Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClimate Change Hitting Entire Arctic Ecosystem, Says Report
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme study tells of profound changes to sea ice and permafrost, among others
Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.
![[Ilulissat Icefjord a UNESCO World Heritage site in western Greenland. The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. (AFP/Slim Allagui)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/greenland.jpg "greenland.jpg")
In
the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has
declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and
permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.
In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.
Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as "black carbon" - soot - ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.
"Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic," it says.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
Black carbon
Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.
123 Comments so far
Show AllIt's amazing that there are people still arguing that global warming isn't man-made, especially considering recent revelations by the New York Times that you've been lied to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&ref=us
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995."
If CO2 is not the culprit, could anyone explain what exactly causes current global warming? Natural causes? Which ones? You seem to know for sure that man has little to do with it. If you could pin-point the actual causes, that would definitely shut everybody up, including the IPCC scientists.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
"It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years. This rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understand-ing of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity. Climate models provide a suitable tool to study the various influences on the Earth’s climate. When the effects of increasing levels of greenhouse gases are included in the models, as well as natural external factors, the models produce good simulations of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The models fail to reproduce the observed warming when run using only natural factors. When human factors are included, the models also simulate a geographic pattern of temperature change around the globe similar to that which has occurred in recent decades. This spatial pattern, which has features such as a greater warming at high northern latitudes, differs from the most important patterns of natural climate variability that are associated with internal climate processes, such as El Niño.
Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. However, models are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external factors, including human influences from sources such as greenhouse gases and natural external factors. The model-estimated responses to these external factors are detectable in the 20th-century climate globally and in each individual continent except Antarctica, where there are insufficient observations. The human influence on climate very likely dominates over all other causes of change in global average surface temperature during the past half century. An important source of uncertainty arises from the incomplete knowledge of some external factors, such as human-sourced aerosols. In addition, the climate models themselves are imperfect. Nevertheless, all models simulate a pattern of response to greenhouse gas increases from human activities that is similar to the observed pattern of change. This pattern includes more warming over land than over the oceans. This pattern of change, which differs from the principal patterns of temperature change associated with natural internal variability, such as El Niño, helps to distinguish the response to greenhouse gases from that of natural external factors. Models and observations also both show warming in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere) and cooling higher up in the stratosphere. This is another ‘fingerprint’ of change that reveals the effect of human influence on the climate. If, for example, an increase in solar output had been responsible for the recent climate warming, both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have warmed. In addition, differences in the timing of the human and natural external influences help to distinguish the climate responses to these factors. Such considerations increase confidence that human rather than natural factors were the dominant cause of the global warming observed over the last 50 years."
The issue is not the current warming. Everyone agrees this has been beneficial to date, the planet is green and life is abundant. The issue is future warming, and even skeptics concede that doubling CO2 would cause 1.2 deg C warming. This warming would also be beneficial globally.
The issue is the role of feedbacks and additional second order warming from CO2. The alarmist models emphasize positive feedbacks, and climate science has poor understanding of possible negative feedbacks, so these are discounted. There is no consensus among scientists regarding the alarmist models, and there is a great deal of skepticism. The models have yet to be right in any of their shorter term predictions, and longer term predictions can not be proven wrong without time travel. And experimenmts with climate models are not real physical experiments, they are thought experiments using computers instead of a brain. Garbage in, garbage out.
Climate trends simply can not be discerned from 50 years of observation. Especially when the sun has been more active over the last 50 years than in the past 400 years.
The climate history of the last 600,000 years to 2 millions years suggests we are more at risk from another ice age than catastrophic warming. Mans CO2 may help delay that.
Current warming is NOT beneficial. Google desertification and it becomes clear in minutes that the amount of biomass on the planet is dropping. Next look up "ocean acidification" and you will discover that even if we cool the planet somehow added CO2 is acidifying the oceans and disrupting ocean food cycles.
The world's ecosystems are in crisis and cynical capitalists are willing to kill other people's children to make profits today. Look at what they did to the economy.
Global warming is real.
Global warming kills people, destroys agricultural land, destroys forest and kills ocean life.
Global warming is degrading the quality of life for the majority of people alive today.
Those are the FACTS.
What you call facts I see as assertions made without any effort to support them.
That warming and increased CO2 improve crop yields are facts.
That the US has more forest area than the 1920's is also a fact.
The world feeds more people than ever before.
More people die of cold than from global warming.
The quality of life for much of the world is improving.
During the last ice age 12,000 years ago glaciers extended as far south as Pennsylvania.
Man survived the last ice age because he was a hunter gatherer who hunted animals and ate meat. This was before any agrarian civilization. Our dependence on agricultural products makes a warm climate essential to maintain population levels.
According to one peer review paper:
"The Earth's northern hemisphere is a significantly greener place today than it was 20 years ago, according to satellite readings reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Satellite images show lush plant growth has accelerated throughout the northern hemisphere, with the most noticeable gains occurring above 40 degrees north latitude (a line running through New York City, Madrid, and Beijing).
Using a satellite designed to measure changes in vegetation, Dr. Liming Zhao and five coauthors concluded the productive growing season in parts of northern Eurasia lasts 18 days longer per year than it did in 1981. The productive growing season in some areas of northern North America lasts 12 days longer.
The paper speculates the greener hemisphere is due to a combination of heightened atmospheric CO2--a well-documented super-fertilizer--and a corresponding rise in mean temperatures. "
BTW, 70% of the globes landmass is in the Northern hemisphere.
