent and responsible thing would be to launch a major scientific investigation
while starting to prepare. What will happen when oceans warm by three
or five degrees Fahrenheit (1.7 - 2.8 degrees Celsius), which is
forecasted by the end of the century? There is no strength in smug, ill-informed self-assurance.

And what if it is proven that human caused climate change has
contributed to these disasters? What then? Will it be life as usual? Or do
Americans in particular have the will to transform themselves? I have
often wondered whether Americans have the strength to fundamentally
change their way of being when they see they must. Somewhat similarly, we have witnessed Russians adapting to the collapse of empire, and Germany and Japan rebuilding after disastrous militarism. Can America peacefully transition to a post-petroleum lifestyle starting now? We shall soon see.

The primary obstacle remains how to assist people to acknowledge deadly
global warming is happening and begin adjusting their lifestyles accordingly. Further, a political space must be established that gives
politicians incentives to advocate and implement sufficient responses.
Environmental warnings at this point are more than "I told you so". They
highlight that the impacts of climate change have moved to a new level,
and are still worsening in ways that hurt us all - environmentalists and
non-environmentalists alike.

The necessary changes are significant but not insurmountable. All
Earth's citizens must develop a conservation ethic: less consumption, more living; fewer things, greater meaning; more experiences, less material hassles. The age of boundless consumption is over - we must drive, eat, house ourselves and otherwise live more simply and in harmony with the Earth.
It is difficult to hear truth that goes against your established way of
living. But your survival depends upon acting on the Earth's global
warning system as evident by Rita and Katrina.

Governments are failing their citizens. Leadership in a time of climate
crisis in particular means facing your biases - sifting and winnowing
the evidence to find the truth. Leadership is more than having an opinion.
It requires adapting to new scientific knowledge, doing what must be
done for the people and the Earth, even if it clashes with your rigid
worldview. It is essential that government aggressively and
immediately increase support for emission reductions, energy conservation and renewable energy development, as a matter of utmost urgency.

Even as we do everything possible to stabilize climate change at levels
where the Earth remains livable, it is time to start preparing for
climate change impacts. And we must do so without shifting toward
authoritarian government. In addition to obvious needs such as increasing financial support for civilian emergency response services, this will require major investments in restoration of natural ecosystems, relocating populationsfrom harms way, and restructuring the economy to sustainable use of natural capital.

Bottom line: according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will
raise global average temperatures by up to 5.8 degrees Celsius (10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. This will affect not only
weather patterns but also water resources, ecosystems and agriculture. As an individual, you can develop and trust your own ecological intuition
while being informed by thousands of leading scientists, or your can succumb to the vitriol of conservative pundits and a handful of oil industry
funded skeptics. Just be prepared to live - if conditions allow - with your
choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khyber



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i dunno about those links...i mean, it's something but it's not much..
from the NZ article:
Quote:
New Zealand¡¯s Southern Alps had gained much more ice than they had lost during the past glacier year
and
Quote:
Over the last three years, the glaciers have gained in mass, halting the declines seen between 1998 and 2002. This past year was the seventh largest gain since we started aerial surveys in 1977," said

so, gain MORE than they lost...well, that ain't saying VERY much.
and.
it's the "7th biggest gain since they've been taking measurements for the last 28 years...". Well, if they only had 7 years of gain, that ain't saying very much is it?
<unforunately, when i click on the niwa link, i can't read the page...>

Also, "Freak snow" doesn't equate to an "ice age"...it's "Freak". Growing up in alberta, we had at LEAST 6 times, snow in either of june july or august. I wouldn't say it really indicates anything..it's gone within two days.
Besides, it should be noted that "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer since technically, all that is REALLY happenning is that energy is being added to the cycle. While that USUALLY equates to warmer weather, it often simply means, exaggerations of normal precipitation loops.
Quote:
It¡¯s not global warming, it¡¯s ocean warming, and it¡¯s all part of the ice-age cycle.
this quote seems RE-tarded.
Since the ocean is part of the "globe" (and really WHERE is the heat to
warm the ocean coming from?)

some other quick stuff:
Quote:
Hydrothermal vents pumping 500-degree water into Arctic Ocean
big DEAL...they've been doing that for millions of years...how is that going to suddenly change?

The main argument is that it's a cycle....but this has ALSO been refuted by gajillions of scientists because these cycles are millenia long...the average global temperature has been going up (in conjunction with co2 levels...not saying there's a correlation) for the last couple hundred years.

I hate...and i mean HATE to play the part of rapier here but really, this site smells of oily fish.

But after all of that reading, i came upon this website.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?MerchantCode=CO2ScienceB2C&Page=Indexhere you go.
science...
and it's supposedly RABIDLY anti global warming.
it looks like i'll have to do a LOT more research to figure out what's really oging on..
[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
funplanet



Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Location: The new Bucheon!

