Arctic ice 'disappearing fast'

[cal04]

The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.
They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century. The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible. They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.

"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado. "It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.

September lows
September is the month when the Arctic ice usually reaches a minimum. The new data shows that on 19 September, the area covered by ice fell to 5.35 million sq km (2.01 million sq miles), the lowest recorded since 1978, when satellite records became available; it is now 20% less than the 1978-2000 average.

The current rate of shrinkage they calculate at 8% per decade; at this rate there may be no ice at all during the summer of 2060. An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s. Mark Serreze believes that the findings are evidence of climate change induced by human activities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm

[Amonester]

1. Poor little polar bears and "friends" are doomed. :-( - eom

:cry:

Edit: smily changed to :cry:

[rodeodance]

3. head a Rep. just this am on House floor blast 'global warming"

[gulfcoastliberal]

14. Fools - dooming their kids

And their kids kids, should they be that lucky. Makes me glad I'm one of those childless people. I'd be worried about what kind of world they'll be getting with our corporate run govt. And I don't see that changing anytime soon, seeing as how even the dems refuse to challenge corporate made e-voting machines in any meaningful way. Oh well.

[roguevalley]

39. here in alaska it is very warm. the trees still have their leaves and

it only gets a bit colder at night. Very strange. We should have frozen ground by now and shirtsleeve should not be a common thing.

[BobRossi]

2. ABC ran this last night

Can't understand why reich wingers think this is no big deal.

[Julius Civitatus]

69. Because they like to drive their Hummers without guilt

Nothing can stand in the way of their god-given right to pillage the earth's resources for their wasteful enjoyment.

[Demeter]

4. Maybe THAT'S Why Bush Sent the FEMA Ice Trucks to Maine

I am slightly desperate for anything he does to have some sensible meaning... it's an obssession, I know.

[Up2Late]

12. Yeah, he must think it's like a big "kegger"

They are going to dump all the ice in the sea to try to cool it down.

[Sabriel]

5. NPR had a report this a.m.

Helllloooooooo! The ice packs are melting! The scientist interviewed predicted it will only last another few decades. I fear for my children.

Bob Dylan had it right: "The fear to bring children into this world."

[leftchick]

8. 80 years max...

:cry: I fear for my babies as well...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. fear for yourself. That muck is perfect for hordes of insects

Flying ones in particular. They will form huge clouds of attacking bugs and ravage places to the south. Like Canada and the US.

There is NO good news from this.

[blackhorse]

6. Interestingly,

... the BBC article did not mention thermohaline collapse. One would think this process would be greatly accelerated as so much fresh water is released into the North Atlantic ocean.

Bye, Gulf Stream. You were a great global mechanism to move heat to the upper reaches of the northern hemisphere.

Cheers

BH

[reprobate]

30. Europe and the eastern US will suffer most from this when the atlantic....

....converyor cuts off. It's the only factor that has kept us temparate. Without it winter will begin in September and end in August.

Bye bye world. Bye bye humanity. But best of all, bye bye republicans.

[Delphinus]

41. They parcel out the stories

that way not too much doom and gloom in one place. It's a jigsaw puzzle, a piece here, a piece there.

Sunday past I watched The Day After (the movie about the North being frozen). I think a lot of the information in there was accurate - maybe not that it would happen in that manner, or you could survive a tidal wave in the top of a building in New York City, but the hard core things of science were pretty much right on.

[bananas]

7. Complete press release

with link to html and pdf with charts and graphs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x31796

[hatrack]

13. Thanks for the cross-link, Bananas!

:toast:

[htuttle]

9. Greenland is going to melt first causing sea levels to rise about 20 ft

Then you can say goodbye to much of passes for human civilization.

How many major coastal cities are below 20 ft above sea level? Most of them. I think something like half of humanity lives less than 20 feet above sea level.

New Orleans was only the first city to be lost.