This is not the space for a citation war.
The consensus among the worlds major scientific bodies backed by thousands of studies is that 1) There is global warming
2) It is/has been caused by man's activities
3) The speed of the warming and increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans is destroying biodiversity and the ability of the planet to support the ecosystems that we rely upon for sustenance.
CO2 is almost NEVER the limiting factor in crop yields. Increasing CO2 in the absence of increased moisture, soil nutrients or light does nothing beneficial.
Warming is contributing to droughts, desertification and insect and fungal attack on crops.
Excessive temperatures in croplands above 35º C stunt plant growth.
The majority of the worlds crops are dependent upon fossil fuel and groundwater inputs that are unsustainable. We are eating oil. The water that is mined from aquifers like the Ogalla is a one-time inheritance. Once used it cannot be replaced.
Quality of life improvements are due to improved resource distribution more than increased resource income. Cuba has better quality of life than Jamaica or Haiti for the majority of it's inhabitants.
Living at almost exactly 40º N in California I can tell you that not all "growth" is beneficial or sustainable. The warming out here has resulted in beetle kills of trees and massive wildfires. Beetle kills across the Pacific Northwest, Canada and the Rockies will bring more wildfires.
Warming of the permafrost in the Canadian and Siberian shields is causing methane releases that could result in the extinction of higher forms of life on the planet. It's happened before.
70% of the planet's surface is covered by ocean and ocean food webs are being disrupted by acidification due to higher dissolved CO2 levels. Marine species are starving to death.
Deniers will do anything, tell any lie to muddy the waters and continue their killing ways. Somebody shot the last 10,000th passenger pigeon only a few years before the species went extinct. That person justified that killing totally. It was only one bird.
Every lie told is a step towards human extinction.
"70% of the planet's surface is covered by ocean and ocean food webs are being disrupted by acidification due to higher dissolved CO2 levels. Marine species are starving to death."
Not to mention all the plastic everywhere in the water is now a major part of the ocean food chain *shudder*
Green-is-Red;
I didn't think it would be possible to include as many distortions and outright lies as you did in a short post. I am not going to address the issues that you mention, since it is clear that you are not only completely clueless, but also have no intention of learning. And you do have a lot to learn, believe me.
It looks like nobody here accepted my challenge to present an alternative theory of global warming. Somehow I am not surprised.
An alternative theory bea:
There have been numerous cycles of temperature change on our planet. The Halocene period, of which we are in now, has seen temps higher than present temps and lower than present temps.
The theory that cycles dominate earths temps has as much validity as AGW theory.
And being the cycle theory is a proven theory....that is the one I will go with.
Read the last two paragraphs of my first post, Rubbish.
"There have been numerous cycles of temperature change on our planet." - all true and well known. But this is not an alternative explanation for the currently observed global warming. In fact this is no explanation at all.
Again, my question is: what exactly causes current global warming?
Which "natural factors", how much is CO2 responsible, etc. If you can answer that better than the scientists, you'll probably get a Nobel Prize, not to mention loads of money from oil and coal industries.
Bea, what can I say. You show an ability to insult, yet you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
I have repeatedly said CO2 can cause warming, warming has occurred over the past 12,000 years, although some periods were warmer than today. The only area of disagreement between the skeptics (called deniers) and others is over catastrophic warming predicted by models which have not been validated and are riddled with assumptions due to the poor understanding of climate.
Since 1880, temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees C, and it's been good.
Now if you would like to "discuss" what you assert are my lies and distortions, please show your stuff and let me have it.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not wait until the models predicting catastrophic climate change are validated. It's enough for me that the models predicting changes so far have been validated by actual observations.
For your information - yes, warming could be beneficial - if we were in the middle of an ice age, that is. But we are not. There is such thing as "too much", you know.
Pangolin below already discussed some of your lies and distortions, which you counter with more nonsense. Like somebody said, it is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
Yes, sure models must be trusted until proven wrong. Just like our regulators trusted the financial models that said derivatives were fine.
But from someone who can discern how someone arrived at his conclusions or beliefs over the internet, I suppose you have magical powers and must be right. Guess I will need to look into what this Pangolin has to say.
edit- Pangolin never replied to me and has little of substance to base a discussion on anyways
For the third time: models predicting changes so far have been validated by actual observations.
"Numerous experiments have been conducted using climate models to determine the likely causes of the 20th-century climate change. These experiments indicate that models cannot reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when they only take into account variations in solar output and volcanic activity. However, models are able to simulate the observed 20th-century changes in temperature when they include all of the most important external factors, including human influences from sources such as greenhouse gases and natural external factors. The model-estimated responses to these external factors are detectable in the 20th-century climate globally and in each individual continent except Antarctica, where there are insufficient observations."
You don't have to say that you arrived at your BELIEFS regarding global warming over the internet. It's evident, but also irrelevant. Internet could be a good thing if you know how to distinguish between reputable and trustworthy sources and rubbish.
I seem to recall from P.S.101 that Greenland got it's name because the scummy dude pushing for colonization/expansion needed to trick settlers into leaving Norway, which you will note is none too green. As far as Northern personal observations of brightness are concerned, apparent brightness does not indicate heat radiation, only personal adaptation.
Speaking of personal adaptation, that is the obvious science/technology answer to global warming. We will have total control of the genome within a few years. Develop the tech 'til we can modify at will and we will live happily in total pollution admiring the colorful sunsets!
