So like, Anartica broke and stuff...

[Iron Archer]

Pat Sajak ownz u all

A Solution to Man-Made Global Warming
by Pat Sajak

There are apparently tens of millions of people around the world who are convinced global warming is real, and mankind (particularly American mankind) is responsible. Further, they believe utterly catastrophic results are imminent unless we drastically alter our lifestyles -- and soon. These alterations include the things we eat, our transportation, our daily work and leisure habits, and even the number of children we should have. The problem is there are also tens of millions of people around the world who are skeptical of this theory, and, despite one side’s claims the debate is settled, a significant and growing number of climate experts keep challenging their conclusions.

So, those who believe disaster is around the corner face a dilemma: while they’re educating their fellow citizens and demanding governments regulate believers and non-believers alike, the problem continues, and the date of the world’s doom draws ever closer. But there is a solution. It’s relatively simple, can begin immediately, and will change the dynamics of global warming overnight. Instead of continuing to preach to the rest of us, the true believers need to step forward and set an example. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles; I’m talking about giving up cars and moving into smaller houses or apartments, or even forming communes where people can live simpler, more Earth-friendly lives. Yes, I’m talking about living the kinds of lives they want all of us to live.

Such a movement could literally start tomorrow. It would need a leader, of course; someone who could inspire others to choose a more spartan lifestyle. The obvious choice would be Al Gore, who already has a loyal following. If he would eschew large homes, gas-guzzling cars, private jets and the consumption of meat, millions more would likely do the same. If enough people joined the cause, Mr. Gore and his followers would be able to demonstrate the results of this new way of living in very short order. They could lead by example. They could create a movement. They could have uniforms and badges and secret handshakes. The could have their own reality TV show. In short, they could become a major force for change. Carmakers would be driven out of business or forced to dramatically alter their products to meet the demands of this eco-friendly Gorian tsunami. Companies of all stripes would, similarly, have to adapt or perish.

Once the rest of us saw the presumed reversal (or at least slowing-down) of global warming, it would do more to convince us than any lecture or study signed by UN scientists, and it would likely add millions more to the cause. So what if you can’t get one-hundred percent co-operation initially? Wouldn’t half (or a third or a quarter) of the population make a huge difference if they made substantial sacrifices? You could argue it wouldn’t be fair to have some of us going on abusing the planet and leading our lives of consumption and gluttony while others are putting aside the trappings of modern life, but this isn’t about fairness; it’s about survival.

The time for talk is over. The time for action is now. Just think of millions and millions of committed Americans making the personal sacrifices necessary to demonstrate their resolve to combat man-made global warming. And, most important, thanks to their efforts, theory would be replaced by fact. It’s much easier to argue about a study than it is to refute the demonstrable results when the temperature drops and the ocean levels stabilize. When future generations write of the sacrifices of these men and women, they’ll use words like “inspirational” and “heroic”.

And so, I urge the advocates for change to embark on this important mission. Do it for the children. Godspeed.

Mr. Sajak is the host of "Wheel of Fortune" and PatSajak.com.

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Related Topics: Global Warming

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

 

[N1ghtmare]

So you posted an article with the suggestion that Al Gore should be the leader of a global warming group? Never thought I would hear that one from you. But sure, Although I would not give up cars, rather replace them with other forms of fuel, like hydrogen, which seems to be the most promising of all, since many car companies are attempting to develop them.

BTW most of us here are suggesting that it does not matter what caused it, just that we should act now. So its not like "Pat Sajak ownz us."

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Article 1: I can only assume was posted as some sort of joke, self-deprecation perhaps. I WikiP-ded the guy and took some time to stop laughing.

Article 2: Doesn't really say much that wasn't already out there. The sun is important. Yea...

Of course there have been studies going this way and that on the sun - in fact a study last year was one of the ones that really started to give momentum to teh global warming lobby - and the best that article could talk about didn't really sound that sure.

Link (3): Oh dear God that was AWFUL. Some people are a lot less sure ... and yet it's being trumpeted as if that's something monumental.

Saying the book isn't closed on global warming is one thing - but bloody hell, the counter argument needs a lot more than that (most of which is just gilding what was there already).

 

[Iron Archer]

Mar 27, 2008
Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov

Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth

The media is once again hyping an allegedly dire consequence of man-made global warming. This time the media is promoting the ice loss of one tiny fraction of the giant ice-covered continent and completely ignoring the current record ice growth on Antarctica. Contrary to media hype, the vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area.

