Antarctica is melting

[Japher]

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.

As well, to other people, it means that this climate change must be caused by man. Which has just as faulty logic.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
As well, to other people, it means that this climate change must be caused by man. Which has just as faulty logic.

Yes, the people who assume that climate change must be caused by man out of some unbacked logical claims are using faulty logic.

However, there are also tangible elements that show human involvement in the current climate-change. For once, the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases might be very small in comparison to what produces the rest of the biosphere, but it significantly offsets the balance between the greenhouses gases that the biosphere produces, and those that it absorbs. Because of mankind, there are more greenhouse gases going to the atmosphere than coming back to the biosphere (otherwise, there would actually be a slight loss of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).

More greenhouse gases = more heat trapped into Earth.

I we want to avoid an excessive climate change, we developed countries should strive to reduce our greenhouse gases emissions, especially in the light of Asia's rapid and polluting industrialization. To do this, there's no need to live like cavemen. Nuclear power, fuel-efficient cars, house isolation, household solar panels etc. all contribute to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases without a loss to our comfort (actually, I consider it much more comfortable to live in a country where cars are fuel-efficient. I stinks much less).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Winston
The proportional effects of the two on our climate are unknown. That's why it doesn't make sense when non-reflecting posters say "OMG! The ice is melting, we must vote for Hillary, sell the car and get bikes!"

Bikes

Hillary


Taking a risk averse approach to the consequences of CO2 buildup

[Lord Avalon]

Well, this seems to put the kibosh on the Antarctic telescope.
Telescopes 'worthless' by 2050

There are several concepts under consideration for the European ELT, but the preferred design seems to be converging on a telescope that is some 30-60m in diameter.

A location has not been decided; but, despite the difficulties of access, Antarctica may become an option. The icy region has relatively clear skies, with a climate that is somewhat separate from other continents, and, crucially, is free from overflying commercial jets.

As far as Atlantis & Antarctica, Dirk Pitt found ruins buried under the ice in Clive Cussler's Atlantis Found, and on "Stargate SG-1" Col. O'Neill found an outpost of the Ancients complete with planetary defense (ZPM not included).

[chequita guevara]

Berserker's argument runs thusly. Death is part of the natural cycle of things. Murder is just another cause of death, and we can't know that the person that was murdered, wouldn't have had a heart attack or been struck by a car in the following moments. Thus, it is pointless to do anything about murder.

[chequita guevara]

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.

I would suggest the evidence doesn't support this. One, the temperature began dropping fifty years before the plague, and is much more likely the cause of the plague (it always appears in periods of cooling because of how the bacteria reacts to coller temperatures). Next, if I'm correct, the little Ice Age itself didn't occur for another few hundred years, by which time the world's population had more than recovered.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
The proportional effects of the two on our climate are unknown. That's why it doesn't make sense when non-reflecting posters say "OMG! The ice is melting, we must vote for Hillary, sell the car and get bikes!"

Put a bullet in a revolover and leave the rest of the chambers empty. Spin the chambers. Then point the gun at your head and pull the trigger. We have no idea what the consequences of that action will be, but the possibility that you could die or give yourself brain damage should outway the rush you get from pulling the trigger and not hitting the bullet.

We don't know what the effect will be, or how great it will be. However, we have a reasonable belief that we are effecting the system and one of the possible outcomes is an ice age (due to thermal conveyor shutdown).

No ecosystem, no economy. It's that ****ing simple.

[Berzerker]

Odin

Ah yes, Berz's "Man's activities can't possibly change the climate, so it must be natural" wacked out logic.

Why did you put quotes in there? Quote me, dont "quote" yourself and act like you're quoting me.

The small cyclilic changes of the current interglacial are puny compared to the curent warming.

All interglacials end with higher temperatures, we're near that peak. And you're wrong, swings within the interglacial are not puny in comparison. Furthermore, the big news recently was that CO2 levels are higher now than they had been for 4-650,000 years depending on which report you want. Umm...CO2 levels were higher back then? I thought you said they had never been higher.

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.

The North Atlantic is more susceptible to cold snaps, and it rebounds faster too. What is your point? Man neither caused the little ice age or the warm period before it. Natural variations you dismiss as less important than man caused both.

Spiffor

BAM.

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

You need actual data to prove man did not cause an ice age or global warming 100,000 years ago? Google ice cores if you want data to prove the obvious.

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

You need me to post data showing man did not cause global warming or ice ages in the distant past?

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

Huh? Where did I say that? I'm hoping man can alter climate by pouring gases into the atmosphere, cuz according to the cycle we're headed for another cold snap.

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.

Man is unnatural? Where did I say it was impossible for man to alter the climate? Use quotes and keep 'em in context.

Sandman

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

Is it scientifically possible a large object passing near the poles could cause a tidal movement disrupting the Antarctic ice shelf. If the moon orbited the poles the tidal motion would inhibit the growth of ice shelves. Marduk need not exist for this to be true... so try to stick to the subject being debated.

[Japher]

For once, the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases might be very small in comparison to what produces the rest of the biosphere, but it significantly offsets the balance between the greenhouses gases that the biosphere produces, and those that it absorbs. Because of mankind, there are more greenhouse gases going to the atmosphere than coming back to the biosphere (otherwise, there would actually be a slight loss of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).

True enough. Still, without a control, you can say with certainty that our actions are increasing the rate at which the ice caps are melting. you say

More greenhouse gases = more heat trapped into Earth.

However, is it our increase in greenhouse gases that is leading to the significant increase in heat trapped? If we completely stopped producing greenhouse gases and replanted all the trees we tore out how would the rate be effected? What if we never produced those gases and never tore out the trees would the caps not be melting?

Brush fires occur even without the help of humans. Still, a cigarette may cause a few, but many are natures way of keeping the balance.

We have no control. We know the effect occurs, but basing a cause to that effect off of a such a very very small sample size is paranoi... even if it is true

[chequita guevara]

You enjoy Russian roulette, Japher?

[Japher]

As long as I'm loading the gun

The gun will go off... we're just arguing how many bullets are in the gun without having a way of telling

[chequita guevara]

You enjoy Russian roulette???

[Japher]

Do you use your air conditioner? Fridge? Electricity?

The benefits can be calculated
The cost cannot

Does that mean we should not accept the deal?

what is the risk?

[chequita guevara]

I try and minimize my electrical usage though, and not just because I want a lower electric bill.

[Japher]

The costs of comforts that produce large environmental impacts are paid by everyone because of industry. Your efforts are pointless and it is unfair of me to acuse your usage as a means to my ends.