Alliedassault           
FAQ Calendar
Go Back   Alliedassault > Lounge > Politics, Current Events & History
Reload this Page Melting Snows of Kilimanjaro
Politics, Current Events & History Debates on politics, current events, and world history.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Melting Snows of Kilimanjaro
Old
  (#1)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default Melting Snows of Kilimanjaro - 03-15-2005, 06:07 PM

Feb. 17, 1993

[img]http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/kilimanjaro_20021216/images/ks930360m.jpg[/img]

Feb. 21, 2000
[img]http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/kilimanjaro_20021216/images/ks000360m.jpg[/img]

[url=http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/kilimanjaro_20021216/images/AL-Kilimanjaro1040221441.mpg:2121c]Animation[/url:2121c]

Some scientists believe the snow cap of Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone in two decades. Researchers say the ice fields on Africa’s highest mountain shrank by 80 percent in the past century. The snow cap formed some 11,000 years ago. The Landsat satellite captured these images of Kilimanjaro February 17, 1993 and February 21, 2000.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/kilima ... index.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology ... 32,00.html
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=955
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#2)
imported_Fluffy_Bunny is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,564
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reading 'Country Life' magazine in a crack wh0res brothel in Soho, London
  Send a message via MSN to imported_Fluffy_Bunny  
Default 03-15-2005, 06:17 PM

if you tilt your head a little bit and look at it from a particular angle it kinda looks likea boobie with some lovin on it rock:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Drew is Offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 3,292
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  Send a message via AIM to Drew  
Default 03-15-2005, 06:46 PM

Ninty, did you check the global temperature trend for that year. For some reason I want to say 2000 was an El Nino year.

Anyway, unusually warm winters can happen. I'd be a bit more impressed if they showed pictures every year from '93-'05 and they all show the same trend.



Chairperson, Coastal Carolina Students for Ron Paul 2008
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default 03-15-2005, 07:23 PM

Drew, it's a snow cap that has been on top of the mountain for thousands of years basically remaining unchanged for that entire period up until now. Even if it happened during an el nino year, the fact remains the same that the snow cap is melting. It is also a fact that global temperatures have risen .6 celcius in the past century. Doesn't sound like a lot, but if you take into consideration that the difference between the ice age average temperatures and today's average temperatures, that difference is 6 degrees.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_691864.html?menu=
http://www.esr.org.nz/events/even2000/g ... rming.html

[quote:f1798] The white cap of Kilimanjaro varies in size over the year, and may grow and shrink at intervals depending on solar influx, precipitation and other factors. But since 1912, there is clear evidence that the glaciers have shrunk consistently and dramatically. At the February 2001 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), researchers reported dramatic changes in the volume of ice capping the Kibo summit of Kilimanjaro. An estimated 82 % of the icecap that crowned the mountain when it was first thoroughly surveyed in 1912 is now gone, and the ice is thinning as well - by as much as a meter in one area. According to some projections, if recession continues at the present rate, the majority of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro could vanish in the next 15 years.[/quote:f1798]
http://www.grida.no/climate/vitalafrica/english/03.htm
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
Drew is Offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 3,292
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  Send a message via AIM to Drew  
Default 03-15-2005, 07:36 PM

I was in a hurry when I posted that.. we just curious if it's been a steady trend or if it is something that has gone up and down.

As you may or may not be surprised to learn, I do not believe in global warming. It has been proven that Earth has experienced much more drastic changes in temperature in the past long before humans were "affecting" the environment.

Our lives and our scientific documentation are both FAR too brief to assume that our theories are correct. Every study of Earth climate trends over the past several tens of thousands of years blatantly contradicts global warming theories. They all suggest that Earth endures much larger shifts in climate. In fact, the currently reigning theory on the cause of the ice ages (the slowing or stopping of currents in the Atlantic) is obvious proof that Earth has seen its temperature rise much farther than what we see now.

Anyway, I have to go. I'm going to drive my car up to the shopping center and get a cup of coffee from the gas station in a styrofoam cup.



Chairperson, Coastal Carolina Students for Ron Paul 2008
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default 03-15-2005, 07:57 PM

hah

I just kind of find it hard to believe that of the 80 something countries that have signed Kyoto and 120 something have ratified it that all these countries are somewhat wrong in their attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The US has signed Kyoto, but hasn't ratified it. Most courtiers acknowledge the existence of the human factor in greenhouse gasses, but the US doesn't, and that’s something that boggles me. Actually, no, it doesn't. The US’s decision is probably more political in nature than environmental. I understand your argument, but I believe that it has been proven that humans have an affect on our environment. I don't see why we shouldn't be responsible in how we treat the earth. We were born out of it. It is our home. I believe it deserves respect.


[quote:512fb]
New proof that man has caused global warming
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.

"What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model," Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned. They did it so well it was almost unbelieveable."

Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, for example, rising temperatures can be observed up to 700 metres below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 100m down.

Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. "The fact that this has gone on in different ways gives us the chance to figure out who did it," Dr Barnett said.

"All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one.

"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now, and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and its likely future evolution. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."

Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

"We have got a serious problem ahead of us. The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it."

In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.

Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. "It is taking the first steps, the system is moving in that direction," Dr Curry said.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numberous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes. Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected, and being observed now, in the western US.