Do any of you remember why Greenland is called Greenland?
The simple answer, it used to be green before "global warming" was invented. The more formal answer is below.
The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway.
After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost. Bones from this late period were found to be in a condition consistent with malnutrition. Some believe the settlers were wiped out by bubonic plague or exterminated by the Inuit. Other historians have speculated that Spanish or English pirates or slave traders from the Barbary Coast contributed to the extinction of the Greenlandic communities.
During the MWP there is ample evidence that Greenlands temp was 2-3C warmer than it is today. There is ample emperical evidence that our planet in the near past was warmer than today, example, MWP, and 6,000 years ago was a lot warmer than today.
The deserts of the Sahara used to be lush etc. Climate on our earth is constantly changing. To think we can wave a tax or such and halt that change is beyond comprehension. Solar winds contribute to our climate, even tho they do not produce TSI. So many items are just beginning to be found that affect our climate.
That is why the models that have been derived, the theories that have been derived, are not in themselves credible as the numerous drivers of climate are not well understood. I would hope that within the next 100 years that more of those are understood, but an old axiom may apply here. The more we know, the more we know what we do NOT know.
I would think this same kind of warming occurred about 98,000 years ago except, now, the whole planet is forced to live through it with 6,700,000,000 people's ecological footprint on it now. Doesn't that just make you feel real cozy that we are all in it together? Thing is, there will be an included extinction of many species just to accommondate these all too essential 6,700,000,000 people.
Thomas,
I see the climate system like a wobbling top. It gets cold, it gets hot, and then repeats. I see our interaction with the climate like taking our finger and giving this 'wobbling top' a little poke. It may end up that there are no problems OR the top could fall over.
Can you point me to some of the information that you've used to conclude that ppl are not one of the root causes of the problems we see unfolding?
I'm not trying to appear condescending here I just want to understand more of where opposing views are coming from. (I've noticed that some ppl attack others who have views counter to their own and this does nothing to further anyone's understanding.)
Thanks,
-bones
Howdy Bones
One of my problems is that I read all the time. I don't take notes, I don't retain copies of what I read (except books)and I synthesize what I readinto my opinions. And I always try to say its my opinion unless my experience allows me to say someting as fact.
Not being able to quote chapter and verse gets me in hot water sometimes. I simply don't have the time or inclination for it. Nor am I an idealogue. Ideologies are not worth much.
I scan Campaign For Americas Future, Real Clear Politics, The Guardian, New Youk Times, Washington Post, The New Republic,and others dailey. I simply use dogpile on issues like this and make sure I get both sides of the argument.
"Can you point me to some of the information that you've used to conclude that ppl are not one of the root causes of the problems we see unfolding?"
I haven't come to that conclusion. I can't. My conclusion is simply that it is not a fact or scientifically proven. I certainly don't discount the possibility, but there is a lot of obfuscation from both sides.
" I'm not trying to appear condescending here I just want to understand more of where opposing views are coming from."
There is nothing condecending about asking where people are getting their information. Ever. Or how they are forming their conclusions.
As to the people that indulge in personal attacks, they simply discount themselves by their display. It makes their posts less than valuable shall we say.
Thank you for your thoughts.
>>>> Campaign For Americas Future, Real Clear Politics, The Guardian, New Youk Times, Washington Post, The New Republic,
Why don't you try some SCIENCE sites!
Why thanks for that piece of brilliant advice. Apparently somne of you simply cannot interpret plain English.
Theory: Based on the confirmation of the hypothesis, a theory explains a phenomenon in which the explanation is supported by a body of evidence. Many Theories are long-standing and well-accepted. Examples are the theory of relativity, gravitational theory, and atomic theory. Global Warming is now an accepted theory.
Exactly Brian.
This, imho, is why the NeoCons imploded.
The followers of Faux News, for the most part are largely without a basic science education. They think an accepted theory is not a fact (and they state that repeatedly; not knowing that their colloquial meaning of the word is synonymous with illiterate thought). They think one sample of one plane flying over one iceflow is ample evidence to draw a conclusion from. They're basically incapable of recognizing when a vast body of evidence and knowledge points in a discernible direction. They seem to have no concept of anything beyond tabloid corporate monopolized news sources.
As a spectator to the Republican "USS NeoTitanic" going down, all I can think of to do is row away from them (because climate deniers are irrational people who will overload your boat and swamp you trying to save themselves). This "Not even God can sink this ship" attitude is what caused this global accident in the first place.
The calving icebergs are right in front of you, Oh Ye great captains of industry; if you will just slow down and try to spot them a little more carefully.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
thomas more/04.29.09/12:49pm - "i would agree that man must certainly have some effect on climate change."
thomas more/04.29.09/2:18pm - "...i have no doubt that we have climate change. that much is proven. my doubt is that it is manmade."
perhaps it is the essence of what you are, so thomas more, please re-read my previous post, this time more s l o w l y.
i'll rest my case.
Are you purposefully obtuse? That man has some effect on climate change is far from saying climate change is caused by man or "manmade"
I believe I will rest my case. Pleae reread your posting above. Perhaps you are just reading things wrong?
Jimminey crickets.
"The co2 thing is a sham, and the sad thing about it, is that government scientists are losing credibility, so that when there reallllly is something to worry about, no one will listen."
That's one of my concerns as well. Another is that the entire environmental movement will lose some measure of credibility.
