next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

November Goal: $40.00
Due Date: Nov 30
Gross Amount: $25.00
PayPal Fees: $1.58
Net Balance: $23.42
Below Goal: $16.58
©

59% 

November Donations

7th Anonymous $20.00

5th Anonymous $5.00

TRAILBLAZERS
for students

ArchaeoFind
Archaeology News
Articles
Browse Attachments
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Tag Cloud
Video Channel

Odyssey Marine in the media
Trailblazers
Play Phaos
Chat
Trailblazers: Virtual Tours

[Diving Doc]

 Iceland fears bears that go with the floe

By Gethin Chamberlain, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:46am GMT 04/02/2007

The oceans may be warming and air temperatures rising, but in recent days Iceland has bucked the global climate trend.

Thick pack ice, the like of which has not been seen for decades, stretched into the western fjords as temperatures plummeted and a bitter wind blew in from -Greenland.

The ice has proved a headache for fishermen, who have been unable to put to sea, but it is what comes with pack ice that has caused most concern: polar bears.

People living around the fjord of Dyrafj?rdur, which last week was almost filled with the ice, were keeping an eye on the sea, conscious that the bears live on the pack ice that covers much of the Arctic ocean.

When chunks break off, as appears to have happened last week, the bears become stranded, drifting wherever the ice takes them.

There have been numerous accounts of bears making land on the shores of Iceland in the past. But it is the bears who tend to come off worse in encounters with the Icelanders, who take a distinctly unsentimental approach to wildlife.

In 1993, the last time a bear is known to have made it to Icelandic waters, it was caught by a fishing crew and killed. It is believed to have been stranded on a piece of pack ice that broke off the main pack and melted, leaving the animal swimming in the open ocean 70 miles from the main ice sheet. Five years earlier, the last bear to make it to shore was promptly shot when it turned up near the town of Haganesv?k in the north of the country.

Coastguard commander Asgrinur Asgrinsson remembers a polar bear coming ashore on the island of Grimsey, north of the mainland, when he was a child. It was shot and stuffed and now has pride of place in the museum in the town of Husavik.

There are thought to be about 25,000 polar bears in the wild and environmentalists have warned that they are in danger of becoming extinct as their habitat shrinks. Climate change scientists say that with temperatures rising, the pack ice may have melted completely by 2040, leaving the Arctic ocean navigable and the polar bears with nowhere to go.

Last week's return of the pack ice to Iceland initially suggested that those predictions might have been overly pessimistic.

"I have lived here my whole life, but I have never seen so much pack ice before," said Helgi ?rnason, a farmer in -Dyrafj?rdur.

"Forty years ago, large icebergs drifted on to beaches but it was nothing compared with this.

"Pack ice used to be Iceland's ancient enemy, but we stay calm so long as the situation doesn't worsen. This is just to remind us where we live."

According to the coastguard, the build-up of ice was the result of a combination of a high pressure system to the south of the mainland coupled with winds blowing in from Greenland, 300 miles to the west.

"It looked like the main pack ice had reached the coast," said Mr Asgrinsson. "But in fact it was a piece of the main pack that had broken away."

A report by a panel of international scientists, published on Friday, blamed greenhouse gas emissions for rising global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea levels.

The report said that average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years.

A recent NASA study showed that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice every year, twice the rate in 1996.

The melting polar ice means polar bears are not the only hazard for those living in the region.

Another study suggested that the thaw was luring killer whales further north.

Researchers said the whales were attacking a wide range of sealife, including beluga, bowhead and narwhal whales.

Jeff Higdon, from the University of Manitoba and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada monitoring project, said the increasing areas of open water meant the whales were able to venture farther into the Arctic.

"We've got reports of killer whales attacking every marine mammal in the Arctic," he said.