"The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision-makers."[/quote:512fb]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 55,00.html

[quote:512fb]US government still denies emissions cause global warming

"The Insider" mailing list article, 19 February 2005.

The final proof: global warming is a man-made disaster

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming sceptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Centre.

They analysed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. Dr Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," Dr Curry said.


SOURCE

The Independent, "The final proof: global warming is a man-made disaster", 19 February 2005.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/env ... ory=612506[/quote:512fb]
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=955

Here's another article if your interested:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000 ... nowack.htm
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
Drew is Offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 3,292
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  Send a message via AIM to Drew  
Default 03-15-2005, 08:36 PM

Okay, but here is one of the problems I've always had with this whole situation.

In terms of temperature variance, it is proven that the Earth has endured rises and drops in temperature exceeding 10 degrees Celsius. So if we have seen a .6-.9 degree increase over the course of a century, how is this worrisome in terms of the human race? Sediment samples have shown that Earth has - long before recorded human history - been both much hotter and much colder than what we've seen in the last century and even what we'll see in the next 100 years based on our current trend.



Chairperson, Coastal Carolina Students for Ron Paul 2008
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default 03-15-2005, 08:52 PM

The problem is today's humans have only been around for what, 50,000 years? In the course of history its not that long.

Really, the earth has been populated by humans really for only the last 6,000 years. Thats when we begin to see some growth of modern man. I guess we could even say since the last 10,000 years, which would be from teh Ice Age on. Since the ice age, temperatures have been relativley stable. This means that ice caps don't melt nor do glaciers.

I'm sure there have been great climate changes in the past. However, during these changes, humans wern't really around to experience them. Population densities are nothing like they were back then.

If the ice caps melt, it will cause flooding. The flooding will subside and eventually turn into drought, and a large amount of the population will die. The difference between then and now is that there are 6.5 billion people on the planet. Thats why we should be concerned.

If greenhouse gasses contribute to this, then it should be our responsibility to stop it IMO.

The fact is, even if greenhouse gasses don't cause global warming, the planet is still warming up. If it warms up too much, we'll be at a point of no return whereby we will see massive death across the globe. Either way, I don't see anyone saying pollution is healthy or good for you.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Drew is Offline
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 3,292
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  Send a message via AIM to Drew  
Default 03-15-2005, 09:34 PM

Oh, I'm not saying pollution is healthy or good for you, I just chafe at how out of proportion this whole thing with global warming tends to be.

I'm not one who pollutes.. and I'm all for cleaner fuel sources, etc.

However, I'm not going to park my car in my garage because the average temperature for the Earth climbed less than a degree Celsius. The harsh reality is that this is a natural cycle of the Earth and it is going to happen at some point no matter what we do.



Chairperson, Coastal Carolina Students for Ron Paul 2008
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Jin-Roh is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,546
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
  Send a message via AIM to Jin-Roh Send a message via MSN to Jin-Roh  
Default 03-15-2005, 09:43 PM

I am told that an increase in just 2 degrees, will wipe out hudreds of thousands of species. It's insane. oOo:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
...a natural cycle of the Earth and it is going to happen at some point no matter what we do.
A lot of people are suggesting that this "next" global warming is a human caused one. oOo: oOo:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default 03-15-2005, 09:48 PM

I think this is what your talking about:

[quote:e4635]According to the report, urgent action is needed to stop the global average temperature rising by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the level of 1750 the approximate start of the Industrial Revolution when mankind first started significantly adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Beyond such a rise, "the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," the report said, adding that there would be a danger of "abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change." It warned of "climatic tipping points" such as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting and the Gulf Stream shutting down.

No accurate temperature readings were available for 1750, the report said, but since 1860 the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 percent to 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). [/quote:e4635]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... SFeeds0312

I posted a topic on this when this study was released as well back in Jan.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
Jimbo@ is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 748
Join Date: Oct 2004
   
Default 03-16-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Oh, I'm not saying pollution is healthy or good for you, I just chafe at how out of proportion this whole thing with global warming tends to be.

I'm not one who pollutes.. and I'm all for cleaner fuel sources, etc.

However, I'm not going to park my car in my garage because the average temperature for the Earth climbed less than a degree Celsius. The harsh reality is that this is a natural cycle of the Earth and it is going to happen at some point no matter what we do.
Thats what the oil companies and right-wing want you to beleive. ed:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
Short Hand is Offline
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 10,721
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: C-eH-N-eH-D-eH eH?
   
Default 03-16-2005, 07:11 AM

HEY GUYS GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS A CONSPIRACY BY LIBERALS. oOo:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Unknown_Sniper is Offline
Captain
 
Posts: 5,724
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mostly Vermont. Also New Hampshire
  Send a message via AIM to Unknown_Sniper  
Default 03-16-2005, 04:33 PM

Im all set for global warming and a new ice age and shit. Ive been playing rugby in 2 feet of snow and 10 degree weather with windchill for the past 2 weeks. Plus I got one comfy warm winter jacket and snow pants.
but seriously. if that snow cap is 11,000 years old then something is up. however you cant just blame it on greenhouse gases. no matter what the earth goes through cycles of warming and freezing. sure we might have sped it up a little bit but its gonna happen no matter what.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.