[blackhorse]

11. As we recall what a goat-screw the response to the two hurricanes was,

... it is clear that we are COMPLETELY unprepared for such overwhelmingly huge disasters.

First, too much water. Then, the water will recede as things start freezing again. The wars that will be ignited by these changes will make the 20th Century look idyllic by comparison.

Guess I'm not much of an optimist.

Cheers

BH

[emMingo]

21. Wait a Sec...

If the ice melts, the water level doesn't rise. Ice is simply water in a frozen state. When it melts, its still the same amount of water, just in a liquid state. Anyone who has ever seen ice melt in a glass is aware of this. The amount of water in the glass doesn't change when the ice melts. There won't be any disasterous floods, unless you happen to be one of those crazy Bible literalists who believe that's how the world will end.

[achtung_circus]

22. That is true(ish) for pack ice.

There are qualifiers.

It does not hold true for the vast quantities of water currently held as ice above present sea level. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps come to mind.

[Stuckinthebush]

24. True...but the ice that is melting

that will cause the greatest problems is on land. As the ice melts, the water runs off into the oceans.

If we were just talking about big frozen ice burgs, you would be correct because the displacement is the same.

Another very serious problem is infusion of so much fresh water into the salty oceans.

[tatertop]

37. I never even thought of that

[raccoon]

68. What would that do?

"Another very serious problem is infusion of so much fresh water into the salty oceans. "

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. At worst, cut of the flow of warm water to north-western Europe

changing the climate of Britain to that of Labrador, which is at the same latitude.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml

[raccoon]

73. that was a good article. Thanks for the link. nt

[blackhorse]

32. I was thinking more ...

of the ice that is currently attached to land masses melting, or rather, that is the example I recalled from an article about Antarctic ice melting. Your point about the floating ice is interesting though.

At any rate, it will be a thoroughly unpleasant situation.

Cheers

BH

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. Amount doesn't change, but it goes from land to sea

Melting icecaps are above sealevel. As they melt, their water gets added to the sea. Sea levels rise. What part don't you get?

[rayofreason]

56. No, You don't get it.

When sea ice melts the water level doesn't rise.

An floating object displaces a volume of water equal whose weight is equal to the weight of the floating object (where "weight" is the downward force of its mass times the local gravitational acceleration). When the object changes density, such as going from less dense (ice) to more dense (water), the mass of the object does not change, therefore the amount of water displaced does not change, unless the density of the object becomes greater then water - in that case the object sinks and less water is displaced.

So when sea ice melts, the amount of water displaced by the sea ice does not change and the water level does not change either.

Basic physics, but not obvious, even to students who have had a year of introductory calculus-based physics at the university level.

[0007]

50. Maybe your spiritual teacher could draw you a picture?

Namaste

[hatrack]

58. Thermal expansion of water also accounts for some sea-level rise

Since water expands when heated, a given mass of water at 90F takes up more space than the same mass of water at 60F.

The overall increases in sea water temperatures are part of the phenomenon of rising sea levels, though their role is substantially smaller than that of melting grounded glaciers and ice sheets.

[nashville_brook]

10. no ice at all by 2060? my intuition says there will be PLENTY of ice

in places we don't want it -- like Cleveland.

the system isn't linear. it will trigger a rapid "correction."

Day After Tomorrow, anyone?

[Gregorian]

15. Sorry. It's still not a crisis yet.

"It's just another iceage." I'm still in shock after hearing someone I know say that. We both have degrees in engineering. That doesn't mean we're smart. But it does mean we are supposed to know fact from fiction. He evidently has a republican for a father, who's pumping him full of shit. This guy was a Democrat when we were in college in the 80's. Now he's picking and chosing which "facts" he wants to believe. He has chosen to deem the most outrageous studies factual. But yet the overwhelming majority of scientists all agree that we are headed for disaster. This guy says, it's just another iceage. The climate has always done this.

I'm only posting this because we are out of time. And yet people are still goofing around. There's another issue that's even bigger than this, but it's over. People didn't take responsibility for it. But we have this last ditch effort to take, or we sink. And people are just playing political games with this. Not to mention the lack of attention it's getting in the mainstream.

Right now, in my opinion, we must immediately begin spending our time and energy and resources on building solar energy conversion systems. We don't have time to goof around looking for other ways to do this. Nuclear might even be one solution. But I don't like the thought of poisons that last for a billion years, and Chernobyls all over the place.

bla, bla, bla. ... to be continued. I'm out of time. Got a life.

[Sialia]

23. Ice Ages

It's certainly true that there have been ice ages in the past, and may well be in the future with or without anthropogenic influences, but the human lifestyle was certainly nothing like what we'd now call "civilization" (such as it is) during the last ice age. It just so happens that the agriculture on which our way of life absolutely depends started to develop around the beginning of the current interglacial period (the Holocene, consisting of about the last 10,000 years). Some people don't think that's a coincidence....

[Gregorian]

26. Noone said it would last forever.

Now I'm realizing, again, that even if we did behave ourselves and live with the ecosystem and not against it, we would face disasters. So it's not unexpected.

My argument has been what I think you alluded to. And that is to those who say it's just another ice age, I say this time there's passengers. Terribly short sighted to just say it's ok because it happened before.

But we have used internal combustion, and other "artificial" methods, to boost ourselves way above the level of sustainability. We should expect disaster. That is it in a nutshell, I think. Too many people, and all dependent. Ripe for catastrophe.

I'm really glad to see new people on the forum. Sadly, it's highly addictive. Welcome aboard.

[Delphinus]

53. Gregorian,

this part of your statement, Too many people, and all dependent. Ripe for catastrophe. really resonates with me. That kept running through my head when I watched the clusterfuck of Katrina and then again when Rita forced Houston to evacuate and nothing went smoothly there.

Sad to say, but we have used up far more than we should have. Jared Diamond's latest book, "Collapse" (can't remember the subtitle verbatim) talks about this at length.

[hogwyld]

16. Don't worry..be happy

That's *'s philosophy. Frickin' idiot probably has a plan to reverse the global warming. Nuke Iran and N. Korea. Presto chango, Nuclear winter!

[MADem]

34. Chumpy said he does not give a shit about his place in history

because he won't be around to read it.

This, from a history major.

Gotta wonder how Woodward kept a straight face....

[Up2Late]

17. (Here's some good news) Ice explorer readies for launch (BBC News)

(I posted this a few days ago at the link below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1806906&mesg_id=1806906

Ice explorer readies for launch

By Helen Briggs
BBC News science reporter, Plesetsk

Europe's Cryosat spacecraft is about to launch on a three-year mission to study the Earth's ice caps.

Monday, 26 September 2005, 17:02 GMT 18:02 UK


Cryosat has the task of filling in the data gaps

The satellite's main objective is to test and quantify the prediction that global warming is causing ice to thin at the poles. Scientists hope the data will give a clearer picture of the impact of rising temperatures on ice and, ultimately, global sea levels.

Climate models suggest that as the Earth gets warmer, the planet's ice cover will shrink. But while there are already some signs this is under way, scientists want conclusive evidence.

Last stages

The satellite is currently in the final stages of preparation at its launch site, the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northern Russia.

Blast-off is set for 8 October on a modified intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) agreed in the early 1990s, Russia is "destroying" some of its ICBMs by using them to place satellites in orbit. On Friday, engineers finished final tests and attached the satellite to the upper part of its rocket, a newly built Breeze module.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4282420.stm >
(more at link above)

[Inland]

18. It's five minutes past midnight. nt

[tom_paine]

20. Yep. Point of No Return has been passed

And in Amerika, we re-fight WWII, with Busheviks as the Nazis this time around.

It seems clear, humanity is in for some 'bad times'.

[tex-wyo-dem]

25. Unquestionably the most important issue of our times...

and for the times of our children and our children's children and so on...

This is a true test for all the human race -- whether we can keep our one and only home livable and adjust the way we sustain ourselves in order to assure our own survival, much less the survival of as many other living species that we share this planet with as possible.

The problem is that the biggest culprit in promoting this catastrophe has "leaders" who don't care, see this as "junk science" and see measures to combat global warming as nothing more than roadblocks to fattening their already corpulent pockets.

The environment is well and truly fucked.

[tinrobot]

27. Sadly, the remaining ice will melt even faster

Ice reflects 90% of the sun's heat.

Water absorbs 90% of the sun's heat.

The more water there is, the more heat is absorbed and the faster the remaining ice will melt.

[Squatch]

28. Well, it *was* just summer.

:hide:

[Viking12]

29. How does Congress respond?

They invite Michael Crichton to testify as an expert witness :wtf: :eyes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=31692&mesg_id=31692

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Oh great - coming soon

JK Rowling on the crisis in today's schools
Tim LaHaye on transportation (personal one-way aviation)
Stephen King on cemetary management

[tex-wyo-dem]

63. No shit....Michael Crichton?....who would have thunk?

Outside Magazine (May 2005):

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200505/counter-enviroment-power-list-1.html

Earth Shakers: The Counter-Enviro Power List
With "the death of environmentalism" being debated across the land—and with the mainstream movement under siege from without and within—it's time to meet the winning side in America's new green wars. Here they come, ready or not: the 20 most powerful voices leading the environmental counterrevolution.

<snip>

Michael Crichton:

The 62-year-old author of stunningly successful novels like Jurassic Park, Crichton is a master at using science as a springboard for blockbusters, which is one of the reasons environmentalists have been so distressed by his latest bestseller, State of Fear. Weighing in at 603 pages, the novel is a relentless diatribe against the environmental movement, featuring nefarious, grant-hungry greenies who conspire to create deadly natural disasters just to fool the world into believing that global warming is a threat. To reinforce his view that climate-change theories are hokum, Crichton laced the book with graphs, appendixes, and footnotes from scientific journals.

A number of scientists have charged that Crichton often misinterprets data, cites questionable studies, and overlooks the consensus of the overwhelming majority of climatologists: that global warming is a serious threat. Several leading authorities—including NASA climatologist James Hansen and NYU physics professor Martin Hoffert—have said Crichton distorted their research in his work. "Crichton is not a scientist, who would examine evidence evenhandedly to get at the truth," Hansen says. "He is a scientific fraud and a charlatan."

The flak didn't stop more than 570,000 Americans from buying State of Fear—and perhaps buying its message as well—in its first three months. As one Amazon.com online reviewer notes, "You can laboriously read tomes on the science or you can give yourself a break and read Crichton to get enough to fortify or enlighten the non-scientific mind."

SOUND BITE: In a 2003 speech in San Francisco, Crichton called environmentalism "the religion of choice for urban atheists."

NEXT UP: Though the Chicago-born Crichton is not a scientist—he graduated from Harvard Medical School but never practiced—he now lectures about "Science Policy in the 21st Century" before influential outfits like the National Press Club. His thrust: decrying the poor quality of research on which environmental policy is based.

<snip>

[shavedape]

33. global warming, what global warming

we dont see no stinkin global warning

[Amonester]

35. Yep. And the Titanic IS unsinkable too. Period.

:scared: :sarcasm:

[TX-RAT]

36. Hasn't this happen before?

[Kashka-Kat]

38. yeah, a MILLION years ago

the artic has not had open water and ice-free summers since a million years ago -- this is something different/more extreme than the fluctuations of warming/cooling related to the ice ages of the last 100,000 yrs.

http://paos.colorado.edu/~dcn/index.php

[Blue_Tires]

42. well, many politicians aren't convinced about evolution

so try explaining something really complex like climate change to them, and expect them to do something about it

[Rex]

43. Corpbot reporters say only 1% of reality is represented by them.

99% seems to make them mad so they ignore it. We're fucked.

