Planes guilty for “Climate Change”

peter13 · 05-23-2007, 03:52 PM

New report, published on Google news and everywhere in Internet claims, that plains are guilty for climate change. What do you think on this.
Report is here:
PR-GB.com... News from origin - New Report Challenges Basic Assumptions of “Climate Change”
UK Indymedia - New Report Challenges Basic Assumptions About Climate Change
New Report Challenges Basic Assumptions of 'Climate Change'

LOT 737-300 · 05-23-2007, 04:20 PM

I wonder what they said about the Climate Change in the 1970s (you know, the one where they said we were all going to freeze to death?) Thats when we had some pretty somkey planes flying around (nothing like the water-burners of the late 50s early 60s, but pretty smokey for today's standards.) I wonder why no one has yet decided to place any blame on that huge orangey/reddish/yellow ball in the sky we call the sun. From someone I know that studied the both Astrology and Meteorology, he said that it has more to do with activity with the sun rather than us going around and causing it (human activity only account for some small percentage of the CO2 that gets emitted into the atmosphere.) It works something like this, in the 1970s, the sun was not as active, so we didn't get as many hot days as we do now, when the sun is conciderably more active and in return, this is sending higher tempuratures to earth (supposidly). I had a small joke on W900, "if you wanna get rid of Global Warming (or whatever the **** they call it now), why not build a massive fire extinguisher and take out the sun."

Planecrazy · 05-23-2007, 08:33 PM

I am sure that aircraft add to the global warming but I bet all of the commercial aircraft flying right now barely equal what is put out by 3 coal fired electric plants.

Scientists also claim one of the significant contributors to methane pollution are cow belches. This MUST be stopped! How about a really big bar-b-que?

dboyd001 · 06-18-2007, 10:28 AM

.....I have my own whacked out theories:

Cow Farts: you bet those bovines are blowing a lot of gas!
Volcanoes: Let's see Al Gore put a stop to them!
Fat People: Too many fat people & they're all breathing, expelling Carbon Dioxide!
Hippies: They stink & they pollute!
Terrorists, etc.: All this blowing up stuff & people HAS to have some effect
Politicians: Blowing out hot air beyond Mother Nature to handle!
Beer & Soda: burping all that Carbon Dioxide

.....and while we're at it let's just blame lots of other things like Bar-B-Ques, composting, sex (all that heavy breathing you know), making diecast airplanes, lawn mowers, light bulbs, eating meat, eating vegatables, eating anything...

.....I think the funniest new theory on "Global Warming" blames the incandescent light bulb. The "experts" say we should all convert to CFB (compact flourescent bulbs). Now what any of you want to bet 10 years from now when all these CFBs are wearing out and being disposed of that these same "experts" will be howling about the pullution caused by these CFBs.

.....I'm having none of "global warming". It's climate change and has happened several times just in recorded Human history. Greenland was called that because it was green and Norse settlers did quite well there with farms. There were vineyards as far north as Scotland. That all changed and the world went through a "mini-ice age" that lasted more than 500 years (into the early 1800s).
.....Not worried about planes. Heard it before. Yeah, the Concorde was going to destroy the ozone layer. Seems to still be there.
Dave

A Tupolev · 06-21-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboyd001

.....I have my own whacked out theories:

Cow Farts: you bet those bovines are blowing a lot of gas!
Volcanoes: Let's see Al Gore put a stop to them!
Fat People: Too many fat people & they're all breathing, expelling Carbon Dioxide!
Hippies: They stink & they pollute!
Terrorists, etc.: All this blowing up stuff & people HAS to have some effect
Politicians: Blowing out hot air beyond Mother Nature to handle!
Beer & Soda: burping all that Carbon Dioxide

.....and while we're at it let's just blame lots of other things like Bar-B-Ques, composting, sex (all that heavy breathing you know), making diecast airplanes, lawn mowers, light bulbs, eating meat, eating vegatables, eating anything...

