Petraj Wrote:NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice capThis article has been widely trashed for being unscientific and inaccurate. They make some convenient assumptions (for example, that the Prius will be scrapped after 80,000 miles, while the Hummer will last over 300,000) that lead to their findings. If you build 4 Priuses and 1 Hummer, you'd tend to lose out on the fuel advantages of the Prius.
This also reminds me of America's love for the fad of the hybrid car. The sheeple prefer to gawk at the Toyota Prius [sic] giving 45 mpg. All the while ignoring the massive environmental impact the production of its batteries causes. Acid rain anyone?
Quote:The IPCC is composed of around 2,000 scientists correct? Lets ignore the fact that some scientists on that list either no longer support the panel and even threatened to sue to remove their names or had their names added without their consent. Seems like a mighty number, but how does that compare to 31,000 scientists who reject the "'global warming' agena"?
Indeed, go look at the numbers. The true numbers.
As to who we can blame for this outright lie that there's a "consensus" on the issue (even though that in itself holds no place in science), we can all point a finger on history professor Naomi Oreskes. Since science is all about peer review (i.e. another scientist performs experiments/research to confirm said claim) medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte repeated her query into the database. The fact of the matter is there doesn't exist this "consensus" that the zombie-like mass media and politicians fart out. (source)
When has number of scientists (or people with bachelor of science) who agree with a theory determine whether it's correct?
Quote:So, with all this scare of the ocean rising by 20 feet or whatever in the future because of the melting ice caps and whatnot, does anyone want to guess what percent of Earth's water is actually ice? 2%? 10%? 20%? 40%? According to Wikipedia it's around 2%, though it provides both figures of 2.4% in the introductionary paragraph and 1.8% almost half-way down (link). Also, as water turns into ice its volume increases by 9%. With 70.9% of the Earth's surface being covered by water (citation taken from here) and about 0.145% of the global sea ice being lost (source), I believe you guys should know in which direction this is heading to.
Going by the numbers on Wikipedia, it's easy to work it out. 25 million cubic km of ice. The Earth's total surface area is 361 million square km of water.
If all of that melted, and distributed evenly, it would end up being a 70m rise (it'll end up being less, since it spreads over low lying areas, eg. Bangladesh, England, New York). So the 0.145% per year represents ~10cm(4 inches) per year. In 30 years that's a 10 foot rise... and that's only if we continue at current rates.
The amount we can take from the past is limited by what we know about it. There's evidence of warm and cold periods but not so great information about what caused them. On the other hand, we know that the carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily for the last century, and it is almost certainly due to the mass consumption of carbon based fuels. The increase in farm food animals (cows etc.) probably contributes as well, due to methane etc. But being out of control of one aspect doesn't mean the other ones are invalid. Even if climate change is due to something out of our hands, we can reduce the impact by changing things we're doing to inflate it.