The models say one thing, but the data say another.
Anthropogenic Climate Change "scientists" are basically saying, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
At least some of them are honest:
"The research aircraft “Polar 5” today concluded its Arctic expedition in Canada. During the flight, researchers measured the current ice thickness at the North Pole and in areas that have never before been surveyed. The result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than scientists had suspected.
Normally, newly formed ice measures some two meters in thickness after two years. “Here, we measured ice thickness up to four meters,” said a spokesperson for Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. At present, this result contradicts the warming of the sea water, according to the scientists."
"Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
"Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report; ‘The science has, quite simply, gone awry’."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Con...
How about Antarctica?
"ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-11949,00.htm...
Climate monitoring stations in U.S. 854 of 1221 examined so far.
Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
Class 4 = 58% of all stations examined
Class 5 = 11% of all stations examined
OVER 2/3 of U.S. temp monitors are located near artificial heat sources!!!!!!!
http://www.surfacestations.org/
This, and more, from people actually out in the field doing the research, along with those who are honestly analyzing the data.
thomas more, you are a genius. and if you weren't already my hero, it would be obvious that you are probably one generation removed from the neanderthal.
if the meek shall inherit this place, i hope, for their sake, that the stupid are excluded.
You certainly contribute greatly to the discussions here with your valuable observations.
Did it ever occour to you what personal attacks reveal about the person making them?
bbr-001
I love what you say- about your parents and kids being able to believe in a future-adn you feeling a little guilty for not having done enough. I feel the same. I wish I had been paying more attention a long time ago. I just started learning about climate change and it's effects about 2004-2005.
I will say this, by accident at least i did dependent on mass transit for most of my life until I was about 35 yrs old. I had two cars before that but each lasted only about a year or less. Now I try do do my best by hanging out cloths or making sure we use the lights as little as possible. We recycle and do not run the car- more than we have. It is a 4-cylinder..
Seaweed and dubet-
I also like what you were saying. WE do need to go back to the land , give up as much electricity as possible. I hat eto tell people with very sick loved ones that hospitals cannot have electriciy. If my child need medical equipment
that needed electricity and we didn't have it- that would be very hard. But that's as far as the electricity should go.
Don't get me wrong, I think we could and should develop wind, solar and geothermal power. But it is if we do it can not give us the amount we use now. SO WHY NOT CHANGE OUR THINKING AND REALLY, REALLY REDUC E OUR CONSUMPTION.
Ya know why this won't happen. Because the military wouldn't give up electronics. They would not let themselves be with the gas, diesel and electricity. Their argumenmt would be that we would be taken over by -whom ever...
So - Seaweed is right. We won't do this by choice. It'll happpen to us. We will be forced into a corner and SLOWLY ,EVER SO SLOWLY, THE PEOPLE WHO GET POORER AND POORER WILL HAVE TO GIVE UP ELECTRICITY AND CARS ETC. UNTIL FINALLY THE REAL COLLASPE WILL HAPPEN.
WE DID NOT START TO FIX THIS PROBLEM EARLY ENOUGH. WE COULD HAVE FIXED IT BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO... THERE ARE ALWAYS THE NEANDERTHALS WHO CANNOT KEEP UP WITH THE ADAPTATION TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENT. THEY BRING DOWN THE SPEICIES AND POOF!THEY'RE GONE...
This is the crash. The crash is NOW. The big secret the nobody but bloggers on the internet is talking about is that the environment cannot support the economic activity needed to repay existing debt. There won't be the oil. We will have to shut down coal plants. Money will have to be spent on home improvements instead of nail salons, Starbucks and mall shopping in gigantic SUVs.
The truth is that the US will default on the majority of outstanding Treasury notes.
Repaying debt presumes that there will be more resources available in the future than are available now. If you borrow a hundred dollars and require one-hundred twenty to repay the debt you have to work an extra twenty dollars worth to make the payments. That requires extra resources.
The resources aren't there. There isn't enough food, water, oil, natural gas or any other traditional resource to make those payments. Climate Change is destroying cities and farmland and our oil resources are not growing. New production barely keeps up with existing demand.
This is the crash. NOW.
Translation from German article.
"The research aircraft Polar 5 "ended today in Canada's recent Arctic expedition. During the flight, researchers have measured the current ice thickness at the North Pole, and in areas that have never before been overflown. Result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than scientists had suspected....
"Here were ice thickness up to four meters," said a spokesman of Bremerhaven's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. For scientists, this result is in contradiction to the warming of the seawater.
http://www.radiobremen.de/wissen/nachrichten/wissenawipolararktis100.html
Uh, citing a radio station isn't exactly convincing. You need to cite any number of articles in peer reviewed journals that contradict overall global warming. A massive number of articles using multiple measurement sources and data-sets confirm global warming and you're giving us a radio station page?
You're just another coal company shill trying to muddy the waters.
Pangolin said:
"You're just another coal company shill trying to muddy the waters."
TJ says:
My assessment as well. Next, Green is Red makes an attempt at chafing the skies with the titles of rejected submissions- pathetic and dishonest. Most of the outdated titles he cites have been rejected by the peer process here in 2009. Some he lists are actually in support of temp instability and melting. This spamming the thread with irrelevant garbage is an attempt to stop discussion and is evidence of the corporate contagion I promised would show up here at the beginning of this comment box.
I would ask someone to alert CD management to this mindless spam by "Green is Red".