.....I think the funniest new theory on "Global Warming" blames the incandescent light bulb. The "experts" say we should all convert to CFB (compact flourescent bulbs). Now what any of you want to bet 10 years from now when all these CFBs are wearing out and being disposed of that these same "experts" will be howling about the pullution caused by these CFBs.

.....I'm having none of "global warming". It's climate change and has happened several times just in recorded Human history. Greenland was called that because it was green and Norse settlers did quite well there with farms. There were vineyards as far north as Scotland. That all changed and the world went through a "mini-ice age" that lasted more than 500 years (into the early 1800s).
.....Not worried about planes. Heard it before. Yeah, the Concorde was going to destroy the ozone layer. Seems to still be there.
Dave

You missed the hot air coming out of Al Gores mouth. I herd about a report that global warming actual piked in 1999. and the earth is now in a cooling trend. I guess the "ice age" wackos will come out of the woodwork now.

Hapag-Lloyd · 06-22-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Tupolev

... I herd about a report that global warming actual piked in 1999. and the earth is now in a cooling trend...

Tupi,

that one was authored by Borat so he could make enough money for a second trip to the states. In its conclusion, he writes that Usbekistan is guilty of any and all global warming (along with all the women´s tampax, which inlude a lot of carbon dioxide), and that gypsy tears sprinkled on hand-knitted sweaters made of pubic hair will help people from the effects the dastard Usbeks have caused.

dboyd001 · 06-23-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Tupolev

You missed the hot air coming out of Al Gores mouth. I herd about a report that global warming actual piked in 1999. and the earth is now in a cooling trend. I guess the "ice age" wackos will come out of the woodwork now.

.....Al Gore fits several categories in which he contributes plus some I did not list

Cow Farts, Fat people, politician were listed
Hypocrit who buys "green points" (or whatever they're called) & "Chicken Little" also count.

.....Al Gore is truely a man of many talents though none are any use to civilized people.
Dave

LOT 737-300 · 06-23-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Tupolev

You missed the hot air coming out of Al Gores mouth. I herd about a report that global warming actual piked in 1999. and the earth is now in a cooling trend. I guess the "ice age" wackos will come out of the woodwork now.

You know, you brought up a very good point about the "ice age" wackos. I remember seeing a scientist who dis-credited Global Warming's current threory (that people made this) and said many of the scientists that were screaming Global Cooling in the 1970s were the very scientists that are screaming Global Warming now.

D-AIHC · 06-25-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

From someone I know that studied the both Astrology and Meteorology, he said that it has more to do with activity with the sun rather than us going around and causing it

Sorry, when global warming is concerned, I definitely trust the Meteorologist over the Astrologist anytime! Please disregard if I am wrong, but I think you meant to say "Astronomy", right?

Hapag-Lloyd · 06-26-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

You know, you brought up a very good point about the "ice age" wackos. I remember seeing a scientist who dis-credited Global Warming's current threory (that people made this) and said many of the scientists that were screaming Global Cooling in the 1970s were the very scientists that are screaming Global Warming now.

Considering this were true and we were talking about the same scientists - that would mean that if, say, a doctor was wrong like 10 years ago when he misdiagnosed you (he said it was a cold, but it turned out to be a sinusitis e.g.) you´d never trust any doctor again? Plus, you make a decision based on hearsay, and don´t even remember the scientist´s name who discredited his colleagues? You´re not the overly critical kind, are you?

Sorry, but I don´t buy it. This is not about scientists, it´s about complacency. As long as cheap oil provides a comfy ride in a comfy car, comfy electricity, and a comfy a/c, why bother worrying about all the downsides that come with that comfort. Denial is (again) the comfortable choice. Plus, as it seems right now, it´s the American choice.

Criton · 06-26-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hapag-Lloyd

Considering this were true and we were talking about the same scientists - that would mean that if, say, a doctor was wrong like 10 years ago when he misdiagnosed you (he said it was a cold, but it turned out to be a sinusitis e.g.) you´d never trust any doctor again? Plus, you make a decision based on hearsay, and don´t even remember the scientist´s name who discredited his colleagues? You´re not the overly critical kind, are you?

