Hasn't ice and the glaciers been melting since the ice age?

[Jim_newtron]

Or did it just start since Bush got into power?

[herpguy]

Or did it just start since Bush got into power?

Yes, they've been melting since the end of the ice age, but the rate has gone up by 50% since Bush went into office. hmm...

[Jim_newtron]

Yes, they've been melting since the end of the ice age, but the rate has gone up by 50% since Bush went into office. hmm...

lol....really?

[herpguy]

lol....really?

That's what I've heard, but i just read a few things that says different information. During 2005, the sea level rising accelerated by 50% (Discover Magazine. The ice melting has steadilly been accelerating about 8% per decade (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050928/w092896.html).

The observations showed 5.3 million square kilometres of sea ice as late as Sept. 19. That's the lowest measurement of Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, the researchers said. It's also 20 per cent less than the average of end-of-summer ice pack cover measurements recorded since 1978.

(also from the above link).

[Jim_newtron]

That's what I've heard' date=' but i just read a few things that says different information. During 2005, the sea level rising accelerated by 50% ([i']Discover Magazine[/i]. The ice melting has steadilly been accelerating about 8% per decade (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050928/w092896.html).

 

(also from the above link).

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

[Helix]

Correlation doesn't prove causation.

 

 

Right, but in this case you can correlate Bush's lax environmental protection policies and prove causation to a sharp increase in the melting of the polar ice caps and icebergs.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think the ice caps follow politics too closely, and so direct causation is probably not the case... However, it also seems foolish to deny the likelihood that we (humans) have nothing to do with it, as it would be one huge coincidence if we hadn't, don't you think? And Bush does want to deny that, and does insist on policies that would make things much worse. So I have no particular qualms about blaming him for all sorts of crazy stuff.

[herpguy]

I don't think the ice caps follow politics too closely, and so direct causation is probably not the case... However, it also seems foolish to deny the likelihood that we (humans) have nothing to do with it, as it would be one huge coincidence if we hadn't, don't you think? And Bush does want to deny that, and does insist on policies that would make things much worse. So I have no particular qualms about blaming him for all sorts of crazy stuff.

I'm not blaming anyone, it's just kind of funny that the sudden increase in global warming happened when Bush is in office (at least to someone who disagrees with everything bush says and does, like me). A better explanation is that we have been dumping more greenhouse gas in the air than what there should be for more than 1 and a half centuries. Now, our actions are starting to hurt us.

[Jim_newtron]

However, it also seems foolish to deny the likelihood that we (humans) have nothing to do with it, as it would be one huge coincidence if we hadn't, don't you think?

lol...does Bush really deny that? I mean its kind of as simple as 1+1=2

 

Has anyone heard the amount of CO2 a volcanic eruption puts into the atmoshpere is however much greater than the amount of CO2 put out by all human means in a given time period?

 

I heard a comparison like this on the radio one time. I just kind find anything on it. I think it was on Rush Limbaugh's show....lol

[Aumsonata]

lol...does Bush really deny that? I mean its kind of as simple as 1+1=2

 

I'm not totally convinced that Bush can add 1+1 to equal 2!

 

Anyone feel the same?

[ecoli]

lol...does Bush really deny that? I mean its kind of as simple as 1+1=2

 

Has anyone heard the amount of CO2 a volcanic eruption puts into the atmoshpere is however much greater than the amount of CO2 put out by all human means in a given time period?

 

I heard a comparison like this on the radio one time. I just kind find anything on it. I think it was on Rush Limbaugh's show....lol

 

Volcanoes do indeed spew out a lot of CO2, but I'm sure it's not as much as Limbaugh thinks.

[MattC]

I'm sorry, but it is a well documented fact that Bush cannot do math, and Rush Limbaugh is not a valid source for anything science related. Here's a snippet from the US government's Geological Survey department:

 

 

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

 

From this location:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

Jim_Newtron, or shall I call you "Tully_Beaver," or maybe "Allah_Sux," ... I don't believe that Herpguy is truly trying to tell you that Bush is the cause of any particular global environmental problems. Bush is merely the man in power now, but he represents a set of environmental politics that is a great cause for concern among scientists.

 

I'm really curious, Jim/Tully/whatever, are you really this bad at reasoning, as your posts all seem to definitively demonstrate, or are you presenting these fallacious arguments with the intent that they be easy targets ... and this is all a very creative (though some would say annoying) way of presenting your position (which hopefully differs greatly from the position your posts imply)? I can't tell which it is, if it's either.

[Jim_newtron]

I'm sorry' date=' but it is a well documented fact that Bush cannot do math, and Rush Limbaugh is not a valid source for anything science related. Here's a snippet from the US government's Geological Survey department:

 

 

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"[/quote']

Thanks for posting that. That's exactly what I was talking about. I guess Rush span it on his show somehow to tip the scales in his favour. I was just interested to see if anyone new the truth. Thanks for answering my question.