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Call it spam if you will, which was provided in response to a request which riduculed my comment which did not link to a peer review article, but the fact is they were published in peer review journals at the time. But maybe you can provide some evidence to back up your contentions they have been rejected.
Engage in ad hominem attacks if you will, and call on editors to censor the truth. You are the antithesis of Thomas Jefferson's ideals in my opinion. This is an Orwellian world though.
"Some he lists are actually in support of temp instability and melting"
Give me an example rather than me trying to figure out which one you are referring to. It is true that some kneeling at the AGW alter is required to get published, but the science in the articles lends support to skeptics of the alarmist projections, even if some do support that CO2 causes warming. Most skeptics do not argue this in any event, the argument is the degree of warming the alarmists predict, and the certainty they claim in an ocean of uncertainty.
Green is Commie said:
"Give me an example rather than me trying to figure out which one you are referring to"
TJ says:
It is clear from this statement you haven't read any of them. You're just throwing titles up to atone for the previous sin of citing a radio station as a credible scientific source in the previous argument you lost.
"It is true that some kneeling at the AGW alter is required to get published... "
AGW is not a religion, such as right wing republican christian fanaticism is. AGW is an accepted scientific theory. It is of course not unassailable (no scientific theory or law is) which is why articles to the contrary are published by scientist in an effort to reach a consensus.
They have. Global Warming has been occurring since 1800 and it is melting glaciers worldwide. The rate of melt and carbon buildup has skyrocketed in the last few years which is why the famed myth of a Northwest passage across Canada to Asia from Europe is no longer a myth. Container ships and tankers go where Captain Cook, Captain Cabot, Captain Hudson, Captain Baffin and many others could not.
If you want to cite the specific content you are referring to buttress your poor argument, then fine: post it. But don't spam us with the titles of dozens of articles you have not read. You don't fool anybody.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I have commented here for years bashing Bush and the neocons. And "Green" is Red, just the other end of the spectrum, both of which are not democratic, one is fascism, the other is "red".
And BTW, AGW is in fact a religion, the high priests are pseudo scientists like Hansen, man is a sinner against Earth Mother Goddess Gaia (a pagan god) and we will all end up in a Green Hell on Earth if man does not change his ways. Amen.
If he doesn't believe in global warming, he should move to Kashmir and wait for India and Pakistan to not nuke each other in a resource war once the glaciers supplying like 80% of that region's water are gone.
Yes.
Makes me wonder if we should have just let that part of the world starve. Smaller populations use less water. By feeding them and giving them nukes we have created monsters beyond our control.
NeoCons are very BiPolar. It's gotta be good or bad. Right or Wrong. Kill or be killed. AGW or not.
Most of us see a much larger connected world and realize that all actions accumulate and affect other systems causing blowback.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Guess we get to wait and see.
I just looked at the Cryosphere Today website, and as of April 27, 2009 the ice looks amazingly mushy for April. The strait at the northern edge of Greenland has opened, wildly early. A good sized patch off of Barrow, Alaska is absorbing sunlight due to lack of ice on April 27. Leads are opening and closing all the way across the northern shores of Siberia. When open, these open waters absorb sunlight and heat into the ocean in a way that the ice pack doesn't.
In general the ice floes look extremely responsive to winds, moving back and forth each day. I wish that I could say ice pack, but it's acting like floes pretty early in the warm season. "responsive to winds" also means that a great deal more surface area of ice drifts out of the Arctic zone and into melting zones whenever winds blow southward.
Given this head start, I expect record Arctic Ocean ice pack disappearance in 2009. The missing ice pack will be more of a story than the recent Wilkins ice shelf collapse in Antarctica. Moreover, expect record Arctic methane bubbling in 2009. We will find out if mass-released methane overtakes carbon dioxide as the most feared greenhouse gas.
In today’s Catlin update they say:
“The ice team are positioned in the path of a huge storm. Pen reported this morning that winds are picking up, and the Ops team can see that over the next 36 hours the team will experience blizzard conditions with winds of up to 40 knots and a strong possibility of heavy snowfall.”
You see, storms bring in warmer waters and their winds carry away the ice, this is what happened in 2007, and if it is happening this early in April, it is due to storms like this, and not because of any melting of ice or warming of Arctic waters by the very dim sun at that latitude.
"The very dim sun at that latitude" ? In April ? Hardly ! Unless obscured by fog or other local weather conditions.
The spring sun in the arctic is anything but dim. And it shines 24 hours per day. Went out at 3am this morning to enjoy the sky here 110 miles below the arctic circle. Not dark, just twilight. In another two weeks the twilight will be just about gone too.
Until mid - August. That is a tremendous amount of solar hours. We love it !
Lots of solar hours yes, but dim because it is so low in the sky. The Solar radiation has a lower intensity because it travels a longer distance through the atmosphere, and is spread across a larger surface area. Doesn't mean it does not shine or provide light, but relative to lower latitudes, it is dim.
Between April through August, fluxes are lowest over the Atlantic sector, where cloud cover is greatest. Warmer temperatures from global warming should increase cloud cover and block more light, but in 2007 there were fewer clouds (16% less cloud cover), so more sunlight reached the surface. That and the storms which cleared out some of the ice were behind the reduction in sea ice, not global warming
http://www.stormx.com/agriculture/severe-weather/2009/04/the-pacific-oceans-influence-on-climate-chang...