Climate scientist Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, stated, “It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what’s happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ‘no change’ or ‘cooling’ over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.”

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, chastised the media’s Antarctic reporting as “typical of the bias that many journalists have.” Pielke wrote on March 25, “The media has ignored in their reporting the increase in Antarctic sea ice cover in recent years, with, at present, a coverage that is well one million square kilometers above average.” Pielke added, “Unfortunately, it appears that most journalists just parrot the perspective of the first news release on these climate issues, without doing any further investigation. If this is inadvertent, they need to be educated in climate science. If deliberate bias, they are clearly advocates and the reporters should be clearly and publically identified as having such a bias. In either case, the public is being misinformed!”

Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel, was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. D’Aleo commented on his website Icecap.us on March 25: “The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover (just 0.003% of the extent last September), like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof. And this winter is coming on quickly. The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The total ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25.

Mar 25, 2008
Misleading Reports About Antarctica

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Last year when Antarctic set a new record for ice extent, it got no media attention. They focused on the north polar regions where the ice set record low levels. This summer when unprecedented anomalous cover continued in the Southern Hemisphere again no coverage. Then this report in the news today. You probably saw it on your favorite network or internet news site (pick one, anyone).

Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf on Verge of Collapse - Latest Sign of Global Warming’s Impact Shocks Scientists
Andrea Thompson Livescience

A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming’s impact on Earth’s southernmost continent. Scientists are shocked by the rapid change of events. Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado was monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and spotted a huge iceberg measuring 25 miles by 1.5 miles (37 square miles) that appeared to have broken away from the shelf. Scambos alerted colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that it looked like the entire ice shelf - about 6,180 square miles (about the size of Northern Ireland)- was at risk of collapsing. The region where the Wilkins Ice Shelf lies has experienced unprecedented warming in the past 50 years, with several ice shelves retreating in the past 30 years. Six of these ice shelves have collapsed completely: Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf. See MSNBC version of this story here.

Icecap Note: Let’s put this in perspective. The account may be misinterpreted by some as the ice cap or a significant (vast) portion is collapsing. In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979.

The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current Antarctic ice cover (just 0.1% of the extent last September). A very small piece broke off as an iceberg (37 square miles). Then only a small portion of it around 160 square miles partially disintegrated late this February into early March. That represents just 2.67% of the full Wilkins ice sheet and 0.01% of the total Antarctic icecover (0.003% of its level last September), a little like an icicle falling from a snow and ice cover roof. No big deal (unless you are standing beneath it).

And this winter is coming on quickly. Satellite images show the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces and expanded. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.

Gore’s 10 Errors: Old and New. Scientific Mistakes and Exaggerations in an Interview in India Today

 

[Jonathan]

Article 1: I can only assume was posted as some sort of joke, self-deprecation perhaps. I WikiP-ded the guy and took some time to stop laughing.

Article 2: Doesn't really say much that wasn't already out there. The sun is important. Yea...

Of course there have been studies going this way and that on the sun - in fact a study last year was one of the ones that really started to give momentum to teh global warming lobby - and the best that article could talk about didn't really sound that sure.

Link (3): Oh dear God that was AWFUL. Some people are a lot less sure ... and yet it's being trumpeted as if that's something monumental.

Saying the book isn't closed on global warming is one thing - but bloody hell, the counter argument needs a lot more than that (most of which is just gilding what was there already).

I WikiP-ded the guy and took some time to stop laughing.

'Cause ol' Wiki is never wrong, or at least, the last Wiki edit told me so.


"Science says" global warming is a hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a0wuQr9d70
See, that's in video format, so you don't even have to read it.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

'Cause ol' Wiki is never wrong, or at least, the last Wiki edit told me so.

If you want to tell me that he's not a TV host and republican party financial donor then I will cease to find it funny. In fact I wil be believed.

Somehow I don't think you're going to tell me that it's wrong. But if not, thanks for telling me that it could be wrong, I'd have never thought of that...

"Science says" global warming is a hoax.

No, SOME science. There's a ton of evidence and a supposed rather large majority of scientists going the other way ... personally I'm inclined to think that a sod load of pollution and massive industrialisation movement probably does make an impact and I'd rather not completely and utterly ignore the worst case scenario ... but who knows. However let's not pretend that the anti-global warming set aren't on the backfoot for now, in terms of scientists as well as perception.

