Good question, Odin1 (deserving of it's own Topic).
I've been waiting for ImranCan to respond;
...I guess I'll just add for Richard's benefit....
RicS,
Regarding your comments about this thread:
I completely agree, and reiterate: Let's leave Polar Bears out of this completely! They are a "red herring."
Now herring; that's something to talk about....
...but seriously, you say:
"Well actually it [Antarctica] isn't in total volume. It is actually increasing dramatically in total ice. ...that ice is over the land...." -RicS.
Where do you get this from? Other threads on this forum have referenced net mass loss (despite regional gains over E. Antarctica) of from 70 to 150 Billion tonnes/year (with 2007 being the worst).
...also....
Proof or at least an indication of global warming would be, average surface temperatures over very large sections of the world being warmer with time and the method of the recording of the temperatures being consistent. Ocean water temperatures increasing in the mid latitudes and in the colder regions in very large areas, again with the caviet that the method adopted is consistent and comparable over time. There are some limited other indicators but not many.
So I would suggest, if you want to argue about global warming being real you start with the fundamentals. The temperature records, their accuracy over time and whether they have shown any warming. These can be surface air temperatures over land or the sea or water temperatures near the surface or atmospheric temperatures providing they are widespread enough and have a standard method of measurement, recording, data collection and data compression.
...etc., that really through spanners into the works of any estimations of the world's climate.
You've demonstrated that past records are inadequate. If we adopt this strategy and move forward with careful measurements, we should have a definitive answer by 2150-2200, don't you think?
...later....
Any argument that suggests intervention needs to get approval of everyone on this earth, and I mean everyone.
...later....
It takes a massive 6 times the energy to recycle paper by the most economic means possible than it does to produce it from scratch from plantation timber. Of course, if carbon is such a big deal then recycling newspaper is an appalling thing to do. It releases carbon into the atmosphere that was locked for a time out of it. If it is dumped in landfill then it locks the carbon away for very long times. -RicS.
I'm very intrigued by this information.
Do you have any links, or suggestions on what to google, to find out more about this?
This deserves a new Thread/Topic!
===
My apologies to those who mistake literally the various devices of rhetoric; speculation, metaphor or hyperbole; and who may not see that some references are from other recent Topics.
I've sure enjoyed this rhetorical excursion into the integrated nature of climate, our physical and biological resources, and our population and future.
...moving beyond general rhetoric, to specific details....
If anyone is interested in a perspective (other than ice, the oceans, and atmosphere) on climate change, this cited, peer-reviewed, report from Journal of Geophysical Research offers the chance to dig into some "facts and figures."
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25277#Post25277"Crustal Heating"
There is a link to the full text, as well as a brief history of this topic already discussed (without disgust)
here on SAGG.
===
...or stay here and continue enjoying the zealotry!