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. Recommended. Ignoring this and blocking efforts to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions are just one of the murderous scandals of the Bush Administration. There is nothing they've touched that HASN'T resulted in devastation.

[ModerateDem05]

45. Not sure I buy this

I don't doubt there is some global warming caused by human activities, and it may have some effect, say like more hurricanes. But it seems to me that the data on how much effect and whether there is really a crisis seems pretty slim. I think some of these folks are crying wolf.

[lakeguy]

46. yup, ~99% of the scientists on the topic are crying "wolf".

maybe we should just wait and see, that sounds good.

[ModerateDem05]

You are so misinformed

99% of the scientists aren't saying there is a global crisis because of warming. They may all agree that there is global warming but they aren't sure of teh cause or effect.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia.

The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", most prominently the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly contested political and public debate exists over what actions, if any, should be taken in light of global warming.

Based on the climate models referenced by the IPCC, temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100 <1>. This is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Such changes may increase extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes, reduce agricultural yields, or cause biological extinctions. Although warming is expected to affect the frequency and magnitude of these events, it is very difficult to connect any particular event to global warming.

[ModerateDem05]

47. Dupe

[lakeguy]

51. ??? you just proved my point, though no actual %s are given

and i was just roughing it to say 99%. to quote your article...

"most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

"a SMALL MINORITY (caps mine) of qualified (working or paid by who?) contest the view..."

what is a "small minority"...is it 2 scientists, maybe 4, who knows?

"Based on the climate models referenced by the IPCC, temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100 <1>. This is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation."

nope, no global catastrophe/crisis here, unless you're one of the billions that will be affected by rising sea waters or flooding.

of course uncertainties exist because we don't know everything. that's what models are for (and i don't like most of THEM).

the temp of the earth changes all the time...it's the extent of the changes and the increase in CO2 that have been so extreme in the last 5 decades or so that are cause for alarm, as noted in your reference.

[lakeguy]

48. another thing, why is there such a push against cutting emissions

derived from fossil fuels anyway? it's not like oil will last forever. we're looking at hitting peak oil any time from as early as now to maybe up to 40 years down the road. that's nothing, either way. if we start converting to alternatives now, wouldn't the US be able to stay at the "top" economically once oil prices really start to climb? it's going to take decades to change/develop the energy distribution system anyway. we are already behind...many coutries are up to 20% alternatives now. it didn't happen overnight. what are we at, 0.2%?

it's good environmentally and for business, in the long run. so, why the backlash from the rethugs and *ush?

oh yeah, i forgot who donates millions of dollars to rethugs (and some dems too) and who decides our national energy policy behind closed doors with cheney. it's all about profits. once oil is at a shortage worldwide, they will be able to charge whatever price they want. and America will have to pay. not everyone in America, just the unlucky 98% of us at the bottom. and all the iraqis and other unlucky nations we will try to invade to control the rest of the oil.

i know what will solve everything, give the oil corps BILLIONS of dollars of our taxes as subsidies while they are making record profits...that will fix everything.

rant off/

[ModerateDem05]

49. Oil companies are evil

[lakeguy]

52. is it evil to want to be profitable?

that's a whole other debate.

[ModerateDem05]

57. The steps oil companies take to make a profit is what makes them evil

[Nihil]

54. Say what?

> ... it may have some effect ...
> ... and whether there is really a crisis ...
> ... I think some of these folks are crying wolf.

:wow:

The only context in which your comment could possibly make sense
is the geological one - i.e., shit happens to the planet from time
to time but there will always be something left.

From any kind of humanitarian perspective, there is a crisis.
From the point of view of most living creatures, there is a crisis.
From an economic viewpoint (national or global), there is a crisis.

If you can't make the connections, please feel free to turn back to
Fox News and continue to ignore the real world.

[Jim__]

55. What exactly is it that you don't buy?

From the opening of the thread:

"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado. "It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.

You don't buy that there is less and less Artic ice each summer? You don't buy that this is most likely Global Warming?

