|
On August 06 2009 17:24 Polyphasic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 17:20 keV. wrote:On August 06 2009 17:16 HuskyTheHusky wrote:On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote:
There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously... I can say that America is doing fairly well for itself and are are striving towards things to help the environment. Other than that we can only do so much. If we wait until we fix every issue on Earth then... well that will never happen. Obviously impoverished countries need to focus on that, but the future is space no matter how you look at it. No matter what form the threat of extinction takes, space is the only way out. Edit: And yeah, Nasa has invented crazy amounts of stuff. The future can be our own planet if we take care of it. i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan?
Space is the future in maybe 5 billion years when our sun explodes. Considering the scope of our universe is limited by the inability to reach the speed of light, we will more than likely be wasting this "global effort." I'm rather happy with Earth.
|
|
|
i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. the US will build cannons of course. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan?
lol
|
On August 06 2009 17:24 Polyphasic wrote:
i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. the US will build cannons of course. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan?
Hidden expo on Europa imo.
|
It really is sickening how hard it is to get facts about global warming. Its not a game about who wins, climate directly effects life on earth as we know it. It is truly horrible that there are people in limbo because of dollars being thrown around.
|
On August 06 2009 17:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote:
There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously... Colonization, Resources from other planets, Asteroids.... Not to mention the development in new technologies that space exploration has already provided.
Pensionskasse, werner hans, allschwil
I don't want to say space exploration is pointless, but it's for sure not a *primary goal* yet.
We haven't even a *solid* infrastructure on our whole planet, we are not even close. We know shit about our Oceans and we know shit about the *deeper* areas of our own planet. There are soooo many ways to gather energy on earth that haven't even been nearly exploited yet and you want to go out to other planets and mine there?
In Basel was an experiment for winning energy from Earth warmth... Result? A manmade earthquake hit the city (rather strong earthquake)...
They just now want to drill for Earth-Gas (and Oil, which is less unlikely) in Switzerland under the lake of Geneva (Switzerland never had any Oil/Gas or other ressources). The Antarctic continent isn't *used* at all, deep-sea mining is also not happening yet (on proper scale)...
There are SOO many possibilities on earth itself which should and could be exploited and would net results way faster than any space exploration/harvesting in a much shorter timeframe. Yes, we should explore space... But wanting to *settle* on far away worlds when we still know shit about our own planet sounds pretty stupid to me.
The problems we see coming over us in the (near) future won't be solved by space exploration - not yet, that will probably be the solution for another, much later future.
Btw: Harvesting minerals (BIG SCALE!) on another planet/asteroid/moon and bringing it to earth could long term really have a very bad impact on earth itself (weight, to make it simple).
|
On August 06 2009 16:34 Polyphasic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 16:04 Aegraen wrote:On August 06 2009 15:46 Polyphasic wrote:On August 06 2009 15:29 Aegraen wrote:On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote:
Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race. Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10) With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point. this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space? get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit. the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources. how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now? You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct? The ocean is not "almost fished out". I'm sure you've seen the umpteen amounts of documentaries concerning crabbing, tuna runs, seals, etc. The Ocean encompasses the vast majority of land on the planet. If we haven't wiped out all forms of land based sustenance by now which comprises the tiny majority of space on Earth what makes you think that we have done that to the Oceans which are multitudes larger. The Ocean is thriving just fine. Just because a few whale species is on the endangered list does not an ocean depleted make. Secondly, there are things called Fish farms. I'm sure you've seen them before. Quite a bit more efficient than trawling. That is going to be the future of fisheries. Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" (Ones in which we plant)? Trees are a renewable resource. Forests are not going anywhere. I mean, its not like the Amazon rainforest is 5% of its former self, or the Boreal forest is 15% of its former self, no? I'm also quite unsure what Forests have to do with the sustainability of humanity? If our government wasn't so stubborn and didn't have such deep derision involved with the means of producing electricity we would be mostly a Nuclear powered country like France. Nuclear energy is cheap, plentiful, and in no ways going to run out anytime shortly (shortly being like 1000 years+++). By the time Fission technology is no longer feasible (haha), we'll all ready have mastered Nuclear Fusion. Fusion is unlimited in its scope. We will never have another energy need once we master Fusion. Ah yes, Global Warming, that little thing called a theory. In which there is more evidence that disproves it than proves it. Science politicized is not science at all. I would like for you to conduct the Scientific Method on Global Warming please. The Scientific Method is the construct for science. If you cannot apply the method then you have no workable theory, period. Isn't technology splendid? though I appreciate your thoughtful reply, I still believe you are seriously in err in some of your points. first off, you are making it seem as if the coast guard is an oceanic sciences team. But let's focus on the facts and ignore that no matter how cocky we are, neither your background nor mine functions as any sort of qualification to comment on the topic beyond allowing us to find facts done by people far more qualified than we are. So here is some evidence that I'd like to bring into the conversation. this is for our (hopefully continuing to be) thoughtful discussion, and also for the benefit of tl netters who will be reading this and unfortunately but most likely, allowing their opinion on an important topic to be determined by an online forum. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108149large meta-study observing global trends in line with local trends, that oceans collapse by 2050, collapse being defined as 90% depletion. keep in mind that the ocean is a large fucking place. when most of the species are gone, most of he larger lifeforms will become extinct due to starvation. your mention of EEZ is hilarious. do you think that by patrolling one area of the ocean, you are saving the fish? fish do swim right? The ocean isn't like a pasture that you fence off. I don't know why you are getting the idea that you can protect fish by protecting one area. Are you also tying up all the fish in that area with rope so they don't swim beyond 100 miles from your designated EEZ? not only are you wrong in your assumption that fish farming can completely replace natural fishing, it is even more fucking damning that you are assuming that a lack of food is the main problem of depleting the oceans. forests, coal, and other fossil fuels are still the main source of energy for creating electricity. sure, we have some manufactured forests, but do you really believe that we are growing manufactured forests to completely replace the forests we are cutting down? and why are you even asking me why trees are important? First you say that the Earth should have 5x as many people because we can, then you assume that the main problem with depletion of the oceans is food scarcity, and then you ask me why we need trees. What is this, mucho money map? before i thoroughly rape you on your conviction that global warming doesn't exist, please confirm to me that you indeed believe it doesn't exist. I find it hard to believe that you are considering the 99.9% consensus of the scientific community to be hogwash. You do know that in addition to global consensus among any climatgologist worth his salt, the UN has also conducted an exhaustive study inviting the top scientists of each country to study the subject without influence from any one country's politics or business interests. Anyways, please let me know that you want to really argue against global warming. because when i read that part, i started thinking this might actually be a waste of my time. but I do have to agree with you on one point, being that nuclear fussion would be the ideal source of energy in the future. the only countries making reasonable strides towards it, last time i heard, was the EU, China and Japan. A Japanese scientist just a few years ago, making good progress with making fussion more efficient and possible at lower temperatures. China investing huge amounts of money in the creation of a functional prototype fussion reactor. the EU doing something similar. Back to the point. do you really think the earth needs 5x the population it has right now? let me know also if you mean that all 30 billion people would live at the standard of the average american right now.
Anytime. Having civil discourse is always pleasant.
Let me start off with Global Warming. First off, as the link I earlier provided clearly showed you that 99% of the scientists do not in fact agree. Secondly, consensus among the scientific community means nothing. As history proves it only takes one person to disprove the collective. Therefore the number of people who share the same feelings is irrelevant. All that matters is if the theory can hold up to the evidence and the scientific method.
This is a great read, from an astrophysics Professor. In order to fully grasp the material you would have to have a Masters in a related field, however there are many articles in which he breaks it down and summarizes the gist. A great read.
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
Here is another great source that points to the built in bias in many governmental agencies. You have to ask yourself, how is the data measured? Well, we have instruments devised to do this, correct? Well, how do you make sure the data is accurate. This isn't certainly how you go about it.
http://masterresource.org/?p=3847
Says Watts a retired meteorologist who conducted the surveys with 650 volunteers:
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations–nearly 9 of every 10–fail to meet the National Weather Services’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 or every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
If you really want to get into the nitty gritty, which I urge you to. I will debate with you Global Warming all day long. I am quite confident that the evidence suggests that Anthropogenic Global Warming is patently false and I will lay the evidence out for you to determine yourself. Lastly, on this subject I just want to point out the logical faux-pas you made. First you say that neither you or myself have any intimate knowledge basis and thus rely on professionals in the fields of study. This is correct. However, it does not mean you or I do not have any ability to comprehend the evidence. The collection of evidence is left to the Professionals and its studies. However, you then go on to say "any scientist worth his salt", in which previously you said yourself or I have no background in this field of study, so what makes you such an expert as to disqualify or qualify a scientist? I am truely intrigued.
Needs? The Earth is not a sentient being. The Earth has no needs. I am quite alarmed at the prospect that there are actually people who advocate at some point in the future forced abortions, child limitations, and god knows what else you would conceive of.
