Sqrl said:
Some notes: Point A - You are correct that the arctic ice is down over 30 year mean values, however the Antartic is a differenty story. Antartica is above 30 year mean values and trending upwards not down. NSIDC keeps these figures. Point 2- This one is a bit tricky. There are two factors involved here, forest density and forest area. By raw greenery we are actually near an all-time high thanks to the CO2 we have added to the environment for these plants (they love it obviously). But due to land management issues the area which plant-life covers is lower. The data supports this by showing that forest density is on the rise while forest area is on the decline. img Point 4 - We are currently in the midst of an interglacial period. In short, glaciers are supposed to be melting right now, these glaciers formed during the last ice age and now are in the midst of what has been a very very long melt (which is normal). The rate of melt is naturally subject to change with temperature which is why the rise in temps during the latter half of the last century produced increased melting and why the slight cooling trend as produced a stablizaiton effect in the same manner. None of this actually goes to proving what caused the warming of course. I actually agree with you quite a bit on points 1 and 3. I think point 1 is actually a good thing as evidenced by increased plant growth, and I think point 3 is one of the reasons why we absolutely do need to work on energy conservation while we find a way to get fusion power up and operating (there are 3 facilities already able to produce the reaction, but not for sustained periods due to insane temperatures, this is the clean and unlimited energy of our dreams and it gets very little funding at present). But while I'm all for energy conservation, working towards renewable energy (and reliable energy partners), etc...I am in no way for any carbon regulation or forced participation in energy conservation practices (if saving money isn't good enough let them pay for it literally). |
Your answer (and Kasz's) are one of the main reason, why I love the offtopic-forum here. Many intelligent people, where you can learn some new things and points of viewing from and with who you can have a great debate.
That said, some notes as well^^
Point A: I'm not that kind of climate-nerd, to get myself into a large research about antarctica-ice-levels, but from what I've read, many scientists do agree with you, that the extent of ice is growing.
Where they don't agree with you is on another level. More widespread ice means, that this comes from somewhere. While still possible, most of the ice just doesn't come out of the ocean (if you've ever tried to freeze salty water, you probably know, that the freezing point is -21 °C or -5,8 °F) it's ice that comes more or less from the antarctic continent itself or it's outpost glaciers. They drift away, causing, the total area of ice to widespread. Ergo: Bigger Area, but lower thickness of the ice itself. This argument actually makes a lot of sense in my opinion. To try it at home, put a big ice cube in your bathtube and then but some smaller ice cubes with the same or higher overall volume in it. I'll bet, that the big ice cube will last the longest^^
Point 2:
Thanks for clearifying my point here, I didn't want to go to deep into this. Everything you write is true, but the big thing, we have to talk about here, are the primary forest better Co2 killers or mono-cultural forests. From what I've read and heard, it's the not economical used natural forests (this doesn't mean, that you can't create economical forest with a great mix, but in average the natural ones have simply more variety and therefore can transform more Co2).
Point 4:
That is actually the big, big question. What happens next. And if it's just a natural effect, how can we make sure, that it doesn't effect to many people in bad ways. Nature is cruel in general, but we are humans and if we can't control nature in one or the other way, there will be a lot suffering in affected countries and a little bit less in primary unaffected countries (immigration etc.). And that's what it's all about. If we can make sure, that some deserts in africa don't widespread faster than they probably do anyway with lowering carbon emissions, we should try it.