Thank/you/Common/Dreamers/one/and/all/for/your/comments/and/participation/in/this/debate./Though
/I/long/ago/became/convinced/of/the/scientific/verdict/,I/never/tire/of/listening/to/the/views/and/
arguments/on/all/sides.
A European study “Meteorological trends (1991-2004) at Arctic Station, Central West Greenland (69º15’N) in a 130 years Perspective” (B.U. Hansen, B. Elberling and N. Nielsen: Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen, and O. Humlum: Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway) reported [http://www.rdgs.dk/image/pub_pdf/artikler/2006_1/GT106_04_Hansen_Elberling_Humlum_Nielsen.pdf]: “It is concluded that climate changes the last decade are dramatic but that similar changes in air temperatures have occurred previous within the last 130 years. … Over this long time period, estimated winter temperatures correlate significantly with NAO and reveal that although the documented climate changes the last decade are dramatic, they are on the same order as changes occurred between 1920 and 1930.”
Please read the study and then comment. Thank you
"During the last 2,000 years, the climate has been relatively stable. Scientists have identified three departures from this stability, known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (also referred to as the Medieval Warm Period), the Little Ice Age and the Industrial Era:
* The Medieval Climate Anomaly: Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time.
* The Little Ice Age: A wide variety of evidence supports the global existence of a "Little Ice Age" (this was not a true "ice age" since major ice sheets did not develop) between about 1500 and 1850 (NRC, 2006). Average temperatures were possibly up to 2ºF colder than today, but varied by region.
* The Industrial Era: An additional warm period has emerged in the last 100 years, coinciding with substantially increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities (see Recent Climate Change for more information)."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
"Since the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), human activities have substantially added to the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels and biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has also resulted in emissions of aerosols that absorb and emit heat, and reflect light."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
"Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
* An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#intro
"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html
"Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases."
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
And on and on and on and on...
I'm not masturbating with you guys anymore.
"Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered."
And records started when? The MWP years had warmer periods than any year since 1992
The Little Ice Age was due to the Maunder Minimum. Solar activity over the past 50 years are the highest since records have been kept, about 400 years.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/download/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
There are signs this is changing. Total solar irradiance on Earth
has dropped to a minimum that is lower than seen in the previous two 11 yr solar cycles. We are now at at a 50 year low in solar pressure and the current solar minimum as measured by sunspots is the quietest in almost a century, possibly explaining the recent cooling. Some believe we may be entering a period like the Dalton Minimum between 1790-1830. In this period, the Gulf of Mexico saw ice in the winter. But nobody is certain.
The argument is not that the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 doesn’t exist. The argument is that the alarmist climate models are built on the unproven and untested assumptions of substantial positive feedbacks, and are overestimating future warming by a factor of 3 or more. Our uncertainty of climate science is large, and it is unlikely our climate system has so little negative feedbacks given the relative stability of climate over the last 2 million years where we have been in an ice age with intermittent interglacials like the present period.
Skeptics such as myself allow for a 1.2 deg C increase for a doubling of CO2 excluding feedbacks (negative or positive). That is the only scientific consensus. There is no consensus on the secondary effects of warming from CO2, known as climate sensitivity. In any event, supposedly we have not enough fossil fuels to double CO2, and a 1.2 deg C would not be harmful from a global persepective, and this point is well over a century away.
Aw, it's no longer good for you?
I try to put it in more obvious terms. Our modern way of life is pretty much dependent upon the planet staying just about the way it is right now. Several billion people live on or close to shorelines that can be inundated. The global economy relies on ships using fixed, immovable commercial ports to load and unload goods. Think World War Two was bad? The world hasn't seen anything yet, if the climate changes enough to drown the world's coasts...the wars and violence resulting from at the very least hundreds of millions of refugees moving inland, where resources tend to be scarcer...do some people just lack imagination enough to realize what that could to do humanity?
Thomas Moore is not denying that global warming is happening. He is only suggesting that it may not be mankind's doing. Perhaps he is right in claiming that it is not proven to be our fault, but I think it is. I became convinced in 1992, after reading "The Next One Hundred Years" by Jonathan Weiner, (published in 1990). He told the story of Charles David Keeling, who measured the CO2 in the atmosphere, and found that it had been increasing in step with the industrialization of the planet. Since then, all the evidence points to mankind's involvement in the production of CO2. I believe we must try to reverse this trend.
Ted Wilson
"Thomas Moore is not denying that global warming is happening. He is only suggesting that it may not be mankind's doing."
Darn Ted, thanks for reading and understanding what I was saying. There is undoubtadly climate change. No doubt at all. But we have actually been cooling overall the last ten years not warming. And since I can't find a shred of scientific proof that its man made, I do hesitate to believe the theories.
Your point on CO2 is of course correct and something we should really be trying to figure out real ways to contain and reduce. Especially the way China, India and some others were coming on. Frankly I don't see how we can do much without real agreements and advances in technology.
By ourselves we would just be shooting ourselves in the foot with most of the current recommendations. So???????
Thomas, please read up of statistics, with particular reference to number of observations and significance level to understand why the "cooling trend" may not be one.
bidelo
I am, as we speak looking into it again, spefically that. If Physic's Citizen comes back with a confirmation I won't need to, but he may not and between you two and others posting intelligently here it behooves me to be sure as I can be of this.
On something like this "cooling" I have never found him wrong.
My thanks for your suggestion.
I'm probably wasting my breath here.