Onto the beginning of your rebuttal. The Coast Guard mans many scientific missions. We fly HC-130s over the Arctic to monitor, photograph, and conduct research. We also have 2 Polar Rollers that have science teams on board that traverse around the Arctic, Canada, and other such places. Among my colleagues its said to be the best Afloat Billet you could get, even though you are out for more than 8+ months at a time. The Coast Guard is the most diverse multi-missioned Service in the world. You can thank Alexander Hamilton for laying the groundwork on such a storied and long standing traditioned service that is 219 years old.
http://www.uscg.mil/top/missions/Protect_NR.asp
Yes, fish swim. However, fish have patterns and areas they stick to. Take salmon for instance. Each fish species migrating patterns are different. Some stay in a relatively small area, others follow currents to and fro. However, the area's in which commercial vessels fish in are monitored and do have regulations that need to be abided by. Who enforces those? Why the Coast Guard. We do this at every major commercial fishing location. A dead fish being dead for too long is not a product that is sellable. There are only so many commercial fishery locations to offload the product. Small time fisherman and recreational fisherman pose no threat to the sustainability of oceanic fisheries. It also doesn't behoove any fisherman to spend more money on fuel and supplies than they have to that is why they wait until the fish are at the closest to ports and harbors, thus the existence of EEZ's. To brand all fish as having large migratory patterns when its difficult to ascertain the patterns in the first place seems to point to being unsound science.
Secondly, fish are notorious for easily reproducing. This allows for easy reconstitution of large populations, which is why fish are a great source of food. This is also why Fish Farms will become very popular in the future because the profit margins are huge and the upkeep is minimal. Very much more efficient than trawling.
Just a quick sample read as to how complicated it is to actually figure out the migratory patterns.
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm29/papers/myers.htm
This is another good read, as it provides a good example as to why sustainability is very much achievable. (Though, take it with some grain of salt as its only one species)
www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6564.full.pdf
The point about fisheries is that due to the nature of fish, our exploitation of them is very much sustainable and in conjunction with increased fish farms our supply of seafood is not in any danger, factoring in a doubling of the population of the world. I would also like to point out that many of the larger species in the ocean eat phytoplankton and other such creatures which are not in any part being fished. For example Whales rely on phytoplankton which is nothing more than algae. Many other sea creatures food is sunlight; coral, seaweed, and other oceanic plants for instance. Not every sea creature is carnivorous.
I am saying that people have inalieable rights and of those is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Population control goes against every tenant of my beliefs.
Yes, the only problem that an increased population poses would be to the resources needed for life itself. Shelter, Food, Water etc. I have addressed all three. Yes, I place humanity above wildlife if that is what you were suggesting.
|
On August 06 2009 17:41 keV. wrote:
It really is sickening how hard it is to get facts about global warming. Its not a game about who wins, climate directly effects life on earth as we know it. It is truly horrible that there are people in limbo because of dollars being thrown around.
Not hard. Just hard for you.
FYI
Direct link to PDF: PDF File
On August 06 2009 17:26 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:This is an extremely technical area. While it is possible to have a useful discussion, I am not sure anyone here is going to gain anything significant in the way of actual scientific knowledge from reading long posts from Brood War fans banging away at their keyboards. I of course include myself in this. And members of the coast guard. The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community. There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies: "The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies."Link to main page: Royal SocietyDirect link to PDF: PDF File
|
On August 06 2009 17:10 Polyphasic wrote:
Aegraen, I would like to hear how you would continue to argue the following points:
1- why the oceans are nowhere near depletion
2- how your little EEZ protection runs prevent fish from swimming in and out of your EEZ
3- why ocean depletion is ok
4- why Earth doesn't need trees, nor other such pesky things like coal or oil.
5- why we should even consider 30 billion population
regarding your pathetic attempt to quote the CEI, a simple google search reveals that the CEI being a not for profit organization, receive funding mainly from ExxonMobil. Connect the dots idiot.
1- your attempts to argue points 1-5, which I'm awaiting responses on more for amusement than out of serious consideration,
2- Your inability to pose even one serious point of data. the only you can come up with being seriously flawed. demonstrating that you have no ability whatsoever for quality data collection. are you completely incompetent? not only are you ignorant, you are also stupid. no offense.
3- trying to flaunt your role on the coast guard as if it somehow qualified your opinion about environment or climatology. coast guards are a branch of the military stupid. your mention of the EEZ shows that you don't even know the background reasoning behind what you are being ordered by your superiors to do.
Could you tell me, as I am curious to learn, what are the prerequisites for joining the coast guard? All that I can dig up is that you are required to have a 1000 SAT, and a 2.5 GPA. but perhaps i am missing something, perhaps you are also secretly touting a post doc in oceanography or any related field, or even anything related to objective analysis? or maybe you were one of the thousands of international experts who have committed their life to studying the topic, selected by the UN from every major country to participate in the international discussion on the topic, who have reached an unanimous consensus... but of course your little complaint went unheard, so you are voicing it on an internet forum instead?
cheers
Ah, because I don't instantly respond to your post, I'm stupid.
As to number four I said the Earth doesn't need Forests. Trees yes, forests not so much. Remember, we are talking about humanities population sustainability, not about what you would rather see Earth as.
As to number five. It is up to no one, but the father and mother to decide whether they will have a child. Unless you someday advocate a Despotic Government in which they arbitrarily decide who can, and cannot have a child and all other sorts of Orwellian speak. The Earth will even out the population numbers itself. If we cannot sustain a certain number of people then it just won't happen. You let nature take that course, not humanity. Imagine such power, you would be God for lack of a better description.
Who funds who, doesn't matter. The facts matter. I don't discredit reports that receive money from Solar Panel companies, Wind Power companies, etc. If you're going to refute the points at least do it based on evidence and facts to either prove or disprove the points, not on who funds who. If that was the case then everything in this world would be irrelevant because people fund things they typically believe in. I guess you think the CATO Institute and Ayn Rand Institute as being completely biased and non-factual because its on the opposite side of the political spectrum than you are? Would you say the same for Al Gore funding Global Warming?
I also like your tact and playbook style. Saul Alinsky seems to be in style these days.
|
On August 06 2009 17:31 Polyphasic wrote:
/thread
/Aegraen
forgive me but QFT lool
|
as global society grows increasingly obsessed with death and catastrophe the fearofclimatechange and mass extinction becomes more useful in the hands of those in power than the fearofterrorism ever was.
*~*~**~*~*
|
I have problems to see what the "fearofclimatechange" has brought bad to us yet...
|
Polyphasic is it that hard to have a discussion without insulting people ? I didnt see anyone calling you a idiot, so calm down.
|
On August 06 2009 18:18 Velr wrote:
I have problems to see what the "fearofclimatechange" has brought bad to us yet...
Hmmm, creating a commodity out of mid-air that has no value. Surely, nothing bad can come of that. You know besides farmers instead of creating crops, they're doing nothing and selling off "carbon-credits" to those who have to buy them or face penalties by the Federal Government because of Global Warming. Oh, increased energy prices because of CO2 penalties and increased regulation by the Federal Government which produces higher energy costs.
Take Coal for example that supplies 52% of America's power. If Cap and Trade passed, by Barack Obama's own words:
When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks...they're going to destroy the economy
No, thats not bad. Fear-mongering for more centralized power, that has never ended up badly.
And I will pre-empt you on the enivatible, but Boooosh. All I have to say on that subject is:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
|
So basically we have two opinons here:
1. Global Warming and all the other annoying stuff.
2. Everything's fine.
I won't even try to argue about the correctness of either. But consider the outcomes if you ignore one of the two possibilities:
Ignore number 2 and prepare for or work against Global Warming: Will cost us some resources, will be quite bothersome at times, and if there is no Global Warming at all, we just have lost a bit of our wealth.
Ignore number 1 and do as always: If Global Warming actually becomes an issue, it will hit us completely unprepared. The effects cannot really be foreseen, and possibly they will be BAD.
So, personally I'd rather be safe than sorry. No matter how wrong all those scientists might be.
|
I'm skeptical of this global warming thing, the earth's climate changes all the time, 100 years ago it was colder than it is now, ~1500 years ago it was considerably warmer than now, the arctic didn't have nearly as much ice about 700 years ago as it does today, and many of these pictures that supposedly show a region going from being snow covered to not are the result of deforestation.
The rising water levels will apparently come from simply the expansion of the water due to heat, ice melting into it won't make a difference. But if global warming is true then perhaps they should do something a little more drastic than energy saving lightbulbs and not having plastic bags at supermarkets....because we all know that's where ALL the emissions come from.
Also I have no doubt the earth could support many more people than it does today.
|
It's not like when an extinction threat happens we're gonna just sit there and do nothing especially if we have people being aware of it. Because there'll bound to be paranoid people with tin foil hats and the like preparing their own self/family-preservation plans or trying to battle the threats.
The likelier way for us to go extinct is from threats that we do not expect. WE WILL SURVIVE!
|
What? This makes no sense. I guess the Arctic Ice Shelves are hovering in mid-air. Also, what makes your line of where the cities are accurate? Do you know the sea levels of each city?
