Antarctica is melting

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yeah, in that Michael Crichton book, he says that one side of the Antarctic is melting, and the other side is gaining ice just as quickly as the ice loss.

[Senethro]

I wouldn't put too much faith in the scientific value of Chrichton's work.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

except that he sited it from somewhere.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Yeah, in that Michael Crichton book, he says that one side of the Antarctic is melting, and the other side is gaining ice just as quickly as the ice loss.

That is what most scientists though until this stuff came out. Chrichton's FOS anyway, he thinks global warming is a conspiracy by climatologists to get funding.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker


More powerful than the sun? Ocean currents? Axial tilt? Orbital eccenticity? Volcanic activity? Jet stream fluctuations?

More powerful than all those save the sun, axial tilt and orbital eccentricity, period. More powerful than the variability in the those three.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
the arrogance of man

Wait a minute. Why can't the human race accomplish similar things to the various intergalactic beasties and boglins that you believe in? It's all science, isn't it?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Vince278
Lets nuke the ice cap.

India might already have such a plan of action.

[Berzerker]

More powerful than all those save the sun, axial tilt and orbital eccentricity, period. More powerful than the variability in the those three.

You dont have a clue, but now you know man is more powerful than the variations we've identified as influencing past climate change? Did man cause the mini-ice age? No, variations in solar and volcanic output are the likely culprits. Did man produce the cycle of climate change we see in the ice cores? No, did you just make that up? Yes...

Why can't the human race accomplish similar things to the various intergalactic beasties and boglins that you believe in? It's all science, isn't it?

We're talking about climate and the factors driving it, not "intergalactic beasties and boglins".

[Odin]

Ah yes, Berz's "Man's activities can't possibly change the climate, so it must be natural" wacked out logic. . The small cyclilic changes of the current interglacial are puny compared to the curent warming. The effects of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were mostly concentrated in the North Atlantic region, the effects were quite small elsewere (indeed, some climatologists are now disputing whether the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon at all); the current warming is a whole different beast.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Did man produce the cycle of climate change we see in the ice cores? No

BAM.

Provide data to back your claims. Not a logical argument, but actual data.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
We're talking about climate and the factors driving it, not "intergalactic beasties and boglins".

If Marduk or whoever could shift planets about or blow them up, then presumably altering the climate should be scientifically possible too. No?

[Dauphin]

I read an article recently that said man did cause the little Ice Age in the middle ages, or rather the black death did. Greatly reduced human population and hence reduced activity on the land meant reforestation of previously cleared lands, and thus reduction in CO2 levels and a drop in temperatures.

Believable? I highly doubt its true, but it was an interesting enough read - if nothing else it makes you think about unconventional ideas.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Provide data to back your claims. Not a logical argument, but actual data.

Asking for the impossible is fun!

[germanos]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I read an article recently that said man did cause the little Ice Age in the middle ages, or rather the black death did. Greatly reduced human population and hence reduced activity on the land meant reforestation of previously cleared lands, and thus reduction in CO2 levels and a drop in temperatures.

Believable? I highly doubt its true, but it was an interesting enough read - if nothing else it makes you think about unconventional ideas.

I was about to post the same.
Allthough from what I gathered from the article is that re-forestation because of the plague was a factor contributing to the little-ace age and not a trigger on its own.

If this hypothetis is true however, it does show the impact of mankind on the environment.


I'm convincened that our CO2 emissions have a profound impact on the global environment. Just like I'm convinced that smoking will reduce my lifespan.
My grandfacther did reach the blessed aged of 92 while smoking sigars though.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Asking for the impossible is fun!

Well, then, maybe he shouldn't be BAMming.

His entire argument lies on the idea:
1. previous climate changes have occured naturally
2. Therefore the current climate change MUST occur naturally.

This logic is completely faulty. The natural climate changes prove that a climate-change can happen naturally, something that nobody in this thread denies. To Berz, however, it proves that a climate-change must happen naturally, which is an amazingly absurd conclusion.