T. More isn't really interested in what scientists say or what they predict.
There has not been cooling over the last ten years.
I wish he would quit repeating this lie.
There certainly has been a slow-down of warming over the last 2 years due to an effect in the Pacific ocean that is well-known and in addition the sun seems to be staying longer in the minimum of it's sun-spot cycle than usual...are we set for another Maunder minimum? No one knows this. Perhaps he is playing word-games...redefining a slow-down of warming as 'cooling'??? If so that is an unscientific way of arguing, that is a political form of argument.
But the 'trend' for the last 10 years has not been cooling for average global temperatures. And the most dramatic effects are in the polar regions...this was actually predicted over 15 years ago by much older climate models.
Also the climate models I have seen take these things into account (the possibility that the sun maintains minimum activity and the natural ocean cycle...they even throw in the odd volcanic eruption based on historical statistics...) and they still predict global temperature increases and this is due largely to the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already over 350ppm. The pre-historical record stretching back 800,000 years (if you don't count the last 300 years) puts CO2 levels around 200ppm to 250ppmp...even in the relatively warm times...even during the medeaval warming period....The increase corresponds precisely to the industrial revolution. Further, using isotope analysis it is possible to determine whether that additional carbon came from and ancient underground source or whether it is recycled...it's ancient.
The correlation and the fact are sufficient for me to first believe that this unique increase in the 'modern' period of Earth's history (last million years) is man-made.
CO2 alone doesn't necessarily mean warming, even though it is a greenhouse gas, there are many other factors that relatively warm and cool the earth.
But that's where the models come in.
And the models have been predicting warming trends since the late 1980's.
This is NOT a new issue, it is not unknown to those of us that have been following it for decades, and the evidence in all that time has continued to validate the climate models and their predictions.
Indeed, reports have recently surfaced that in 1995 the oil and gas industries systematically ignored the reports from THEIR OWN SCIENTISTS that global warming was caused by CO2 largely released from burning fossil fuels. AGain, this is politics, not science.
I have yet to see new information that indicates their underlying knowledge of the physics of climate is wrong. New information about the behavior of the sun, additional eruptions of volcanos, more or less particulates in the air...I don't discount these factors but fundamentally they can ALL be included in the models, models that work...so really there isn't a very good argument to claim that these things are being...somehow...ignored or not accounted for...they are.
Overall, the planet is still on a warming trend.
Call me back in 5 years time and if the actual performance of temperatures and climate has reversed (without a serious of major events like volcanic activity), as More is implying, then I will be happy to change my tune...indeed I will bet you that the climate scientists will be the FIRST people to start changing theirs too.
Until then I prefer to listen to the people who have studied climate and actually know what they are talking about.
physicscitizen
"I'm probably wasting my breath here.
T. More isn't really interested in what scientists say or what they predict."
Darn, I think thats a bit harsh. I'm saying which bunch should I listen to. They are not all on the same page as you know.
"There has not been cooling over the last ten years.
I wish he would quit repeating this lie.
There certainly has been a slow-down of warming over the last 2 years"
"Perhaps he is playing word-games...redefining a slow-down of warming as 'cooling"
I know from past conversations that you are not given to BS or hyperbole and though not in this field have FAR more expertise than I ever will. Mine are opinions based on what I can find out. You want to discuss war or death in war I can unreservedly tell you a truth and will know it, not an opinion. These are just my opinions.
Ted above agreed that the Earth has cooled .15 degree or whatever over the last 10 years, so I must not be the only one getting this information. So I think "lie" something I have never done in my life is a bit strong. I may be mistaken, but I never lie.
If you tell me that your research says that there has not been a cooling but rather a slow down in warming and the overall trend is warming, I will accept that as truth as I believe your opinion is better than mine in this instance.
That the increase in CO2 levels is man made I don't believe I ever disputed. Don't know why I would. That is scientifically proven.
I remember these same groups telling me that we were entering a new Ice Age back in the early seventies, the Earth was cooling and it was caused by man as I remeber they said. They were apparently wrong. This plays into my reluctance to accept the present arguments.
Lets bring it down to the real question...........
Is climate change man made and scientifically proven to be?
If the first is true, is there factually any thing the United States can do unilaterally to change it?
As fact are there any proven remedies?
Believe me, I'll value your opinion.
PS...to be clear, it is your undoubted opinion that there is no cooling over the last 10 years, just a slowing in warming? If your answer is yes, I'll not say that again.
PS....I came back to say that I appreciate your civil tone, reasoned arguments, respectful way of saying "you idiot" and the general usefulness of your postings. My compliments.
What idiots!
You completely ignored what TJ just told you and went on with your ignorant blather.
You apparently are equipped with brains. Why don't you use them??
Very valuable and civil contribution to the discussion.
Thomas,
I find your contributions to discussions to be very civil.
Well Ted, if thats not tongue in cheek, your designation as "contributions" to the discussions is appreciated. At least you aren't saying I'm a complete idiot (lol)
Seriously, thanks.
"But we have actually been cooling overall the last ten years not warming."
You're right, Thomas. Indeed, it appears as if global temperature has dropped roughly .15 degrees C over the last 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
(Pay no attention to the _average_ temperature change since 1880, the end of the second industrial revolution and the beginning of the internal combustion engine. Mere coincidence. Go back to sleep. Everything is fine. No need to adjust your teevee set...or your world view.)