But the way IA does things just makes him look like an absolutist the other way, plus he's someone who knows sod all about our National Health System (hurrr let's trash things I have no clue about for a put down), so if he could grow up, that would be most welcome. I actually bothered to read his stuff too

 

[Big-Al]

4.5 more years till the Mayan colander runs out (i'm gonna be disappointed if nothing cool happens )

 

[[VaLkyR]Assassin]

Summer? It's the season of fall there atm.

The suns still shining there, it barely changes above the horizon anyway during the 6 months of light it has.

 

[TWD]

You made the assertation. You're the one that needs to back it up.

Perhaps I need to review for you.

We have absolutely no information on how common a break of this size really is.

We KNOW it doesn't happen every year. Dude, seriously, like I expected a bit better than that kinda dumb statement from you.

So I pose to you this question. What sounds like a stronger "assertation" to you: "we don't know for sure" or "this is a fact"?

My whole point is that I can't find any reliable data about the frequency and magnitude of polar ice breaks, hence we can't really say if this is a big deal or not. Yet you are so certain that nothing similar to this has ever happened before. To me this means that either A)You have some source that I can't seem to find that proves your point or B)You're just shooting off BS assumptions that you can't really prove.

Which is why I again say "prove it". In my mind the mere fact that you refuse to even look further proves my point that we really don't know how uncommon of an event this really is.

 

[SlayerDragon]

National Snow and Ice Data Center

Read up. yum yum.


http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060706_goremoviefaq.html

I found this an interesting read, myself.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

This thread was cool when it was about the ice chunk

 

[Jonathan]

This thread was cool when it was about the ice chunk

Cool and ice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=related

If Al Gore and the United Nations would just hush, the whole hoax would disappear.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

You're not good with hints, are you?

 

[Jonathan]

I guess you mean it was an intentional pun, no?

 

[SlayerDragon]

Cool and ice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=related

If Al Gore and the United Nations would just hush, the whole hoax would disappear.

Do you have to try to be this ignorant or does it just come naturally? It boggles the mind!

 

[TWD]

Ok fine I changed my mind. I will provide data to back up what I'm saying here. I'm still crying fowl on this story. This is not the first time an event of this nature has occured, and it is not the largest by a long shot.

Here's info about the current story from National Snow and Ice Data Center. (Note this is the center that I talked to in my blog article):

Satellite images indicate that the Wilkins began its collapse on February 28; data revealed that a large iceberg, 41 by 2.5 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles), fell away from the ice shelf's southwestern front, triggering a runaway disintegration of 405 square kilometers (160 square miles) of the shelf interior

Let's compare this to the Larsen B breakup that happened in 2002

Between January 31st and March 7th, 3,275-square-kilometers of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated.

Happy now?

 

[N1ghtmare]

2002? You realize thats fairly recent right? Like, in the realm for global warming.

 

[Jonathan]

Do you have to try to be this ignorant or does it just come naturally? It boggles the mind!

I guess you're angry that I don't worship your golden-calf of global warming. You never answer anything, make immature comments (and lets not forget your "nuggets of wisdom" that were on these forums before the crash). If you want to have a "rational debate" (remember that, eh?) then let's do so, and please, stop acting like a heavy-breathing stalker, posting OT offensive remarks directed towards me due to your anti-theism harbored anger.

Sorta like this?

**** off.

. . .and that reminds me, doesn't your sig. bypass the "word filter."

This towards another member,

You're absolutely retarded.

. . . then of course this one, which is just a small snipet if you're zealous nature to cause drama.

I have pictures of Jesus out there mackin' it with tha ladies - here's a sample

Back on Topic:
I wish some supposed scientists would stop cherry-picking dates and rather, give an honest view of historical climate change.

 

[TWD]

2002? You realize thats fairly recent right? Like, in the realm for global warming.

You are correct, but still think it shows that the media is trying to blow this event out of proportion.

It's also important to note that the ability for us to track arctic ice like this is fairly recent. The last comparable time period that occurred before supposed global warming picked up was back in the 30's, and we didn't even have satellites back then. We really don't have any info like this about a non global warming era to compare to.

 

[-Jes-]

'Nuff said.