how do you non global warming believers perceive the artic northwest passage?

Question

and if you say it's a cycle please back it up with something,....we obviously don't have any "scientific" records that date back past the last ice age so how do you or anyone scientifically prove its a cycle

Answer 1

Look, Mortimer:

It's not that I don't believe in Global Warming. I can read the data as well as you can, probably better since I'm willing to see what I see, rather than what I expect to see.

What I do NOT believe in is your astoundingly egotistical presumption that it is caused by Man. Moreover, I can see quite clearly that the alarmists have NOT established a causal connection.

What is suggested (not "proven") is that there is a connection between CO2 and temperature. Scientists know that "Connection is not causation".

You people are running around claiming that this connection establishes causation, and you remind me of nothing so much as Jed Clampett from the Beverly Hillbillies marveling that every time that music plays, someone comes to the door.

It's possible that the warming is the cause of the CO2 increase, has that ever even occurred to you? It's suggested by some of the data. Have you looked at the 2001 issue of Nature magazine, which discusses the carbon 14 and oxygen 16 data from stalagmites in a cave in Oman? It tends to suggest that the cycles of the Sun have more to do with warming and cooling trends than gases.

Have you considered whether you might just have swallowed a Big Lie? Look at your Kyoto Protocol. It presents no solutions, doesn't even purport to try and fix anything, it's just about setting up a system to transfer money from developed to undeveloped nations.

Let the icecaps melt, but I still won't believe that Man caused it until someone presents proof.

The Alarmists are the ones in denial, denying that their theories are still unproven, and denying that it's even possible that there's another cause, one they aren't even looking for.

That is not science. It's marketing.

Nickel: It's not where the CO2 comes from. It's the fact that it is a small (less than 4%) of the total greenhouse gases that makes its relevance doubtful. In addition, the models ASSUME that the presence of water vapor makes the CO2's impact MORE severe, but that's not proven; it may be that the water vapor mitigates CO2's greenhouse impact.

What's silly is the demonization of CO2 by the alarmists. Without CO2 all plant life would die, including in the seas, and that's our source of Oxygen.

So what if CO2 is 70% of the man made greenhouse gas? Man doesn't make the water vapor that comprises 96% percent of all greenhouse gases, including man made and bovine flatulence. 96% of the greenhouse gases are CLOUDS.

Answer 2

Wednesday, 31 May 2006

Arctic's tropical past uncovered
By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News

Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.

A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

An international team has been able to pin-point the changes that occurred as the Arctic transformed from this hot environment to its present cold status.

The findings are revealed in a trio of papers published in the journal Nature.

Answer 3

Humm, Not in Denial. Mini-ice age. Explain that one. As to answer your question truthfully. I do believe in "man-made" grobal warming. It is a political wash to get people worked up. Forrest fires put millions of tons of CO2 into the atomsphere too. And guess what forrest fires have been burning even before man lived on this planet. Lightining causes CO2 missions and Methane too. The earths atomsphere breaks down CO2. Just remember in the 80's the world was saying a "new" ice age was imminent. Now it is gobal warming. The "new" ice age scare got CFC's off the market. And today the global warming scare is used to jump start alternate fuels

Answer 4

You say we do not have records that date back past the little ice age, but Joker we do in fact have the best kind of records, human experience. The medieval warm period is documented in European society, Asian society and Greenland. The viking settlements in Greenland would not have been possible without a warm period very similar to what we are experiencing. While the Greenland vikings obviously were living in fjords, the livestock they kept could not have been maintained without the Medieval warm period. It is also documented that there existed trading between Greenland, Europe and Iceland. When the little ice age approached the sea ice returned and made shipping increasingly hazardous and eventually impossible for the vessels of the time. So at one time sea ice was not a problem around Greenland, how far did the ice retreat, there is a report of a Chinese naval squadron sailing very far north and found very little ice in 1421, of course there will be those that attempt to debunk that story, but the trade routes associated with the Viking colonies in Greenland clearly indicate that sea ice was not a problem.