Some parts of the world are much warmer than before and other parts are much colder. Extremes in weather patterns have been noted in many different parts of the world. Something is definitely out of the balance we have enjoyed. Is this a man made phenomena or is something natural that has happened before? Time will most certainly tell. Here is another interesting link from
NASA on Paleoclimatology and a definitive piece from Solomon on the Changing Climate that puts a different light on this hot political topic.
Your thoughts?
Cheers,
Doc

[Bart]

Doc, that Changing Climate piece is a must read for any interested in the environment. I never bought into the hype that blames everything on human activity. Solomon's piece explains it very well. It is so good, I post it here again.
Changing Climate

I  could use for some global warming tonight, it is -20F here here right now. It's too cold to go outside and look for polar bears. It's a losing night for bears anyway, the Bears lost the Super Bowl.

- Bart

[Solomon]

We don't get those low temperatures here in England, Bart, but then we don't have the housing or infrastructure to cope with that, either.

Yes, that piece from one of my favourite institutions - Woods Hole - is rather good.

The worldwide debate on climate change differs in one important regard from that which I first began to take part in in the 1960s.

In about 1969, I joined an environmental group in Cambridge and later in New Zealand (1972) helped form a political party which had its focus on the Club of Rome's study 'Limits to Growth'. Our manifesto was picked up in Germany and became incorporated in the Green Party there.

No doubt thinking has move on since then, to a considerable degree. However, I am concerned that the level of understanding towards the result of global warming is being misrepresented.

Now, the leading institutions are saying that we should expect a temperature rise this century of some 2.5 - 5 degrees. They warn of dangers to low-lying areas and of shifting economic patterns.

In my view, a five degree change is totally catastrophic. Also, if Woods Hole is right, then this change could come abruptly. Put the two together - an abrupt rise in global warming of some five degrees and in my view, this is the end.

A change over a centuries would allow nature and man to adapt. Methods of agriculture can change, as can housing, transport, power generation and distribution, even ecological systems.

The same change over a short time would not allow adaptation. Instead, systems would collapse.

People, experts even, have trouble seeing the overview and how systems integrate. It was only a few years ago, for example, that meteorologists could not see how el Nino affected global and regional climates, even though this was measured long ago (and dismissed as implausible).

There are a large number of individual systems which, if they were to end abruptly, would, in my view, cause the whole to collapse. A cascade failure, especially if abrupt, would give neither the world as a whole, nor humanity, any chance at all.

The power of ideas has become obvious to me only in later life. I had thought that reason could always win through. Mankind has in its collective head a bundle of wrong ideas and I have a strong feeling that it would rather die than change them.

We know how difficult it is to change the direction of a large ship underway. Mankind is proving to be even more intractable.

Right now, the biggest threat to the world's survival comes from the success of the US economic system. In two years, this threat will shift to become China and then India.

Nothing my country can do legally will have any significant effect. Recycling, conservation, nothing we in Britain can do can make any significant threat reduction. We can argue and that is all, and we have a lapdog government incapable of even that.

This is why I have begun to see issues in black and white. We have come to a point where poor thinking carries the ultimate price tag.

Solomon

[Diving Doc]

Solomon,
It would appear that a great many people agree that this is a media gype.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.?Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.? . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at
      

[Solomon]

Doc: It would appear that a great many people agree that this is a media gype.

So against the world's scientific community, as expressed at Davos, you chose to argue your case an ex-professor who now writes what his clients tell him to.

Solomon

[Diving Doc]

Solomon,

"Or maybe you just know better?" Of course not, that was the reason I asked for opinion. My personal opinion? The emissions damaging the ozone layer have, no doubt, contributed greatly, to the acceleration of a climate change but there is evidence that suggests this is a natural phenomena. This is not a fact, just my opinion and the reasons why I think so?

"Are we overlooking potential abrupt climate shifts?
Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth?s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future".
I would add this view also to the mix;

The Seasons and the Earth's Orbit - Milankovitch Cycles

Polar Shift Theory

Just like other Planets we have observed doing this, the Earth changes it's equatorial spin axis also.

The Woods Hole article you posted is excellent and to the point. I am making a statement that the whole problem, its causes and effects are obviously not being properly viewed by the general public. I think this topic should not be politicized at a national level, it is an International issue that must be faced but I do not believe, especially now in view of what I've read, that what is happening can be reversed or even slowed down.
Cheers,
Doc

[Solomon]

You and I, Doc, see the debate very differently. The natural climate change you mention was discovered long ago and I do not see those at Davos failing to account for it, as you suggest.