As for your statement: I don't doubt there is some global warming caused by human activities, and it may have some effect, say like more hurricanes

And maybe more severe hurricanes? Say like 2 category 5 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in a one month period. Do you buy that? Is that "some effect"? Should we wait and see what other effects there might be?

Some more effects like the potential ones in the report you cited: This is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Such changes may increase extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes, reduce agricultural yields, or cause biological extinctions.

Biological extinctions? Should we wait and see what those are? After all, we wouldn't want to over react. Are you sure it'll be OK to under-react?

[SeekerofTruth]

65. Yes, people need to study history, Greenland is called green

for a reason. 1000 years ago, Greenland was green from global warming. The earth has warmed and cooled for 4 billion years, kind of small minded of us to think our 100 years of human activity is going to change that.

Until we know what causes warming and cooling, we should study it. Not go on witch hunts based upon speculation or possibilities.

This doesn't mean we ignore pollution and green house gases, (we do need to breathe) but to say it's humananity causing this doesn't explain the last 4 billion years.

[Dr.Phool]

59. Arctic Ice Melting Faster as Temperatures Climb.

Arctic ice melting faster as temperatures climb
'Best answer is warming,' say researchers, who predict trend to
Updated: 8:39 a.m. ET Sept. 29, 2005

New satellite observations show that sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster while air temperatures in the region are rising sharply, scientists say.

Since 2002, satellite data have revealed unusually early springtime melting in areas north of Siberia and Alaska. Now the melting trend has spread throughout the Arctic, according to a national collaboration of scientists.

The latest observations through September show that melting in 2005 began a record 17 days earlier than usual.

(snip)
much more

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/

[maxsolomon]

60. the fabled northwest passage now exists!

see how smart humans are? now we can fill the panama canal back in.

[hogwyld]

61. Question

I know our industrial complex emits CO2 as well as all our SUV's and such. My question is how much CO2 are 6 BILLION people exhaling every year? How about all of the livestock used to feed these people? We really need to get control of the population, or all the hybrid cars in the world aren't going to make a difference IMO.

[MarsThe Cat]

64. the real problem with livestock is the methane-

produced in their shit. methane's effect is much worse than co2.

[mccoyn]

67. Look into that comparison.

You can get a good conversion here:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm

"2000 Calorie = 0.0635519 gallon of automotive gasoline"

So, for a person with a 2000 calorie diet it will take them about 15 days to burn through the same amount of energy that is stored in automotive fuel. Moving a 200 pound body around takes much less energy than moving a 2000 pound vehicle around. Thus, we produce much less CO2.

Another point, the food we eat gets its carbon from the atmosphere and energy from the sun. The gas our cars burn gets its carbon and energy from oil that has been stored for millions of years. Thus, burning gas moves carbon from underground repositories into the atmosphere, but eating food does not.

Both are potential problems, but one is much worse than the other.

[bamacrat]

62. GLOBAL WARMING IN EFFECT

Two big hurricanes less than a month apart, tornados, melting glacial ice, but wait global warming is only a theory. HA

[SeekerofTruth]

66. No, global warming caused by humans, is the theory

global warming and cooling has been occurring for 4 billion years.

Nobody disagrees that the earth is warming, what people don't agree on is what is the primary reason for it.

It's been shown that the Sun is increasing in activity and is causing warming. Greenland is called green because 1000 years ago, it was green. This was also caused by global warming. Were humans the cause back then?

[goodhue]

71. Not just theory, it is reality

Even the fossil fuel industry has largely backed down from disputing the human causation. Rather, the line now is that it may be a good thing, more trees, more productivity etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. 0.4 degrees C warming due to man, 0.1 degrees due to natural causes

according to the largest collection of climate scientists the world has ever seen (the IPCC). The number of scientists who disagree with this is tiny.

Greenland was called 'green' to encourage settlers to move there. Note that they'd already used the name 'Iceland', and they needed to give people a reason to go further.