[Growcephus]

Originally Posted by igrowone

there are events that just kind of beg to be noted, even if it's not popular with all
a new record low ice extent at the arctic sea, pics say a lot, it's not your daddy's climate any more
2-3 weeks more melting for the season, it could get extreme

Climate change has happened how many times throughout the life of our planet as we know it?

Multiple times.

There is no doubt in my mind that our climate WILL change, however, there is no legitimate evidence (from what I've read) that indicates HUMANS are capable of accelerating or slowing down the process.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the current scheme of using "carbon credits" is nothing more than a way to "legitimize" the further theft of private citizen funds in order to line the pockets of corrupt government dirtbags, and to buy votes. All in the name of "saving the environment".

[HempKat]

Originally Posted by Growcephus

Climate change has happened how many times throughout the life of our planet as we know it?

Multiple times.

There is no doubt in my mind that our climate WILL change, however, there is no legitimate evidence (from what I've read) that indicates HUMANS are capable of accelerating or slowing down the process.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the current scheme of using "carbon credits" is nothing more than a way to "legitimize" the further theft of private citizen funds in order to line the pockets of corrupt government dirtbags, and to buy votes. All in the name of "saving the environment".

Define legitimate evidence? Part of the problem is we haven't been around long enough to fully understand how these natural cycles that have caused climate change "many times", work. The best we can do is extrapolate a guess based on observations made on core samples. Now it's these same samples that establish that there has been climate change many times so it's fair to say it's legitimate evidence of climate change. Since we as a species have yet to see a full cycle the closest thing we can have as evidence are estimations and predictions. If the core samples contain solid evidence of this cycle then we can make a fairly solid guess on when changes should happen. Well they do and we have and things are happening approximately 20-30 years sooner then anticipated.

Given that we're dealing with something we've yet to fully experience and it's happening alot sooner then expected, that's about as close to legitimate evidence that man has accelerated things, as we are likely to ever get.

I agree that the whole carbon credit thing is riddiculous and a scam against people by the governments that are supposed to serve them. Be that as it may though, that does not mean we should just ignore all this global warming stuff and just hope it goes away. We as a people need to make some serious changes in how we look at and do things and not just because of global warming, that's just one of many problems we face if we just keep on going the way we've been going.

[trichrider]

a much bigger impact than coal-fired electric, or internal combustion exhaust would be the deterioration of habitat.
still it would be regarded as man-made.

natural cycle or not, there is nothing we can do beyond reducing population...(No!, i did not just advocate for population reduction!), so maybe we are being a bit silly arguing about someone driving a big fourwheel drive gas guzzler, or some kids who can't seem to shut off the lights...

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48850103...ience-science/

nature always seems to take care of itself. it's not mans place to dictate nature.

the methane sequestered under the ice and tundra came from previous warm periods. this may just be the start of another...so what? man probably wasn't ever a factor either!

take the quizz.

https://www.livescience.com/18834-wea...ange-quiz.html

[ClosetAdvocate]

Why only focus on the Arctic pole, we have two poles?

Total global polar sea ice extent is largely unchanged over the past 30 years
*When adding the sea ice volumes at both poles there is about the same ice as 30 years ago link. Antarctica has 90% of the world's ice and had the most sea ice ever recorded at the end of 2008, over one million square kilometers above the average maximum. The global sea ice extent today (combined sea ice at both Poles) is nearly the same as the average of the last 30 years according to NASA and NSIDC link link View today's Antarctic sea ice extent compared to the 1979-2007 average (National Snow and Ice Data Center) link link While it is true Arctic sea ice volumes have been overall slightly less today than the average of the last 30 years the ice there has been growing the past several years and as of mid September 2009 there was 24% more ice than just two years earlier, which is over 1 million square kilometers of new ice since 2007. There is also substantially more multi year ice in the Arctic in 2009 than just one year earlier link Antarctic sea ice extent in September 2009 is also growing and is 1 million square kilometers more than the previous year. In 2009 the Antarctic had the most Summer ice ever recorded link. View today's Arctic sea ice extent, NSIDC link DMI link

View todays Antarctic sea ice extent Univ. Illinois Cyrosphere link

2010 Antarctic ice extent was the third largest ever recorded. Average snowfall in Antarctica was the most ever recorded link

See current ice conditions in the Northern Hemisphere link and the Southern Hemisphere link

From: https://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

I think this topic is more complicated than many understand. Our meteorologists can't even predict weather patterns let alone our climatologists understand the cyclical rate of global cooling/heating patterns that have existed for easily thousands of years when they've only been tracking them for hundreds of years.

