Arctic Cap Gone within 15 years?

[therisingblues]

That's the prediction being made by Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery. The ice covering the northern extreme of this planet could disappear within the next 15 years if global warming continues at its current rate.
The U.N global report has placed this event at around the turn of the century.
One conservative, one extreme? Either one is disturbing.

[heater31]

let it melt then Alberton will be underwater and my joint will be in a beach side suburb which means $$$$$$$$

[PhilG]

..

[heater31]

How high above current sea level are you, Heater?

about 5 km from the city. Which according to a prediction that appeared in the Advertiser a few months back is the new Glenelg

[PhilG]

..

[Wedgie]

Im up a hill, Im with heater, bring it on, the more equity the better!

[mal]

let it melt then Alberton will be underwater and my joint will be in a beach side suburb which means $$$$$$$$

[Punk Rooster]

That's the prediction being made by Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery. The ice covering the northern extreme of this planet could disappear within the next 15 years if global warming continues at its current rate.
The U.N global report has placed this event at around the turn of the century.
One conservative, one extreme? Either one is disturbing.

if it happens, then I'll consider the accuracy of the Global Warming hype...

[Wedgie]

Noarlunga's on a hill, just think in 2100 it might be the only SANFL ground!

[devilsadvocate]

Agreed Punky.

'Greenhouse emissions' have been occurring rapidly for the last 100+ years. Realistically, ever since the industrial age, coal has been burnt like noone's business. There's no receords of oceans rising even 1 cm in that time.

I've heard a couple of alternative theories on global warming and truth be told, I don't beleive either the global warming believers or synicists.

The other views are:

1. that when studies on GW are done and they report that 99% of scientists agree that global warming is an issue, they doen't actually pay the scientists that are GW detractors to perform studies, and therefore only those scientists that believe GW is an issue get to do some research and report their views, which distorts the credibility of such claims.

2. that carbon emissions are actually balanced out in the atmosphere by absorption into water. Given that our planet is 2/3rds water, the rate of absorption will always exceed emission.

As I said, I don't believe either. The proof is in the pudding and when my place in the hills is prime real estate with sea views in all directions, then I'll believe in global warming.

[devilsadvocate]

Sorry for the scientific crap, but just remembered another 'theory':

that the earth's crust (being molten rock) has hotspots (much like the sun which has hotspots that interfere with telecommunications equipment every now and then) which move around from time to time. This is what causes ice ages and rising temperatures over time. the theory is that when these 'hotspots' are under oceans, the water warms and changes the tidal patterns, which affects the weather in various parts of the world. This is what could be causing 'el-nino' and droughts in africa and monster hurricanes in the americas.

again, I don't necessarily believe any of this, it's just an interesting alternative view of which there are many around today.

moral of theses stories: believe no-one!

infact the moral is probably to make some crap up that sounds believable and try to suck people in, which means - believe no-one!

[Pseudo]

moral of theses stories: believe no-one!

infact the moral is probably to make some crap up that sounds believable and try to suck people in, which means - believe no-one!

I don't believe you.

[therisingblues]

That's the prediction being made by Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery. The ice covering the northern extreme of this planet could disappear within the next 15 years if global warming continues at its current rate.
The U.N global report has placed this event at around the turn of the century.
One conservative, one extreme? Either one is disturbing.

if it happens, then I'll consider the accuracy of the Global Warming hype...

It is happening now Punky. The satellite photos should be proof enough, and if they are not then just consider the people's homes in Alaska that are tumbling into the sea because the ground they were built on was held together with perma-frost, ice that has been there for the past 8000 years, the coast line in such places has moved a couple of streets into towns because the perma-frost has melted. Then there is the declining Polar Bear population, because the ice floes are becoming smaller, making hunting for food virtually impossible for an increasing number of that species. The list goes on.

[therisingblues]

Agreed Punky.

'Greenhouse emissions' have been occurring rapidly for the last 100+ years. Realistically, ever since the industrial age, coal has been burnt like noone's business. There's no receords of oceans rising even 1 cm in that time.

I've heard a couple of alternative theories on global warming and truth be told, I don't beleive either the global warming believers or synicists.

The other views are:

1. that when studies on GW are done and they report that 99% of scientists agree that global warming is an issue, they doen't actually pay the scientists that are GW detractors to perform studies, and therefore only those scientists that believe GW is an issue get to do some research and report their views, which distorts the credibility of such claims.

2. that carbon emissions are actually balanced out in the atmosphere by absorption into water. Given that our planet is 2/3rds water, the rate of absorption will always exceed emission.

As I said, I don't believe either. The proof is in the pudding and when my place in the hills is prime real estate with sea views in all directions, then I'll believe in global warming.

Thanks for the alternate views. I know you said you don't agree with them, but seeing that you have written them I am going to respond.
First, about coal (fossil fuel) emissions, I agree that they did increase rapidly around the time of the industrial revolution. My apologies for the following science: the level of CO2 in the air is measured as parts per square million (ppm) of the overall atmosphere, and to give some perspective: the level of CO2 during the last ice-age was 180 ppm. Before the industrial revolution the level was 280 ppm. In the last 150 years the level has risen to 381 ppm. So in short, since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it is only recently that we are noticibly feeling the effects. NASA scientists report that of the 20 hottest years on record, 19 occurred in the 1980s or later.
2005 was the hottest year in more than a century. One can easily understand that the level of fossil fuel emssions has skyrocketed with the motor age, the demand for electrical appliances, and with the huge markets opening up in Asia. The most populous people on the planet can now afford cars, this problem is going to get worse.