 

 

 

Jim_Newtron, or shall I call you "Tully_Beaver," or maybe "Allah_Sux," ... I don't believe that Herpguy is truly trying to tell you that Bush is the cause of any particular global environmental problems.

eerrr lol=laugh out loud.

 

Bush is merely the man in power now, but he represents a set of environmental politics that is a great cause for concern among scientists.

True.

 

I'm really curious, Jim/Tully/whatever, are you really this bad at reasoning, as your posts all seem to definitively demonstrate, or are you presenting these fallacious arguments with the intent that they be easy targets ... and this is all a very creative (though some would say annoying) way of presenting your position (which hopefully differs greatly from the position your posts imply)? I can't tell which it is, if it's either.

What fallaciuos arguement or position have I represented in this thread?

 

I'm just asking some questions and trying to learn some from yall.

[bascule]

That's what I've heard' date=' but i just read a few things that says different information. During 2005, the sea level rising accelerated by 50% ([i']Discover Magazine[/i]. The ice melting has steadilly been accelerating about 8% per decade (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050928/w092896.html).

 

(also from the above link).

 

The article you quote says nothing about rising sea levels, only melting Arctic sea ice. Scientists are still uncertain as to how the melting of the Greenland ice sheet contributing to sea level rise, especially considering that the average area of the Antarctic ice sheets seems to be increasing (sources: NASA 2002, National Snow and Ice Datacenter)

 

The sea level is rising at around 2 mm a year, mostly due to the melting of mountain glaciers and the impact of rising sea temperatures on the ocean's volume through thermal expansion. These are attributable to global warming.

 

However, if you want to contend that global warming is the cause of increasing rates of melting of Arctic sea ice, then we should also see similar reductions of Antarctic sea ice coverage. However, there is no progressive trend in Antarctic sea ice coverage... instead we see aimless fluctuation (see Figures 8 and 9a in this paper)

 

That we are not seeing similar sea ice trends in both hemispheres leads to the conclusion that Arctic sea ice is melting due to a regional warming effect. This also makes an excellent case for focusing our attention on the regional impacts of human activity on long-term climate change, rather than attempting to lump all such effects together under the auspices of "global warming"

[Sisyphus]

lol...does Bush really deny that? I mean its kind of as simple as 1+1=2

 

Has anyone heard the amount of CO2 a volcanic eruption puts into the atmoshpere is however much greater than the amount of CO2 put out by all human means in a given time period?

 

I heard a comparison like this on the radio one time. I just kind find anything on it. I think it was on Rush Limbaugh's show....lol

 

I was wondering where you were coming from. Now it all makes sense. See, the thing about Rush Limbaugh is, most of the statistics he quotes are just made up off the top of his head. It's not really "spinning," exactly. It's more like blatantly lying. But it's not illegal, and his listeners aren't exactly the sort to fact check.

[bascule]

I was wondering where you were coming from. Now it all makes sense. See, the thing about Rush Limbaugh is, most of the statistics he quotes are just made up off the top of his head. It's not really "spinning," exactly. It's more like blatantly lying. But it's not illegal, and his listeners aren't exactly the sort to fact check.

 

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

 

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

 

I think what it's really important to keep in mind is that there is a vast multitude of first order climate forcings and somehow all of these except CO₂ seem to get overlooked in climate science reporting.

 

Rush Limbaugh should NOT be used as a source on ANYTHING related to climate science. He grossly mischaracterized the opinion of the boss of my research group to paint him as a "global warming skeptic." Rush Limbaugh clearly doesn't care what the scientific community has to say, he simply hates environmentalism and wants to look for ways to subvert it, rather than looking for the truth.

 

I am adamantly opposed to global warming alarmism but that doesn't mean that I don't feel there is a problem that is in serious need of research (otherwise I wouldn't have a job )

[bharatiyedu]

i dont think politics has got anything to do with ice galcires melting. The cause is simplu us. very one of us contribute to the natural diasters happening around the world. Technology is the answer. technology is devastating the environment in many ways. since ice age there are iventions. What DO U THINK????????.

 

I THINK THIS THE MAIN REASON

 

HUMAN EFFECTS

[bharatiyedu]

I think for the last year bush contributed the most by placing the war on iraq for oil in the name of terrorism.

[bharatiyedu]

i am much more important than a president!!!!!!!!!!

 

I AM A STUDENT!!!!!!! GET IT!!!!!!!!!!

 

yeah i think its true.

 

how many oil refineries has been burned down in iraq duringthe war??

 

Do u have The answer????

 

do u exactly know wether america is now paying to iraq to get the oil????

 

Do u have any idea how much pollution did a single oil refinery made whrn its burnt down???

 

HUH???

 

hey

thanks for placing something to my reply

nice meeting ya

[gcol]

You are all rather unfair on poor George, he can't help being thick. May as well blame Kerry for being daft enough to lose. What is worse, a sin of comission or omission?

 

Laugh Laugh.