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Al Gore (and several other politicians) said recently that Katrina was a result of the US not signing the Kyoto Treaty....

does he seriously believe that if the US had signed the treaty LAST YEAR it would have prevented the destructiveness of Katrina????? Rolling Eyes

He has definately gone over the top
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deessell



Joined: 08 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two words:


WEATHER WARFARE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
funplanet



Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Location: The new Bucheon!

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clinton ranted and raved about "the shrinking ice cover on Greenland."

1000 years ago there was no ice cover on Greenland...it was green and beautiful!

He went on to cry about the "retreating glaciers."

Failed to mention that glaciers are expanding in other parts of the world.

Cried about all the "carbon dioxide."

Carbon dioxide is plant fertilizer...they thrive on it!

there may be some negligible affects of man-made pollution, etc but this is nothing more than Mother Earth going through one of her cycles...just as she has done a thousand times in the past
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tiger Beer



Joined: 07 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, this topic again.

Hurricanes have been hitting the Gulf coast for millenniums.. its nothing new. Scientific knowledge has determined they come in 35-year cycles.. we've recently begun that now. During the first half of the last century, there were tons of extremely destructive hurricanes that hit.. and we've had a lull for the last 35-years comparitively.. and now its the beginning of the hard-hitting cycle once again.

Now with the Kyoto Protocal.. and ALL of those types of things.. its not required for any nation anywhere in the world to follow those things EXCEPT in the U.S. Its written into the U.S. constitution that they must change their laws to honor any type of treaty - and the Kyoto thing would have been that. But all the other 170+ countries that supposedly signed it, none of them have enacted any legislation whatsoever to do anything - and thats always the case with all of those international agreements.. and the only reason why its ONLY the U.S. that doesn't sign them (is because the US is the only country that its written into their legislature to honor them and change existing laws to enact them). No other country on earth has any commitment when they sign those. People act like its the Americans fault that all their own governments aren't doing anything about it. They need to take on their own responsibility. Emission standards and the like, the US is already quite high, which is why so many factory type work goes overseas and out of the US - because the environment laws are so strict already within US borders.

The other issue, is lets say the US did sign it with all the other nations on earth. What happens if a nation doesn't comply (and NONE of them currently do).. is it once again the responsibility of the US to 'go to war' or other unpopular sanctions to enforce it? and then of course could you imagine the international reaction on that? People are against bombing tyrants and terrorists.. could you imagine other nations reactions to the US bombing/sanctions because some poverty-stricken country's emission standards aren't up to par?

In other words, Kyoto had about ZERO chance of actually being implemented EVEN IF all the countries had a legislative system like the US where they forced themselves to comply to those types of treaty/agreements. In addition, the possibility of enforcing it (and how) would be a nightmare falling directly and squarely on the US again. You can be sure that France for example isn't going to enact any policy to not do business in Africa because their emission standards aren't up to snuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Summer Wine



Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River

PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Clinton ranted and raved about "the shrinking ice cover on Greenland."

1000 years ago there was no ice cover on Greenland...it was green and beautiful!


You are right and they were well prepared for those lush times, they didn't deal with the cool down too well. We on the other had have at least 1 - 2 3rds the world population living on the coast, in areas that will be flooded if the worlds seas rise. I don't read articles about how cities are being rezoned to higher grounds or that there is a shift from the coastal areas inland.

If we aren't preparing for the shift today then he is right to make an episode about it, if we say its in another 50 yrs and not to worry then we are condeming our future citizens to real problems. I don't feel that we should have to accept that. We the people today, need to adjust our ideas to make adjustments to changing conditions. How many storms like Katrina and Rita can the US weather without making changes. NO Mayor wants to rebuild in the same locale, does anyone else see a problem there?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EFLtrainer



Joined: 04 May 2005

PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:48 am    Post subject: Re: It's not Global Warming Reply with quote

BigBlackEquus wrote:
Looks like the evidence is stacking up against global warming. Although I'm all for cleaner air and controlling emissions, I don't buy the direct link to everything all of the time.


I would say the evidence is adding up for the tendency for nature to balance. Picking this glacier or that glacier as evidence is meaningless, as any fifth grade science student could tell you. What is important is the overall production and melting of continental ice.

I've not seen anything that strongly contradicts the idea that overall loss is occurring. If that is the case, and there is far more evidence for that claim than against it, we are in for higher water. Globally, overall, ice is melting. I'm sure the evidence will bear this out over time. The issue is: how much of it is due to human activity? The questions, it seems to me are: if it is happening, does it really matter why? Something needs to be done either to slow or stop the trend or to prepare for the results.

Second, if we are adding to the problem, i.e., magnifying it, can we slow, stop or reverse our impact?

Regarding number two, if we are augmenting the process, thus creating greater risk for ourselves, we canot wait to prove it, because it will be (probably already is) too late.

Third, whether a natural or mankind-augmented, is there a value to reversing it to minimize the overall effects? And if so, given that we don't know what long-tem results that would have, what to do?

Hmmm....