Can global warming be reversed or even slowed down? Not without admitting to the problem. And admitting to it in time. I do not see your argument for natural change as being helpful in that regard, but rather the reverse. If it is just getting warmer, as you suggest, then all we do is turn the heating up, isn't it? Some more power stations would solve the problem, huh?

When making a determination of risk, chose the lowest. Commonsense, that.

If you assume global warming is natural, what is the risk? The end of mankind.

If you assume it is manmade, what is the risk? A cleaner atmosphere.

That anyone thinks this worthy of debate tells me something profound about humanity. It is one reason why I have no faith.

Solomon

[Baja Bush Pilot]

Warming is real - and has benefits...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1d78fc67-3784-4542-a07c-e7eeec46d1fc&k=0

Lots of opinions out there.  Like UFOs...  so many folks believe in them, they must be real!

Over the last few weeks we've lost 18 years worth of plants and trees to record freezes, one after the other.  Even native plants in the hills have frozen for the first time ever.  I know, I know.  It's weather, not climate.

I haven't made up my mind (as if that will make any difference). 

[Sovereign]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that temperatures are most likely to rise by 1.8C-4C by 2100. But the possible range is much greater; 1.1C-6.4C. The maps above show how a range of three different scenarios will affect different parts of the planet.

The emissions scenarios, A1B, A2, B1, used to create the maps above, are based on a range of detailed economic and technological data. These versions of the future consider different population increases, fossil and alternative fuel use, and consequent CO2 increases. The broad range of outcomes they show is displayed in the charts below.




Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas, its rise since the industrial revolution is clear. Burning coal, using oil and deforestation all place CO2 into the atmosphere.


The other two main greenhouse gases are methane and nitrous oxide. Both gases have a much smaller presence in the atmosphere than CO2 but are much stronger greenhouse gases; methane has over 20 times the effect of C02, while nitrous oxide is nearly 300 times stronger.

"We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
This Summary for Policymakers was formally approved at the 10th Session of Working Group I of the IPCC, Paris, February 2007.

[Diving Doc]

"You and I, Doc, see the debate very differently. The natural climate change you mention was discovered long ago and I do not see those at Davos failing to account for it, as you suggest.

Can global warming be reversed or even slowed down? Not without admitting to the problem. And admitting to it in time. I do not see your argument for natural change as being helpful in that regard, but rather the reverse. If it is just getting warmer, as you suggest, then all we do is turn the heating up, isn't it? Some more power stations would solve the problem, huh?

When making a determination of risk, chose the lowest. Commonsense, that.

If you assume global warming is natural, what is the risk? The end of mankind.

If you assume it is manmade, what is the risk? A cleaner atmosphere.

That anyone thinks this worthy of debate tells me something profound about humanity. It is one reason why I have no faith."

Solomon

Solomon,
     I also have little faith that humanity will unite in dealing with the problem. My personal opinion as stated, this is a natural phenomena that has been accelerated by man and is irreversible. Irreversible because Mankind cannot agree nor act upon this problem at an international level. I believe that in the beginning this was a  natural phenomena such as the dramatic climate change that forced the Vikings to abandon their colony in Greenland. {that is almost recent history}. As I see it, perhaps the rape of the earth and the fouling of the atmosphere by man has upset the natural balance to a catastrophic degree. Some of the  factors to consider,  the loss of the Rainforests, often described as the "Lungs of our Planet" because it provides the essential environmental world service of continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest; and the Ocean Reefs. This too must be placed at the doorstep of Man. How can the most detrimental and possibly, reverseable elements be identified? Ah Man, once more everyone seems to have an agenda and their cause and need for funding greater than the others. Everyone has their own theory and needs that must be considered paramount.

     The "Weather Experts" were completely wrong about last years hurricane season in the Caribbean.
No one predicted the warmest Fall ever experienced by Holland in three hundred years, nor the incredible winds and tornadoes that recently visited the UK. As I write, extreme temperatures, high and low are being experienced all over the world as well as unseasonal conditions seldom experienced in modern  history.
     