Sorry, but I don´t buy it. This is not about scientists, it´s about complacency. As long as cheap oil provides a comfy ride in a comfy car, comfy electricity, and a comfy a/c, why bother worrying about all the downsides that come with that comfort. Denial is (again) the comfortable choice. Plus, as it seems right now, it´s the American choice.

Hapag:

I know we've gone over this again and again. You keep calling information questioning the validity of global warming theory as hearsay, yet in the past year, I know I've provided you with several citations from the scientific literature which dispute the pablum you are fed by the media. If there's any compalcency here, it's your reluctance to objectively evaluate the issue.

Hapag-Lloyd · 06-26-2007, 05:13 PM

Criton,

you have provided a link to one (!) University of Utah professor´s opinion, yet you deny the United Nation´s findings on global warming as being a "French" product, and have asked for China to take action first. You really wanted to discuss whether China or the USA is the world´s worst polluter (as if it mattered) and, correct me if I´m wrong, wanted China as being #1 in your opinieon, to take action first.

I don´t mean to offend you, but most UN member nations (including China) have agreed on the UN report (including your president on the G8 summit recently) - it´s the lowest common denominator on the UN member nations´ scientific findings. Yet, you deny the UN findings and cite obscure sources instead. And you dare accuse me of complacency? Now, that´s original. Have you even read the UN report on global warming, or a summary of the report? Or do you choose instead to believe what you want to believe, rather than the scientific findings resulting from research all over this planet?

Criton · 06-26-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hapag-Lloyd

Criton,

you have provided a link to one (!) University of Utah professor´s opinion, yet you deny the United Nation´s findings on global warming as being a "French" product, and have asked for China to take action first. You really wanted to discuss whether China or the USA is the world´s worst polluter (as if it mattered) and, correct me if I´m wrong, wanted China as being #1 in your opinieon, to take action first.

I don´t mean to offend you, but most UN member nations (including China) have agreed on the UN report (including your president on the G8 summit recently) - it´s the lowest common denominator on the UN member nations´ scientific findings. Yet, you deny the UN findings and cite obscure sources instead. And you dare accuse me of complacency? Now, that´s original. Have you even read the UN report on global warming, or a summary of the report? Or do you choose instead to believe what you want to believe, rather than the scientific findings resulting from research all over this planet?

I think you've got me confused with someone else. I provided you with a cite to a study from the scientific literature on ice mass measurements in Antarctica (none of the authors were from the University of Utah) as well as extensive quotations for the IPCC's own report when you argued that melting ocean ice sheets would raise ocean levels. This was on a thread at the Buzz.

FYI - in that same thread, I also provided links to lots of raw climate data and analyses in response to another member. Check it out if you dare.

I now will leave you to continue battling with your imaginary foil.

Criton · 06-26-2007, 09:59 PM

Hapag: Here's another citation and study different from the one I referenced above...just so you can't say that my study first one is obscure. This one has a different set of authors and uses a different set of satellite measurements:

Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.

What was done
The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet.""

What was learned
Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

Captain Wahoo · 06-26-2007, 10:27 PM

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

Captain Wahoo · 06-26-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

I wonder what they said about the Climate Change in the 1970s (you know, the one where they said we were all going to freeze to death?) Thats when we had some pretty somkey planes flying around (nothing like the water-burners of the late 50s early 60s, but pretty smokey for today's standards.) I wonder why no one has yet decided to place any blame on that huge orangey/reddish/yellow ball in the sky we call the sun. From someone I know that studied the both Astrology and Meteorology, he said that it has more to do with activity with the sun rather than us going around and causing it (human activity only account for some small percentage of the CO2 that gets emitted into the atmosphere.) It works something like this, in the 1970s, the sun was not as active, so we didn't get as many hot days as we do now, when the sun is conciderably more active and in return, this is sending higher tempuratures to earth (supposidly). I had a small joke on W900, "if you wanna get rid of Global Warming (or whatever the **** they call it now), why not build a massive fire extinguisher and take out the sun."

