Global Warming Has Leaders Underwater

[Steven]

Source

GIRIFUSHI, Maldives – Members of the Maldives' Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.

President Mohammed Nasheed and 13 other government officials submerged and took their seats at a table on the sea floor — 20 feet (6 meters) below the surface of a lagoon off Girifushi, an island usually used for military training.

With a backdrop of coral, the meeting was a bid to draw attention to fears that rising sea levels caused by the melting of polar ice caps could swamp this Indian Ocean archipelago within a century. Its islands average 7 feet (2.1 meters) above sea level.

"What we are trying to make people realize is that the Maldives is a frontline state. This is not merely an issue for the Maldives but for the world," Nasheed said.

As bubbles floated up from their face masks, the president, vice president, Cabinet secretary and 11 ministers signed a document calling on all countries to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

The issue has taken on urgency ahead of a major U.N. climate change conference scheduled for December in Copenhagen. At that meeting countries will negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol with aims to cut the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that scientists blame for causing global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Wealthy nations want broad emissions cuts from all countries, while poorer ones say industrialized countries should carry most of the burden.

Dozens of Maldives soldiers guarded the event Saturday, but the only intruders were groupers and other fish.

Nasheed had already announced plans for a fund to buy a new homeland for his people if the 1,192 low-lying coral islands are submerged. He has promised to make the Maldives, with a population of 350,000, the world's first carbon-neutral nation within a decade.

"We have to get the message across by being more imaginative, more creative and so this is what we are doing," he said in an interview on a boat en route to the dive site.

Nasheed, who has emerged as a key, and colorful, voice on climate change, is a certified diver, but the others had to take diving lessons in recent weeks.

Three ministers missed the underwater meeting because two were not given medical permission and another was abroad.

Well, I think they have the right idea! xD

It is my stance on global warming that, among the arguments that it does exist versus it not occurring, it should be taken as a procaution whether it is happening or not. Whether "global warming" is happening, there is evidence that threatening cataclysmic events could very well occur, and even if not caused by what we call it as global warming, we should defend ourselves from the results of these "events", not necessarily global warming."

What are your stances, everyone?

 

[Big Lutz]

Global Warming as it stands now is a debated science. It isn't as clean cut as it was four or five years ago when Gore was promoting his inaccurate documentary. Like any science, the issue is constantly evolving as more facts come to light. Personally I think stunts like these, and the doomsday predictions of Global Warming nuts, only serve to turn off the public as a whole. Especially when the world economy is still taking a beating.

What we know is that the Earth has been in a stagnant/cooling trend since 1998 where we recorded our warmest year. That trend could be short or it could continue for decades. No matter what happens though we do need to work on ways to deal with pollution, but we should not take drastic steps that could actually destroy a country's economy, based on a science that right now is still heavily in debate.

And just to end this on, even the BBC News has started to notice that the Global Warming stuff may not be all its cracked up to be.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

 

[Dewgong Reign]

Global Warming as it stands now is a debated science. It isn't as clean cut as it was four or five years ago when Gore was promoting his inaccurate documentary. Like any science, the issue is constantly evolving as more facts come to light. Personally I think stunts like these, and the doomsday predictions of Global Warming nuts, only serve to turn off the public as a whole. Especially when the world economy is still taking a beating.

This seems to me like somewhat of an ignorant statement. Sure, the idea of Global Warming and its effects have evolved, but that Iceland/Antartica are melting even in the slightest, has been proved. And I'm not talking about Gore's documentary just to clear that up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

 

[Big Lutz]

This seems to me like somewhat of an ignorant statement. Sure, the idea of Global Warming and its effects have evolved, but that Iceland/Antartica are melting even in the slightest, has been proved. And I'm not talking about Gore's documentary just to clear that up.

Actually that in and of itself is a bit of a ignorant statement as Antartica's ice has been found to be growing. Mind you I have no problem saying the Earth has been warming, and is now cooling. Obviously my statement of 'Global Warming' was short hand for 'Man Made Global Warming'

Australia News: East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

 

[Steven]

As far as the melting of polar ice is concerned, Dewgong is more reputable on this one. Yes, there have been arguments that the ice is growing, but we've seen more of it "melting", than we have seen it "growing."

 

[Big Lutz]

As far as the melting of polar ice is concerned, Dewgong is more reputable on this one. Yes, there have been arguments that the ice is growing, but we've seen more of it "melting", than we have seen it "growing."

If you will read the article, or even the quote provided as far as Antartica is concerned, the growing has more than made up for the melting in West Antartica.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

Saw this yesterday and figured it was also worth a post.

The Climate Change Mythbuster

"I am stunned--absolutely stunned," says Jim Hoggan, author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade toDeny Global Warming (Greystone Books) and a chair of the David Suzuki Foundation.

He's not shocked by how climate change deniers managed to stall global awareness and action on global warming--though many people are. He's shocked that the people who deny the very existence of climate change are actually still around, and amazed that there is even the need for his book, which outlines their lies and the PR machine that drives them.

If anybody is in a position to understand how the art of public relations has furthered the cause of global warming denialists, he should: As president of the PR firm Hogganand Associates in Vancouver, he has worked in the field for decades. "Public relations is about fostering relationships and helping people communicate--not about spreading misinformation," he says.

Offended and incensed by the way oil and coal companies hired PR firms from the 1980s onwards to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming (just as they did to spread uncertainty about the hazards of second-hand smoke and a litany of other scientifically solid issues), he founded an online resource, DeSmogBlog.com, five years ago.

"When we started it, a small blog run out of a closet in Vancouver, I never thought we would have 1.3 million visitors by now," he says--nor did he think the blog would still be in existence.

Denialist boom

In fact, Hoggan says, not only are the deniers still around, "they seem to be on the increase." As the public grows more aware of the unshakeable strength of the scientific consensus and the urgency of the problem, so does the desperation and the stubbornness of those determined to deny its importance for the sake of big money. "This isn't a conspiracy--it's an industry," he says.

In the late 1980s, Hoggan writes in the Climate Cover-Up, the recognition of climate change and of man-made greenhouse gases as the primary cause was so accepted that even George Bush Sr., said "Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the 'White House effect': as president I intend to do something about it."

But 20 years of oil companies (plus their hired PR guns) manufacturing doubt with "phony scientists, phony scientific reports, phony grassroots organizations and phony think tanks putting out press releases and press kits with the objective of undermining any effort by political bodies to put legislation in place to reduce greenhouse gases" means that we really, haven't done anything about the problem.

Greenhouse gases continue to rise (Canada is now roughly 30 percent above its 1990 levels, when it should have made cuts), public awareness continues to stagnate (a recent Gallup poll estimated that 48 percent of Americans think the threat of global warming is exaggerated), political movements are slowed (the B.C. carbon tax was notoriously rejected, "when people should have been crying out for a carbon tax," Hoggan says; it has since been implemented) and the media continues to quote global warming skeptics in the same space as bona fide climate change scientists. Most notoriously, he writes, The Calgary Herald.

Changing tactics

With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (along with Al Gore) winning the Nobel Prize and the upcoming UN meeting in Copenhagen on everybody's radar, outright denial of the existence of climate change is becoming less and less commonplace. But in that place, he says, we are now seeing more and more "energy" and "environmental" experts saying that it is indeed a problem and it is indeed our fault, but that it would be too costly to prevent. Other problems, such as AIDS or poverty, rank higher on our priority list, and we can't possibly deal with climate change at the same time, they argue.

"They give people the sense that it's not something they can do anything about--it's a very clever strategy," Hoggan says.

Media-friendly figures like Britain's Christopher Monckton (featured on CBC's The Hour ) and Bjorn Lomborg (graced with a TED talk) continue to find megaphones for their views that climate change is just too big a problem for us to fix, "without ever being asked where they get their money from," he says.

Reason to hope

But, he adds, "The number of people who understand the problem and who are concerned grows by the day."

"I really feel my job is to help improve the way that we talk about [climate change] to people so that they can understand it better--to help shed light on those people who are just trying to confuse the public," says Hoggan. "I think that is something that I will spend the rest of my life on."

Source

 

[Dewgong Reign]

Well at least we'll die in the name of truth! =D

 

[Big Lutz]

Well at least we'll die in the name of truth! =D

And see that kind of fear mongering is what has turned so many off to Global Warming. The stupidity of saying "If we do not do something in 20 years New York will be under water" or "We only have 10 years to reverse the problem". The Global Warming alarmists have said that since the 80s, and time and time again its turned out to be untrue, the more you fear monger, the more people stop listening to you.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

If you will read the article, or even the quote provided as far as Antartica is concerned, the growing has more than made up for the melting in West Antartica.

Not in the Arctic; it will be ice-free during the summer within a few years, finally creating the fabled Northwest Passage that so many exploreres had hoped to find all those centuries ago. The People often cite Antarctica because it has so much more ice that can melt, but the Arctic is in far more danger as it stands.

 

[hurristat]

What we know is that the Earth has been in a stagnant/cooling trend since 1998 where we recorded our warmest year. That trend could be short or it could continue for decades. No matter what happens though we do need to work on ways to deal with pollution, but we should not take drastic steps that could actually destroy a country's economy, based on a science that right now is still heavily in debate.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1352

This is written by a respected scientist in the field of meteorology.

It's still warmer than before the 90's. Sure, 1998 might have been the warmest year so far, but that doesn't mean it's going to be the warmest year ever. In fact, the global temperature has been about 2 degrees Celsius warmer than it should be for about the last 10- and the average is going up. Sure, maybe that one year was anomalous, but it doesn't mean that the overall temperature is going down. Climate tries to trend towards equilibrium- that's one reason why global warming is so scary.

Yes, Antarctic ice may be growing, but that doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist.

 

[Big Lutz]

Not in the Arctic; it will be ice-free during the summer within a few years, finally creating the fabled Northwest Passage that so many exploreres had hoped to find all those centuries ago. The People often cite Antarctica because it has so much more ice that can melt, but the Arctic is in far more danger as it stands.

Possibly, right now we do not know, Earth's temperatures are continuing to lower since their 1998 high. One lesson that everyone in the Debate of Global Warming should have taken away is that long term forecasts tend to be sketchy at best, outright wrong at worst.

It's still warmer than before the 90's. Sure, 1998 might have been the warmest year so far, but that doesn't mean it's going to be the warmest year ever. In fact, the global temperature has been about 2 degrees Celsius warmer than it should be for about the last 10- and the average is going up. Sure, maybe that one year was anomalous, but it doesn't mean that the overall temperature is going down. Climate tries to trend towards equilibrium- that's one reason why global warming is so scary.

Actually there is more evidence that we are stabilizing, for the last 11 years we have not been increasing in temperatures, granted we are not cooling too fast, some reports are saying we have cooled of -.34 degrees since 1998.

 

[Dewgong Reign]

And see that kind of fear mongering is what has turned so many off to Global Warming. The stupidity of saying "If we do not do something in 20 years New York will be under water" or "We only have 10 years to reverse the problem". The Global Warming alarmists have said that since the 80s, and time and time again its turned out to be untrue, the more you fear monger, the more people stop listening to you.

I'm not afraid of the problem. If I was, I'd be denying that Global Warming existed.

I live on th friggin west coast. How many people do you think around here would call me stupid and inaccurate if I gave my views on Global Warming?

Those are the people who actually "fear" any of it.

 

[Big Lutz]

I'm not afraid of the problem. If I was, I'd be denying that Global Warming existed.

That is a pretty large leap, as most people say Global Warming exists, the temperatures back it up, the Earth has Warmed and Cooled since its start. The difference is that a ever growing group of people, including prominent scientists are saying Man Made Global Warming does not exist or atleast does not play such a huge role.

 

[Dewgong Reign]

That is a pretty large leap, as most people say Global Warming exists, the temperatures back it up, the Earth has Warmed and Cooled since its start. The difference is that a ever growing group of people, including prominent scientists are saying Man Made Global Warming does not exist or atleast does not play such a huge role.

But what about taking precautions against the damage that's already been done?

Katrina, anyone?

 

[Big Lutz]

But what about taking precautions against the damage that's already been done?

Katrina, anyone?

Katrina wasn't a product of Global Warming, the theory that Hurricanes are actually influenced by Global Warming pretty much went out the window in the years after Katrina where we had calm to very weak Hurricane seasons.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

Possibly, right now we do not know, Earth's temperatures are continuing to lower since their 1998 high. One lesson that everyone in the Debate of Global Warming should have taken away is that long term forecasts tend to be sketchy at best, outright wrong at worst.

I'm not talking about long-term forcasts. I'm talking about yearly measures that have been taken over the last decade in Canada's arctic. The result? Ice is being lost at a tremendous rate, and soon there will be none left in the summer. How far ahead is this? Four years, tops. That's not particularily far ahead in comparison with the usual forecasts you see for global warming, which measure 50-100 years into the future.

Actually there is more evidence that we are stabilizing, for the last 11 years we have not been increasing in temperatures, granted we are not cooling too fast, some reports are saying we have cooled of -.34 degrees since 1998.[/QUOTE]

And see that kind of fear mongering is what has turned so many off to Global Warming. The stupidity of saying "If we do not do something in 20 years New York will be under water" or "We only have 10 years to reverse the problem". The Global Warming alarmists have said that since the 80s, and time and time again its turned out to be untrue, the more you fear monger, the more people stop listening to you.

The alarmists yes, the scientists no. Most scientists, including those who support the theory, agree that it will be several centuries before the full-scale effects are felt. And it is certainly possible that it is already too late to reverse any damage that has been done, whether you believe it has an effect or not. Reducing emissions is not enough; the amount of gas still increases because nothing is done about the emissions already in the atmsphere. Hence why even cutting emissions to certain levels still causes the rate to increase.

The problem is much more than just arctic/antarctic ice. Temperatures are rising at faster levels than have been witnessed before; it could be by only an average of one-tenth of a degree centigrate over a decade, but that is enough for certain plants to be migrating further north or south (depending on their location) to remain in their optimal range. As the habitats change and some plant species die off, that has an effect on the animal life as well. They are also forced to migrate into areas they would not usually occupy, and again some species will die off.

It has an effect politically as well. Russia has dropped a flag at the north pole with the intent of claiming it as being part of their territory. Tensions are escalating between Canada and the US because American boats are patrolling within the now ice-free Canadian waters. Denmark and other northern European countries are also trying to stake their claim on the north; the reason? Oil.

You see it in the weather too. On average, hurricanes have been stronger than is typical over the last few years. Not all have been as bad as Katrina, but from the latest I'd read (admittedly about a year ago), hurricane strength was increasing in severity on average. Could be an anomaly, but it might not. Summers are getting warmer, winters are getting colder. That is another sign of the change. And precipitation patterns are being altered as well.

It's not just flooding in Bangladesh that could be a problem in the years to come.

 

[Steven]

But what about taking precautions against the damage that's already been done?

Katrina, anyone?

Preparing for the future, as well.

 

[Big Lutz]

The problem is much more than just arctic/antarctic ice. Temperatures are rising at faster levels than have been witnessed before; it could be by only an average of one-tenth of a degree centigrate over a decade, but that is enough for certain plants to be migrating further north or south (depending on their location) to remain in their optimal range. As the habitats change and some plant species die off, that has an effect on the animal life as well. They are also forced to migrate into areas they would not usually occupy, and again some species will die off.

Is that why, as the BBC article and pretty much everyone else notes, that Temperatures have not increased across the Earth since 1998? Infact many say we have actually began to cool?

You see it in the weather too. On average, hurricanes have been stronger than is typical over the last few years. Could be an anomaly, but it might not. Summers are getting warmer, winters are getting colder. That is another sign of the change. And precipitation patterns are being altered as well.

Actually that is a lie, atleast with the Hurricanes, we have had incredibly weak Hurricane seasons since Katrina, including this one. As for the Summers and Winters I would have to see some facts and figures.

 

[hurristat]

Katrina wasn't a product of Global Warming, the theory that Hurricanes are actually influenced by Global Warming pretty much went out the window in the years after Katrina where we had calm to very weak Hurricane seasons.

Uh. No. As an aspiring meteorologist, I can say that these last few have not been calm to very weak. All of them have been average to strong. Last year tied for the 5th-most storms, and the year before tied for the 8th-most storms. You're basing it off of the 2005 season, which had an anomalous 28 storms. Average is 8 or 9. 2006: 10 2007: 15 2008: 16 2009: 8 Even then, those two years with less storms is due to the El Nino, which increases the number of storms in the Eastern Pacific (average: 13) dramatically, and lowers the amount of storms in the Atlantic. Those two years where there were low counts of storms in the Atlantic, the Eastern Pacific had 19 and 17 storms(and counting), respectively. Right now, we are in an active phase of the AMO, and when combined with the increase in SSTs due to the overall warming of the atmosphere, you cannot say that that statement has been debunked.

Edit: Look at the hurricane records for 1980-1994. Tell me last year was weak.