     A host of scientists have presented their views but there appears to be no concensus as to what should be dealt with and in what order. If there were, would it be accepted and acted upon? I think not. I too have little faith in humanity to unite and save itself. Every country has a different agenda and the New World Order would take over the reins of elected government and lead us to a better world as they enrich themselves further (for our own good of course). Pity there will be no one left to spend these riches if this course is allowed to continue.

     As to theories, causes, and remedies to this climatic condition; I won't enter this arena, I have a personal interest but I haven't got a dog in this fight. I am apolitical and a skeptic. The Ocean Reefs and the Rainforests cannot be brought back in the time that remains. Can Man be brought to heel? Possibly. If I were to point the finger at one nation that might, by itself,  effect some positive force on this imbalance of nature it would be the emerging economic giant, modern China. 

China is one of the world's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, which is released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

About 70 percent of China's energy comes from burning coal, and there are plans to dramatically increase production as the energy demands of the nation's fast-modernizing population of 1.3 billion people continue to soar.

China built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants in 2005 -- a rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures. Every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030!

However, China's government reiterated Tuesday its position that the responsibility for climate change rested with developed countries.

     No Solomon, I don't think it worthy of debate. I do believe, however, that getting the facts out in the open is laudable and worthwhile. I have no solution, given it is humanity that must decide its fate, and like you, I have no faith in humanity.

Doc


One has only to read the daily headlines;
POLL: Only 13% Of Congressional Republicans Believe Global Warming Caused By Man...
Gore says Bush admin paying scientists to dispute...
Governor Planning To Fire Oregon Climatologist for Taking Skeptical View of Warming...
China blames the west for climate..
Car Wars In Europe: PORSCHE CEO Rails at Emissions Caps...
Cambodians Ponder An Unfamiliar Concept: Cold...
PROPOSALS TO LAUNCH 'ECOLOGICAL' CRIME LAWS...

[scribe]

Britain has decided that it does not have the means to build defences against the rising sea and has therefore decided instead to encourage the sea to reclaim land.

Has anyone asked the farmers what they think?

And why is it so important to attract alien species to our shores?

Don't we need food these days?


Wallasea plan: The original five sectors of land will be recreated

Farmland yields to major wetland

Looking at Wallasea Island, it's hard to imagine that this flat, featureless landscape is about to become one of Britain's most important wildlife sanctuaries.

But 500 years ago - before this corner of coastal Essex was drained to make way for crop production - this was salt marsh. It was a thriving natural environment teeming with life.

Now, in its most ambitious project in this country, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is about to spend �12m recreating the salt marsh, turning the clock back by hundreds of years.

The plan is simple: the ancient sea walls which have held back the tides for so long will be carefully breached, and the waters will once again flood the land which has been used for wheat production for centuries.

Sea return

The project manager, Mark Dixon, says: "We will have a landscape of marshes, islands, lagoons and creeks little more than 20 inches deep at high tide.

"Wallasea is one island now but was once five separate pieces of land. We will restore these ancient divisions and each new island will have its own tidal control."

There is good reason for the high hopes for this massive project.

Last year a similar, smaller-scale development was funded by the government.

Wallasea should become a rich and diverse habitat

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) put up �7.5m and the newly-recreated salt marsh is already attracting a wide variety of coastal birds, marine flora and other wildlife.

Once work begins on creating another 730 hectares (1,800 acres) of salt marsh in this latest RSPB project, it seems certain that we will see wading birds, ducks and geese in huge numbers. And the hopes go beyond that.

Place for people

Conservationists hope that we may see a return of the Kentish plover, which has been absent for some 50 years. We could also see spoonbills, which have not successfully nested here for more than 400 years.

Otters are also likely to be attracted to what will be a rich and diverse habitat.

If things go really well, we may also see black-winged stilts, which have never bred in Britain.

The RSPB's chief executive, Graham Wynne, says: ''Wallasea will become a wonderful coastal wetland full of wildlife in a unique and special landscape.

"It will be a true wilderness experience, attracting huge numbers of birds to feed, shelter and breed."

But this project is not just about wildlife. It's about people too.

Mr Wynne says: "It will be a place for people to visit, savour and enjoy, with several miles of new coastal walks, and it will make a major contribution to efforts to help wildlife adjust to the serious impacts of climate change."