To me it is simple: waiting means loss and death. Period. The overall gains from creating a healthier world cannot be construed as a bad thing, so why not? Hell, toss aside global warming and it's still a good idea to do a major restructuring of our energy use. How many lives are affected by/lost due to the pollution we create?

It's a no-brainer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tiger Beer



Joined: 07 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Summer Wine wrote:
How many storms like Katrina and Rita can the US weather without making changes.

Yeah, but global warming doesn't cause typhoons/hurricanes. They've always hit the Gulf of Mexico well before there even was a 'Gulf of Mexico' as we've named that area now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

funplanet wrote:
Clinton ranted and raved about "the shrinking ice cover on Greenland."

1000 years ago there was no ice cover on Greenland...it was green and beautiful!


Really? Who told you that? Prove it.
"the Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. New evidence from offshore marine deposits suggests that Greenland had a partial ice cover as far back as seven million years ago (late Miocene)."
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec02/lec2.htm#greenland
"Even the Greenland ice sheet, which does still exist, is a comparative newcomer at seven million years old".
http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/archive/021898-2.html
If Greenland was such a lush paradise 1000 years back, why did the first settlers there 3000 years ago describe it as a frozen wasteland?
"Migrations of Inuit peoples into Greenland began about 3000 BC. In AD 982 Eric the Red, a Norwegian, sailed to Greenland and in 986 founded a colony (see Eric the Red). He called the frozen wasteland Greenland in order to encourage immigration."
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-201767?ct=
Sounds like a joke to me, haha. Lets call Canada the land of free money, I hear they need immigrants.


Quote:
He went on to cry about the "retreating glaciers."


They are retreating worldwide, at a frightening pace! Where are they growing exactly? Do feel free to prove it.

Greenland ice sheet retreating rapidly, causing severe problems for Inuit:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/12/greenland.arctic.thaw.ap/

Antarctic's ice 'melting faster'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm

Patagonian ice in rapid retreat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3662975.stm


Quote:
Failed to mention that glaciers are expanding in other parts of the world.

lets dispell another myth:Glaciers in new Zealand have retreated, not grown.
Franz Josef Glacier, located in New Zealand, retreated dramatically in the 20th century. The following photographs document the glacier's retreat over a 14 year period, from 1951-1964.
http://nsidc.org/glaciers/gallery/retreating.html


Quote:
Cried about all the "carbon dioxide."
Carbon dioxide is plant fertilizer...they thrive on it!


Plants have suffered mutations as a result, not thrived.
One of The unforeseen consequences of industrialisation has been the steady increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants have responded to this increase by having fewer stomata, the paired cells found mainly on the surface of leaves, that control the uptake and release of gases. Thus, over the past 200 years, the number of plant stomata has decreased in response to increasing CO2 levels.
The experiments also show that plants with a loss of function mutation in the HIC gene exhibit a large increase in this index when grown in higher concentrations of CO2. http://www.deqp.go.th/english/greendata/article/increasing%20co2.html
Not to mention coral reefs:
Increasing Carbon Dioxide Threatens Tropical Coral Reefs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990401190824.htm

Increasing destructive power of storms:
As the level of CO2 increases, cyclones tend to have a more vertically organised structure, which seems related to greater intensity, larger scale and greater depth of cyclones.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/84Annual/techprogram/paper_68477.htm

Quote:
there may be some negligible affects of man-made pollution, etc

Negligible? Dude i don't know where to begin...Higher temperatures threaten dangerous consequences: drought, disease, floods, lost ecosystems. And from sweltering heat to rising seas, global warming's effects have already begun.Global sea level has risen about an inch and a quarter in the past 10 years. etc etc. Read:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/27825/story.htm
We know for certain that carbon dioxide is increasing because of the burning of fossil fuels - the isotope signatures of atmospheric carbon confirm that. Its increase since the end of the industrial revolution has been about 30% (Fig 4). Also shown in fig 4 is that methane has approximately doubled since the industrial revolution, very much in line with the growth of human population.
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/houghton/lecture2.html
Why not just accept what the vast majority of scientists agree on?
The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

I know proof has no effect on what people choose to believe, and that you will select any piece of evidence to support what you want to believe:I can give you a hundred more links proving rapid climate change with undeniable correlations to human causes, and their disastrous effects.
but just for a moment consider your motivations for denying the reality of global warming.
political, misplaced American patriotism, dislike of the unfashionable image of environmentalism: unwillingness to change ones lifestyle: etc etc are all strong reasons people invent evidence that appears to disprove the link between the activity of 6 billion people and a worsening environment.
I doubt funplanet could tell the difference between a dolphin and a porpoise, a cirrus and a cumulo nimbous, or recognise the effects of pollution outside of his own front door. But only today i was on one of the western islands off incheon: dead birds strangled by fishing lines and plastic: Non native plants in monocultures all over the place; rivers concreted and diverted into lifeless trenches: unusual out of place sightings of birds that now appear too early or too late, etc etc. Its obvious to see the increasing effects of mans wholescale impact on the planet.
And there are consequences to this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International