You referring to me? I studied Astronomy and Meteorology!

LOT 737-300 · 06-26-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-AIHC

Sorry, when global warming is concerned, I definitely trust the Meteorologist over the Astrologist anytime! Please disregard if I am wrong, but I think you meant to say "Astronomy", right?

But he studied both, and they both are closly linked in this case. The is alot more active now than it was in the 1970s (though it is calming down slowly).

Quote:

Considering this were true and we were talking about the same scientists - that would mean that if, say, a doctor was wrong like 10 years ago when he misdiagnosed you (he said it was a cold, but it turned out to be a sinusitis e.g.) you´d never trust any doctor again? Plus, you make a decision based on hearsay, and don´t even remember the scientist´s name who discredited his colleagues? You´re not the overly critical kind, are you?

Sorry, but I don´t buy it. This is not about scientists, it´s about complacency. As long as cheap oil provides a comfy ride in a comfy car, comfy electricity, and a comfy a/c, why bother worrying about all the downsides that come with that comfort. Denial is (again) the comfortable choice. Plus, as it seems right now, it´s the American choice.

Oh yeah, because Americans are the only ones who use oil, we only drive cars, we only ones use electricity and we only use planes to get from point A to B

. EXCELLENT POINT YOU MADE IN YOUR SECOND PARAGRAPH. If you actually know, in America, you'll know that most of the country has inferior public transit, not because we can't attain the technology, but because everything is very well spread out. Why spend a whole day walking 5 miles to a store to get food and supplies that should last you a week? It wouldn't work here, we need cars that are a bit larger to transport ourselves, if we did have more efficient transport, I'm sure many of us would use it. As for scientists part, you have to realize that they choose not to scream global warming for no reason. Most of them have to scream global warming sometimes just so they could get all types of funding for their projects. If they don't, then they'll get little or no money. Trust me, I go to a American University, I hear a few professors talking about that all the time.

Quote:

Criton,

you have provided a link to one (!) University of Utah professor´s opinion, yet you deny the United Nation´s findings on global warming as being a "French" product, and have asked for China to take action first. You really wanted to discuss whether China or the USA is the world´s worst polluter (as if it mattered) and, correct me if I´m wrong, wanted China as being #1 in your opinieon, to take action first.

I don´t mean to offend you, but most UN member nations (including China) have agreed on the UN report (including your president on the G8 summit recently) - it´s the lowest common denominator on the UN member nations´ scientific findings. Yet, you deny the UN findings and cite obscure sources instead. And you dare accuse me of complacency? Now, that´s original. Have you even read the UN report on global warming, or a summary of the report? Or do you choose instead to believe what you want to believe, rather than the scientific findings resulting from research all over this planet?

Well, one thing I find funny is how high recorded tempuratures were much higher in the 1920s and 1930s and yet, we're acting like we never had any day where the temp got above 90 F on earth. Another thing you fail to mention is that over the past 50 years we have been putting more efficent technologies and cleaner things as well. Recently a study was done that said the ice of Mt. Kilmanjaro had been melting for well over a century. Also, places on earth are actually getting a bit colder than usual. A UN done some time ago also did a study that said that livestock seems to cause alot Greenhouse Gasses, does that mean we have to find every farm, close down 90% of them, and only let the richest of the rich buy meat and eggs to eat (or eat period since most of the food most humans eat essentially come from eggs and milk?)

Trust me, there is nothing wrong with getting more efficient machinery, it's a good thing to prevent problems like bad air and acid rain, and large amounts of haze. But you can't force regular people to be more "green", not in a rapid pace anyways, if you did a revolution would break out and quite possibly reset everything for more than half a century (plus, it wouldn't be very economical either, since people would be going broke because the gov't forced them to be "green." Trust me, I have driven a 2000 Mercury Mountaineer with a V8, it did like 22MPG on a Expressway, when that one got hit by a red light runner (and got it to be totaled), I went for a Mercury Mariner with a V6, I drove it down the interstate and the Fuel Econ gauge was showing up to 29 MPG. Now for a SUV, despite it being a "cross over" SUV, is very good, efficient and I only have to refuel it usually once a week (I usually drive over 60 mi (~100km) a day.) Your theory that Americans will keep buying cars that are less and less efficent seems very flawed Hapag Floyd.