The continent of Antarctica has been "growing colder" over the past few decades and in direct contrast to climate predictions has a record amount of sea ice this year. Clearly this cannot be explained by an enhanced greenhouse effect. Some alarmists will naively attempt to explain this by a lack of Ozone at the South pole, but Ozone has only one narrow band of frequencies that react with long wavelength IR energy and since it persists in the stratosphere could not possibly be attributed to an enhanced greenhouse process. Understanding the asymmetrical behavior of earths polar regions is the key to understanding what is really happening with earths climate system.

http://www.holloworbs.com/Greenland_vikings.htm

Answer 5

There are very few people who do not acknowledge that temperatures are increasing, the question is to what extent have human activities contributed to this rise. As you state, there are no recorded temperature data dating back to the past ice age. There are in fact, no temperature records dating back to before the industrial revolution. There are, however scientific data both on temperatures and on green house gas levels in the atmosphere that date back about 450,000 years. Go to the NOAA web site and find the various ice core data available. Plot these and you will see that there have been several warming cooling cycles over this time. Look at the peak temperatures for the past cycles. You will see that they are typically 3 degrees Celsius higher than current temperatures. This is what people mean when they talk about cycles. It is also apparent from these data that we are currently in the midst of a natural warming cycle that started about 20,000 years ago. From these data one can conclude:

1)Natural warming/cooling cycles do exist.
2)We are currently in the warming phase of one of these cycles so at least part of the warming is natural.
3)Based on past data, we can expect the temperature to continue to rise by at least 3 degrees Celsius

You can also see that atmospheric levels of CO2, even at the peak of natural warming cycles was well below todays levels, so it is also true that man made activities have increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere above the normal maximums.

But, we just don't know what effects this will have on the warming cycle. We can hypothesize, but that is all we can do.

Nickel, all your calculations prove is that you can do a reasonably good material balance on carbon. Actually, missing the mass balance by about 30% isn't really that good, I like my material balances to close withing plus or minus 2% of 100. In any event, even a perfect material balance would not establish any proof that the increase you calculated is the cause of increased global temperatures.

Answer 6

Look up data from the Vostok ice core sample. This is one of the deepest, if not the deepest, ice core sample taken. The data goes back 400,000 years and clearly shows very distinct cycles occurring about every 100,000 years. This data also seems to back up the Milankovich theory dealing with these cycles being a product of the Earths varying orbit.

Answer 7

Joker, of course we have proof that the last ice age occurred and that the glaciers latter retreated. That proof is called the Great Lakes, which according to scientists you believe in say that is was the glaciation of several ice ages that eventually carved them out. I do wonder how much hotter the earth had to become in order to make those miles thick glaciers retreat. Probably considerably warmer that the temperatures we have today, certainly warmer than the earth was during the 1st century AD when what is now England enjoyed warm enough weather to grow wine grapes. Everyone knows that the climate of the planet is constantly changing, it's just that those of us with a brain aren't afraid of it, and know there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Answer 8

it will save millions of gallons of fuel.
decrease shipping times and CO2.

if we save enough fuel, prices will drop.

then we can petition the big 3 automakers to start putting big block motors in cars again!

just think how cool it would be t have a factory install and warranted 502 CID big block in the 2009 camaro!

or a 440 dodge charger!

that's what we should be more concerned about at this point.

Answer 9

It's not that some don't believe in global warming. We don't believe MAN causes it.

Answer 10

SORRY ONCE AGAIN FOR THE PEOPLE BUT THE CO2 INCREASE IS MAN MADE !!!

So now for the people not believing WE put the CO2 in the atmosphere:

Global atmospheric mass around the earth:
5.148*10^18 kg
=5.148*10^15 t
=5.148*10^12 kt
=5.148*10^9 Mt
=5.148*10^6 Gt
=5,148,000 Gt

Global man-made CO2 (only... it accounts for 70% of all the man-made greenhouse gases):
=24Gt/year

CO2 density=1.98kg/m³
Air density=1.2Kg/m³
Ratio: the CO2 density is around 1.6x the density of air.
This means that for the same weight, CO2 has 1,6 times less molecules (parts)

Now what is the rate we increase CO2 in the atmosphere for sure (counted land use change/deforestation/use of fossil fuels, etc...):

5,148,000 / (24/1.6)=2.9*10^(-6)

Considered in PPM (parts per million) 1 million=10^6

change in PPM = 2.9 * 10^(-6) * 10^(6)
2.9 PPM (per year)

So during the average 1997-2017 period we should increase the PPM concentration by 29PPM

Now look at the measurements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:mauna...

We see an increase of close to 20PPM in the last decade...

THIS IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY CALCULATION PUTTING THE MAN MADE CO2 AS CAUSE FOR THE INCREASE IN THE EARTH ATMOSPHERE



If you are not sure of the accuracy of fossil fuel based calculations, check the GHG protocol from the WRI (World Resource Insitute): www.ghgprotocol.com