Your 1st point from the cynics doesn't add up. Governments would much rather the population had never heard of GW, as the Greens are the ones that cause waves in economic policy. The most powerful people on this planet are chasing fossil fuels (OIL) at an unprecedented rate (wars for oil). For many years these people in all probability paid off scientists to spout the opposite to GW so that a duped public would still believe it is OK to guzzle up more and more oil. These scientists are becoming fewer and fewer as the sheer mass of evidence becomes harder to deny.

2: I have never heard of Carbon emissions being absorbed in water. But carbon is contained in perma-frost in the form of ancient decayed matter that has lain there since before the ice age. When this perma-frost melts it releases this ancient carbon into the atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up even more. This is what is known as a "Feedback Loop" ie. the more ice that melts, the more carbon that is released, the more carbon that is released the more ice that melts. There are many......many.... feedback loops.
Again for the perspective: Human beings release 7 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. One estimate has the amount of carbon in the Arctic circle alone at 200 to 800 gigatons.

Most of this information I am quoting from the 2006, April 3rd edition of TIME Magazine, in case anyone wants to check this source out further I am sure the bigger libraries around Adelaide would have old editions.

[therisingblues]

Sorry for the scientific crap, but just remembered another 'theory':

that the earth's crust (being molten rock) has hotspots (much like the sun which has hotspots that interfere with telecommunications equipment every now and then) which move around from time to time. This is what causes ice ages and rising temperatures over time. the theory is that when these 'hotspots' are under oceans, the water warms and changes the tidal patterns, which affects the weather in various parts of the world. This is what could be causing 'el-nino' and droughts in africa and monster hurricanes in the americas.

again, I don't necessarily believe any of this, it's just an interesting alternative view of which there are many around today.

moral of theses stories: believe no-one!

infact the moral is probably to make some crap up that sounds believable and try to suck people in, which means - believe no-one!

I hope this is true, then it would mean that the rise in temperatures is just an anamoly of nature, and could get better as quickly as it could get worse.

[Punk Rooster]

I hope this is true, then it would mean that the rise in temperatures is just an anamoly of nature, and could get better as quickly as it could get worse.

the most sensible thing you have written about this issue

[smac]

When I saw the thread title, I thought Mike Rann had got South exempted from the salary cap. Quite relieved to find out it is only about putting the swamps back underwater.

[mick]

Anyone who says GW isn't happening is kidding themselves,whether it is caused by human activity or a natural cycle is the question? In anycase anyone who is under 30 now, may have an unpleasant future for themselves and their children. I have an 18 year old daughter, this issue worries me a lot, beacause if human activity caused GW, it's probably too late. If we had zero emmissions now, it would probably take centuries to reverse the effect

[Punk Rooster]

Anyone who says GW isn't happening is kidding themselves,whether it is caused by human activity or a natural cycle is the question? In anycase anyone who is under 30 now, may have an unpleasant future for themselves and their children. I have an 18 year old daughter, this issue worries me a lot, beacause if human activity caused GW, it's probably too late. If we had zero emmissions now, it would probably take centuries to reverse the effect

now we are getting somewhere...

I have always seen it as arrogance/ego, that man thinks that the actions of man can change the weather patterns- some things are just out of our control, & we need to adapt (ie become smarter)

[therisingblues]

Anyone who says GW isn't happening is kidding themselves,whether it is caused by human activity or a natural cycle is the question? In anycase anyone who is under 30 now, may have an unpleasant future for themselves and their children. I have an 18 year old daughter, this issue worries me a lot, beacause if human activity caused GW, it's probably too late. If we had zero emmissions now, it would probably take centuries to reverse the effect

now we are getting somewhere...

I have always seen it as arrogance/ego, that man thinks that the actions of man can change the weather patterns- some things are just out of our control, & we need to adapt (ie become smarter)

Arrogance/ego?
Many years ago scientists said this was going to happen. They built models, performed simulations, tried to explain things as simply as they could/ or as detailed as was required.
They warned that human activity will cause this.
All along there have been the "naysayers". For every freak weather occurrence or irregular hot summer somebody has put up some model to show how unalarmed we should all be. All along I have listened to everybody's theories, and it was always more comforting to listen to the "naysayers", but the evidence is now too large to ignore.
Now it is happening.
This is not arrogance, this is something that was predicted by scientists decades ago.
Very little of what I am writing is my opinion, most of it is fact uncovered by some of the greatest minds on the planet.
We can launch an unmanned space shuttle from Earth, to enter the gravity of Mars at exactly the right angle, at a point in space where Mars hasn't even reached yet. The finite calculations to perform this are astronomical, the people putting this information together have considered every possible influence or factor that could possibly change their calculations even a centimeter. These same people are informing us of GW, along with others who are just as capable, and believe me they would be getting paid a hell of a lot more to be saying that anything but fossil fuels are causing this because the pay roll for fossil fuels is enormous. The reason that all these incredibly clever people are saying the same thing is because even the most radical/greedy scientist on Earth cannot deny the results we are seeing and what the causes are.
They have spelt it out for us. If we are too stupid to listen then our children will be the ones that will suffer.