LOT 737-300 · 06-26-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Wahoo

You referring to me? I studied Astronomy and Meteorology!

Yeah, I was referring to you.

D-AIHC · 06-27-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

But he studied both, and they both are closly linked in this case. The is alot more active now than it was in the 1970s (though it is calming down slowly).

I wasn't doubting that he studied both but I just wanted to say that there's a difference between Astronomy and Astrology. Astronomy is science-based while Astrology is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

...we need cars that are a bit larger to transport ourselves...

Correct me if I am wrong but after reading the below article, the only sensible reason I can think of is because of the rising obesity rate among the Americans. It was interesting to see the changes on the interactive map.

Is Your State Overweight? - Obesity in America - MSN Health & Fitness

LOT 737-300 · 06-27-2007, 12:23 PM

Again, more hype from the media, if you look around, you'll see overweight people everywhere, but you'll also see just as many people that are not overweight and a good amount that are severly underweight. It's funny how they call this a "Obiesity Epidemic", but I don't see people magically gaining 100lbs overnight. Trust me, if you wanna spend 5 hours walking back and forth to a supermarket (then 2-3 hours shopping for groceries) then you're more than welcome, but people will think you have some issues. My guess is that Americans sometimes need to get a meal quickly to go with their lives, but most of these quick choices are not the healthiest things to be eating for almost every meal, and they fail to burn most of it off, most because they don't have time, or the others because the don't think they have to because of these insanly pointless number counting diets. I could go on with most of the reasons people choose to drive larger cars here, though technology is coming around to make them burn less fuel and let out less. If you guys are also talking about the CO2 output by cars, I think it was determined a long time ago that if thats the case, then people should stop breathing too! Obviously who made that forgot that we have trees that can convert CO2 to fresh breathable air. I think planting more could be a nice help, more fresh air, but still, dosn't hurt to develope efficent tech to limit what the cars put out (which is being done, and has been done for years). If you really wanna blame someone here that is car related, why not blame the guys who won't let go of their 18-30 year old cars, or modify them to be more nicer to the enviroment in general, those things burn more fuel than anything that is on the market now, well maybe anything but a Hummer H2, and do not get me started on their exhaust.

05-23-2007, 04:20 PM	#2
LOT 737-300 ЛЭТ Су-37 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Somewhere near MCO. Age: 19 Posts: 1,157	Re: Planes guilty for “Climate Change” I wonder what they said about the Climate Change in the 1970s (you know, the one where they said we were all going to freeze to death?) Thats when we had some pretty somkey planes flying around (nothing like the water-burners of the late 50s early 60s, but pretty smokey for today's standards.) I wonder why no one has yet decided to place any blame on that huge orangey/reddish/yellow ball in the sky we call the sun. From someone I know that studied the both Astrology and Meteorology, he said that it has more to do with activity with the sun rather than us going around and causing it (human activity only account for some small percentage of the CO2 that gets emitted into the atmosphere.) It works something like this, in the 1970s, the sun was not as active, so we didn't get as many hot days as we do now, when the sun is conciderably more active and in return, this is sending higher tempuratures to earth (supposidly). I had a small joke on W900, "if you wanna get rid of Global Warming (or whatever the **** they call it now), why not build a massive fire extinguisher and take out the sun." __________________ My airport: Nowa Warszawa Int'l NWL http://www.freewebs.com/nwlairport PM me if you want Fantasy Flights. If you are interested in Joining BSA, please drop by our forum and make a post. http://s14.invisionfree.com/Bluesphe...ex.php?act=idx

05-23-2007, 08:33 PM	#3
Planecrazy Senior Collector Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 480	Re: Planes guilty for “Climate Change” I am sure that aircraft add to the global warming but I bet all of the commercial aircraft flying right now barely equal what is put out by 3 coal fired electric plants. Scientists also claim one of the significant contributors to methane pollution are cow belches. This MUST be stopped! How about a really big bar-b-que?