The glass test is the best test that simulates the effects on sea levels that ice has.
I'll gladly explain. If you look at a colored world map you will notice that places like Greenland and Antarctica are colored white and there is a vary specific reason for this. They are covered with a thing called land ice, which is also what the shelf represents. You see land ice has no effect on the sea level as long as it's actually frozen, but once it melts and flows into the sea Tada! the water level rises. Sadly global warming affects land ice as well so it's probably already melting.
As for sea levels: a portion of holland is in depression(sea level is below zero) and the barriers holding back the sea are man made while New York is right next to the Atlantic. But those are just examples. If you really want to know what places will be the first to get flooded do a google search.
|
On August 06 2009 18:49 spinesheath wrote:
So basically we have two opinons here:
1. Global Warming and all the other annoying stuff.
2. Everything's fine.
I won't even try to argue about the correctness of either. But consider the outcomes if you ignore one of the two possibilities:
Ignore number 2 and prepare for or work against Global Warming: Will cost us some resources, will be quite bothersome at times, and if there is no Global Warming at all, we just have lost a bit of our wealth.
Ignore number 1 and do as always: If Global Warming actually becomes an issue, it will hit us completely unprepared. The effects cannot really be foreseen, and possibly they will be BAD.
So, personally I'd rather be safe than sorry. No matter how wrong all those scientists might be.
Your basically giving your government unlimited power. If they say, X produces CO2 and it must be eliminated then by your belief, well its ok because what if Global Warming is true? Ack.
Basically the price of every single product and good you take for granted today will skyrocket in price. It's not just about wealth, its about living standards, power of government, and creeps into every facet of life. For example, you aren't allowed to run your heat for more than 45 minutes a day in the winter to reduce CO2, so they install monitors on your home and encourage snitching by your neighbors. You think this is far-fetched? Government benevolent? Do not show such ambivalence to history.
Just a few things to think about.
|
On August 06 2009 19:02 bN` wrote:Show nested quote +What? This makes no sense. I guess the Arctic Ice Shelves are hovering in mid-air. Also, what makes your line of where the cities are accurate? Do you know the sea levels of each city?
The glass test is the best test that simulates the effects on sea levels that ice has. I'll gladly explain. If you look at a colored world map you will notice that places like Greenland and Antarctica are colored white and there is a vary specific reason for this. They are covered with a thing called land ice, which is also what the shelf represents. You see land ice has no effect on the sea level as long as it's actually frozen, but once it melts and flows into the sea Tada! the water level rises. Sadly global warming affects land ice as well so it's probably already melting. As for sea levels: a portion of holland is in depression(sea level is below zero) and the barriers holding back the sea are man made while New York is right next to the Atlantic. But those are just examples. If you really want to know what places will be the first to get flooded do a google search.
Yes, I concede the point. However, you fail to account that the sea levels would drop to due ice shelves melting, however that is off-set by land ice melting and water run-off (However, remember ice melts slow and the land does absorb and use water). In any event they cancel each other.
Secondly, I question every "reading" or ice survey conducted because of things like this.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-219918
So much for the Ice Sheet melting? Try Sensor Drift...seems someone has made ANOTHER big ERROR the size of California! Arctic Sea Ice Miscalculated As Too Scant, More Abundant Than Reported Scientists now report that due to a phenomenon referred to as "sensor drift," previous reports on Arctic ice cover were too conservative. Since the error has been discovered, it has been determined there is far more ice than previously thought. Now that the problem has been identified, scientists calculate an area of sea the size of the state of California, or 193,000 square miles, is covered with ice previously unreported. The discrepancy is in part due to differing systems of reporting. The NSIDC, which interprets the data, claims this indicates a key measurement of global temperature change and notes that this finding does not invalidate research indicating that ice is retreating; errors are discovered during checks before archiving. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=77161 Satellite Reveals Antarctica's Ice Sheet Is Getting Thicker By Amanda Onion Jan. 18, 2002 A series of troubling reports in recent years have suggested Antarctica is warming and shedding its ice shelves at an alarming rate. But a new study that used a highly precise image-snapping satellite suggests at least one prominent ice sheet — the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — is in fact getting thicker. The report, plus other work finding that desert valleys on the continent have cooled recently, appear to contradict predictions that global warming is melting the continent's massive ice reservoirs. This may seem like good news, but scientists say: Don't count on it. They warn other ice sheets continue to shrink even as this one thickens.
Oh, who am I kidding. The ice shelves are melting rapidly, we must do everything in our power. I quite like the use of sarcasm at times, do not take it personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