I'm putting my flame suit on for this one. Just pay attention to the political/economic agenda behind this whole "global climate change" push.

There's a lot to be gained politically/economically for what they are advocating. Smart meters, smart consumer electronics, chrony-capitalism favoritism for "green energy", "carbon credits", the demonization of the use of fossil fuels.

[trichrider]

consider the earth as a wheel.
sea ice is the balancing weight to keep it spinning properly.
with the sea ice balance out of whack (see above) the wheel will go out of balance and cause shuddering (earthquakes) or worse.
ever play with a gyroscope? funky things happen when you disturb centrifugal force.

poles have been shifting. could this be due the balancing load shifting?

sorry, got away from me....

[supermanlives]

face it this whole planet is on a path of self destruction. so many issues, pollution ,overpopulation mainly.glad i will be long dead before things get ugly. luckilly i get my ice from freezer rather than an iceberg.

[dagnabit]

Originally Posted by trichrider

consider the earth as a wheel.
sea ice is the balancing weight to keep it spinning properly.
with the sea ice balance out of whack (see above) the wheel will go out of balance and cause shuddering (earthquakes) or worse.
ever play with a gyroscope? funky things happen when you disturb centrifugal force.

poles have been shifting. could this be due the balancing load shifting?

sorry, got away from me....

Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
Dizzy with eternity.
Paint it with a skin of sky, brush in some clouds and sea
Call it home for you and me.
A peaceful place or so it looks from space
A closer look reveals the human race.
Full of hope, full of grace, is the human face.
But afraid, we may lay our home to waste.

(~):-)

[HempKat]

Well the thing about accepting the possibility of man's contribution to global warming is that it goes alot farther then the usual debates where the side believing man is a factor is percieved as wanting to implement cap and trade. I do think man contributes but in ways beyond just greenhouse gases and even though the green house gas thing may be overhyped there are other very real consequences and dangers to the amount of pollution via exhaust from our machinery, that we put into the air.

Population is perhaps the biggest factor because we are increasing at such a rate that maybe we're out pacing the earth's ability to shrug off our impact? Consider that we've been polluting the air for a long time and up until the mid 20th century it looked like the earth was handling it. Now here we are just a little more then a half century later and we have twice as many people doing the same things essentially and suddenly we see climate change sooner then anticipated. The real problem is the way civilization advanced. Some groups of people knew how to live harmoniously with their environment, like the indians of N. and S. America. Doing so thier environments were self sustaining and they didn't need to develope the means to conquer other people to take their resources after having used up thier own resources. Other people however turned out the opposite and eventually wiped out or enslaved the peoples that were more in balance with their environment. In this manner mankind advanced to how we are today and we've lost touch with how to live in harmony with nature.

[igrowone]

Originally Posted by ClosetAdvocate

Why only focus on the Arctic pole, we have two poles?

From: https://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

I think this topic is more complicated than many understand. Our meteorologists can't even predict weather patterns let alone our climatologists understand the cyclical rate of global cooling/heating patterns that have existed for easily thousands of years when they've only been tracking them for hundreds of years.

I'm putting my flame suit on for this one. Just pay attention to the political/economic agenda behind this whole "global climate change" push.

There's a lot to be gained politically/economically for what they are advocating. Smart meters, smart consumer electronics, chrony-capitalism favoritism for "green energy", "carbon credits", the demonization of the use of fossil fuels.

overall, this is a valid point, but it's also disingenuous
phrase it another way, if your house's attic is on fire, but the basement is fine, no problem?
the Antarctic contains the bulk of the ice, it tends to skew that measure
but to the point about the Antarctic acting differently than the Arctic, that is true, they're very different beasts
and if the Antarctic begins to melt/flow like the Arctic, there will be no argument and it will be time to head to higher ground

[ClosetAdvocate]

Originally Posted by igrowone

overall, this is a valid point, but it's also disingenuous
phrase it another way, if your house's attic is on fire, but the basement is fine, no problem?
the Antarctic contains the bulk of the ice, it tends to skew that measure
but to the point about the Antarctic acting differently than the Arctic, that is true, they're very different beasts
and if the Antarctic begins to melt/flow like the Arctic, there will be no argument and it will be time to head to higher ground

I understand your analogy, but it's a bad one.

Nobody wants their attic on fire whereas ice always melts. Ice has been melting in artic for thousands of years.

This only becomes an issue if there is a net loss of ice. The seas aren't going to be rising if there is no net loss of ice. Besides... I don't like NJ anyway. :LOL: