Friday, October 30, 2009

The Steady Loss of Sea Ice

Peter Sinclair is an environmentalist and his new video deals with recent sea ice observations, both from satellites and ground observation teams, showing that the area of melting in the northern polar cap is expanding dramatically. The ice that melts flows in one direction only, into the Atlantic Conveyor Belt system.

Related:

Climate change: The Global Conveyor Belt explained
Publicize or perish


9 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the more left liberals and 'greens' are, the more vocal they become about global warming? actually, that term has now been changed to climate change, so they don't lose face if time proves that we may actually be experiencing global cooling.
there is clearly a political agenda behind all this, which s to tax developed countries and send the proceeds to developing coutries- affirmative action o a global scale.
watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ
or just do a youtube search "glen beck global warming" to see a host of videos in which he says more than i can on this blog.

FishEagle said...

@ Anon, or alternatively:

"Getting a message through to an end destination involves the concept of signal to noise ratio.

With enough money, it is possible to increase the noise in public discourse enough to obsure the signal.

That appears to be the tactic of climate deniers and their fossil fuel industry funders - just create confusion, increase the level of noise in the system, and obscure the signal." Quoted from an anonymous comment.

Anonymous said...

Quote:”FishEagle said...
@ Anon, or alternatively:”

just because there are alternatives doesn’t mean that they are right. Remember that the ANC is also alternative.

From your response I gather that you didn’t bother to investigate the above links that substantiate my earlier post.
You preferred to label me a climate change denier, victim of oil baron propaganda.
That says a lot about your intellect.
You only got that partially right. I’m a “climate change due to human activity” sceptic.
More likely you were propagated by the ‘In the Name of Sciene’ thorists, selecteded carefully by Al Gore with his 300 M$ annual advertising budget.

Doberman said...

@ anon 12:47, I hear your arguments and you make sense. So does FE. I look at the whole debate this way. If climate change/global warming is real, just say it is, and it is man made, again let's just they are right, the consequences will be devastating. It's like people moving out of South Africa because of crime. We couldn't be 100% guaranteed that it would happen to us but enough people were being harmed by crime for us to take the precaution of leaving.

Taking precautions doesn't mean our chances of falling prey to crime is nil, it just becomes much, much lesser.

If the predictions come to pass, and the world weather pattern changes, it will be catastrophic and will wipe out most of life on earth. No god, nothing we humans possess will stop the destruction. Like Clint Eastwood says, how lucky do you feel? Remember, there's a 45 colt weather gun aimed at your face.

The risk is too great. It's like playing roulette with the planet. It won't cause a graze, it will be death.

If it's all fabricated, great, we have nothing to lose by stopping CO2 emissions anyway. It doesn't hurt to think that cutting back on harmful fossil fuel emissions is a good thing.

What we CAN control is how WE choose to make the changes to stop climate change by electing people who use sensible methods to curtail our habits which are self-destructive and unsustainable anyway. Something has to give and the more we get engaged and participate instead of denying, the less we leave these issues to the radicals who are leading the charge on what changes to make. We must get involved so that we moderates have a say on how the new order will look.

FishEagle said...

@ Anon, your habit of making conclusions about things without having facts, including my intellect, is obvious. The only one that seems to label people is you ('leftists' or 'in the name of science theorists'). I prefer to look at the arguments at hand and the scientists' arguments over ride all the opinions from journalists, politicians or conspiracy theorists. Scientists have to work with actual data and the rates at which changes have taken place in our natural environment, and specifically the climate, over the last century has not even been remotely normal.

If you have a problem with the way the world wants to solve this problem then say so. Argue the politics with logic and reason. Don't attack the actual phenomenon that has been observed. But instead you go and tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself, so that you can sleep better at night.

In that case, let the grown ups worry about the real issues.

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...

@Dobes, I agree that it is about weighing up the odds for people that don't have an understanding of the science. In the post 'Publish or Perish' the author highlighted the need for scientists to communicate their findings in a more efficient way to the general public so that people are able to make informed decisions.

@Anon, as an after thought, if we lived to tell about global cooling, I'd be seriously f*cking worried!!

Anonymous said...

@ Doberman, ty for hearing my argument. I agree that we should treat the planet better, and in no way do I propagate that we should pollute. But we are alive, thus pollute (CO2 and faeces). The real problem is that this planet is overpopulated due to meddling with Mother Nature. Modern medicine is largely responsible, but that’s beside the point.
Doberman, since you are in Aus, have a listen to this, since it is close to home.
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

@ FishEagle a habit has something to do with repeated behaviour. How can you deduce that from one comment? Or is my scientific illiteracy limiting me again? I have nothing to say to you, because your attitude sux. You are not my sergeant, and I am not your recruit.

FishEagle said...

@Anon, "Or is my scientific illiteracy limiting me again?"

Nice try! I'm not biting. And how can you expect my attitude to be great after you questioned my intellect? You need to be prepared to take what comes your way if you are going to be offensive. Don't run to mommy and cry about it. Gees, like.

If you can't have a decent argument without personal attacks, don't bother.