06-18-2007, 10:28 AM	#4
dboyd001 Ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: western NY Posts: 838	Re: Planes guilty for “Climate Change” .....I have my own whacked out theories: Cow Farts: you bet those bovines are blowing a lot of gas! Volcanoes: Let's see Al Gore put a stop to them! Fat People: Too many fat people & they're all breathing, expelling Carbon Dioxide! Hippies: They stink & they pollute! Terrorists, etc.: All this blowing up stuff & people HAS to have some effect Politicians: Blowing out hot air beyond Mother Nature to handle! Beer & Soda: burping all that Carbon Dioxide .....and while we're at it let's just blame lots of other things like Bar-B-Ques, composting, sex (all that heavy breathing you know), making diecast airplanes, lawn mowers, light bulbs, eating meat, eating vegatables, eating anything... .....I think the funniest new theory on "Global Warming" blames the incandescent light bulb. The "experts" say we should all convert to CFB (compact flourescent bulbs). Now what any of you want to bet 10 years from now when all these CFBs are wearing out and being disposed of that these same "experts" will be howling about the pullution caused by these CFBs. .....I'm having none of "global warming". It's climate change and has happened several times just in recorded Human history. Greenland was called that because it was green and Norse settlers did quite well there with farms. There were vineyards as far north as Scotland. That all changed and the world went through a "mini-ice age" that lasted more than 500 years (into the early 1800s). .....Not worried about planes. Heard it before. Yeah, the Concorde was going to destroy the ozone layer. Seems to still be there. Dave

06-26-2007, 05:13 PM	#12
Hapag-Lloyd Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 39 Posts: 2,242	Re: Planes guilty for “Climate Change” Criton, you have provided a link to one (!) University of Utah professor´s opinion, yet you deny the United Nation´s findings on global warming as being a "French" product, and have asked for China to take action first. You really wanted to discuss whether China or the USA is the world´s worst polluter (as if it mattered) and, correct me if I´m wrong, wanted China as being #1 in your opinieon, to take action first. I don´t mean to offend you, but most UN member nations (including China) have agreed on the UN report (including your president on the G8 summit recently) - it´s the lowest common denominator on the UN member nations´ scientific findings. Yet, you deny the UN findings and cite obscure sources instead. And you dare accuse me of complacency? Now, that´s original. Have you even read the UN report on global warming, or a summary of the report? Or do you choose instead to believe what you want to believe, rather than the scientific findings resulting from research all over this planet? __________________ THIS SPACE 4 RENT!!!

06-26-2007, 09:59 PM	#14
Criton Master Collector Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Silver Spring, MD USA Posts: 756	Re: Planes guilty for “Climate Change” Hapag: Here's another citation and study different from the one I referenced above...just so you can't say that my study first one is obscure. This one has a different set of authors and uses a different set of satellite measurements: Reference Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635. What was done The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet."" What was learned Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

05-23-2007, 03:52 PM	#1
peter13 Junior Collector Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1	Planes guilty for “Climate Change” New report, published on Google news and everywhere in Internet claims, that plains are guilty for climate change. What do you think on this. Report is here: PR-GB.com... News from origin - New Report Challenges Basic Assumptions of “Climate Change” UK Indymedia - New Report Challenges Basic Assumptions About Climate Change New Report Challenges Basic Assumptions of 'Climate Change'

06-26-2007, 10:27 PM	#15
Captain Wahoo Junior Collector Join Date: May 2002 Location: Marquette, MI Age: 44 Posts: 11	Re: Planes guilty for “Climate Change” Look to Mars for the truth on global warming Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming