Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Maybe, maybe not.

In light of the revelation that United Nations the other day admitted that in its 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the report that won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" and that assessment was based on media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999, not on scientific evidence, who can we trust anymore? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, BTW, is the report that world governments have been using to push the global warming agenda.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
 

·
"Chasing Riseforms"
Joined
·
4,977 Posts
Maybe, maybe not.

In light of the revelation that United Nations the other day admitted that in its 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the report that won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" and that assessment was based on media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999, not on scientific evidence, who can we trust anymore? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, BTW, is the report that world governments have been using to push the global warming agenda.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
Oh give me a f.......ing break!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
While that is a strike (not limited to three) against the IPCC, The IPCC has thousands of scientists and millions of data-points that show climate change is occurring and that it is likely the result of anthropogenic sources. To discredit all of the IPCC reports and claim that climate change is not a problem is to stick your head in the sand while covering your ears and yelling to drown out the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Further, the media blows everything out of proportion in the name of fairness, giving a voice to scientists who do not have the expertise to make claims. When 95%+ of scientists studying climate change agree that climate change is real and human caused, the other 5% somehow has an equal voice. To not understand that science is not absolute and that scientists are trained to question the conclusions of themselves and their peers despite personal feelings is to fundamentally not understand the scientific process. It is not proof of a conspiracy.

We can debate the right way and extent we address climate change but the fact remains that the longer we wait, the more expensive it gets. In addition, the longer we wait the more jobs to to european and asian countries because we didn't develop and construct technologies here. Climate change regulation and the technologies associated with controlling it have the potential to be a huge benefit to our economy, as well as a big risk (in the short term) if we do it wrong.

Let's have a constructive discussion instead of a partisan b***h-fest that accomplishes nothing except piss each other off and make everything more expensive. Neither the Democrats or Republicans are right. The IPCC is wrong about some stuff, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to address them. Government shouldn't be reactionary.
 

·
...
Joined
·
545 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Maybe, maybe not.

In light of the revelation that United Nations the other day admitted that in its 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the report that won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" and that assessment was based on media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999, not on scientific evidence, who can we trust anymore? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, BTW, is the report that world governments have been using to push the global warming agenda.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
I'm not exactly sure how your post has anything to do with this article. In the article, they are referencing studies conducted over 30 years of data collected on the acidity/ph level in the Pacific Ocean from the effects of increased CO2 in the air; not from global warming or glacial shrinkage.
 

·
"Chasing Riseforms"
Joined
·
4,977 Posts
I apologize for shooting my mouth off on here and to Blktailhunter. I shouldn't do that. It's just the global warming threads and politics together drive me crazy!!! :eek::beathead:
 

·
LA RAMS are SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!
Joined
·
5,345 Posts
If you guys are really worried, just read the scientific paper:

Direct observations of basin‐wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean [Preview]

R. H. Byrne, S. Mecking, R. A. Feely, and X. Liu

Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 2, doi:10.1029/2009GL040999, 2010

Global ocean acidification is a prominent, inexorable change associated with rising levels of atmospheric CO 2 . Here we present the first basin‐wide direct observations of recently declining pH, al...

From the Seattle Times:

"As expected, the researchers found acidification was strongest in the top layer of water, closest to the atmosphere. Normal seawater is slightly alkaline, with a pH value of about 8. Over the past 15 years, average pH levels in the top 300 feet of the ocean dropped 0.026 pH units. That sounds tiny, but is equivalent to a 6 percent jump in acidity, Byrne said.

Working a thousand or more miles off the West Coast, the scientists took samples down to the ocean floor. They found no change yet in acidity at the deepest levels. But as carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, natural mixing eventually will raise acidity throughout the water column, Byrne said."

I'm not losing any sleep over this, but it should be studied further of course. Don't underestimate the buffering capacity of the ocean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
A drop of pH level (that is movement in the direction of more acidity) of .026 may not sound like a big change, but the pH scale is not linear, it is logarithmic. Its like the richter scale (measures earthquakes) each unit in the scale represents a factor of 10. So just like an earthquake of 7 is 10 times as strong as an earthquake of 6, moving from 8 to 7 on the pH scale would mean a change of 10 times more acidic. A movement of .026 in fifteen years over such an enormous area is HUGE.

By the way the the statement that the glaciers would be gone by 2035 is a transposition error -- it should have been 2350. The error was bad proofreading, not bad science.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top