"(Pay no attention to the _average_ temperature change since 1880, the end of the second industrial revolution and the beginning of the internal combustion engine. Mere coincidence. Go back to sleep. Everything is fine. No need to adjust your teevee set...or your world view.)"
Ted M......try to get in the whole discussion.
And I lost 5 lbs in the last month, but I'm still 100 lbs above my 2000 recorded levels...
zmann
I liked it myself........
I've always believed in pointing to myself as an example for the changes I preach and points I make :-)
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the laugh. Made my day!!
priceless zmann!
"And I lost 5 lbs in the last month, but I'm still 100 lbs above my 2000 recorded levels..."
Never mind the full details (ripped trousers): you're in a Neocon Republican shrinking trend!
This Just in from Rush the Druggie on Faux News:
"Congratulations zmann on debunking the liberal weight-gain theory.
Break out the potato chips and sugar snacks!
Now my friends we can eat all we want, with no global buildups at all!
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Thomas More (what a name!): Have you ever known ANYTHING to meet your uniquely personal standard of scientific proof? What? And when you say, "I looked as carefully as I could," was your search careful enough? Up to average scientific standard?
Bottle
Sorry if you find my name offensive. My mother picked it not me, so you'd have to take it up with her.
Scentific proof is not esoteric. It has strict standards and methods. I would expect you to be aware of that. Scientific fact has rules....not exactly new.
Unique to say that I prefer fact rather than opinion before spending a vast amount of money and causing many of our poorest citizens economic pain?
Do you want to start something of this magnitude that even scientific (opinion) doesn't agree on? That all "fact" is based on computer models?
Belief is not proof. Guessing is not proof. My search was as good as I could do, but if anyone found real scientific evidence that meets the methodology and standards of science....please share.
Thomas More said:
"Do you want to start something of this magnitude that even scientific (opinion) doesn't agree on? That all "fact" is based on computer models?"
TJ says:
My my, you seem to have a short memory. I will again cite the fact that nearly all of the non corporate scientific bodies worldwide agree the rapid increase in melting is, at least in part, man made. (and just forget about cherrypicking a small cooling blimp Thomas because glacier mass loss and black soot absorption makes it clear republican strategies are accelerating the melt.)
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century,[1] and that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that global surface temperature will probably rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing climate sensitivity, and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most studies focus on the period up to 2100. However, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100 even if emissions stop, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[5][6]
Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts.[7] The continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice is expected, with the Arctic region being particularly affected. Other likely effects include shrinkage of the Amazon rainforest and Boreal forests, increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions and changes in agricultural yields.
Political and public debate continues regarding the appropriate response to global warming. The available options are mitigation to reduce further emissions; adaptation to reduce the damage caused by warming; and, more speculatively, geoengineering to reverse global warming. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_theory
As to whether we can do anything about it; that is problematical at this point. Better to try and outlaw coal and take the financial hit up front, than to give comparable trillions to bankers so they can buy luxury motor yachts with huge dirty diesel engines.
Best Regards,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
ThomasJefferson
Thanks for your rational and clearly stated position. I would agree that man must certainly have some effect on climate change. I don't see how adding more elements to the atmosphere could avoid it.
As to the amout of scientists that advocate this position and the number of scientific bodies that do.....I'll still say that is a number that is in dispute.
"As to whether we can do anything about it; that is problematical at this point. Better to try and outlaw coal and take the financial hit up front, than to give comparable trillions to bankers so they can buy luxury motor yachts with huge dirty diesel engines."
Here is the crux of the matter. What if anything can we do about it? And when, if we can?
My position is simple, before we place an undue burden and great economic pain on those in our society that can least affiord it, we should at the very leasst be very, very sure what we are doing. We should be that sure for all our citizens, but this would fall hardest on our poorest.
I believe this current push is much the same as the push to pass the stimulas and omnibus bills....the sky will fall if its not passed right now and then months pass before even initial actions are taken. It simply looks like fearmongering to me. Something to pass someones political agenda. That is my opinion.
You mentioned the Kyoto Protocol....remember that not one of the major countries has even come close to their goals and that India and China are not signatories either and are not going to sign it. Or any other emmissions agreement in all probability.
As to outlawing coal.....it is not going to happen. There is absolutely no chance of a bill doing anything like that passing. Not now or in the future.
I guess I'd say to you that I look at the possibilities as I see them, what could actually be done and the benefits of it, the realities in my view and thats what I would support.
Once again my respects for your civility and reasoning.
"My position is simple, before we place an undue burden and great economic pain on those in our society that can least affiord it, we should at the very leasst be very, very sure what we are doing. We should be that sure for all our citizens, but this would fall hardest on our poorest."
There is a movement that would disagree with your POV, Thomas. Indeed, it could help poor people the most.
http://www.greenforall.org/splash
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was referring to Cap and Trade which will fall most heavily on the poorest among us and do a pretty good job on the rest of us.
Where is the proof, Thomas? Sounds like mere un-scientific theory to me.
There is such an affliction as "the paralysis of analysis." It can be a deadly affliction as one can get stuck waiting for every shred of proof, just like a deer in a headlight. (BTW, there are those who want to wait for every shred of proof because they never intended on making any corrections to begin with - for them, the system works).
You get as much information as you can, you listen to your intuition, and you move. If the info and your intuition tell you to move and you don't, you lose. If you move and it's too much or too little, you adjust. That's how progress goes. Hearing the information we've heard for a generation now, and not moving, is irresponsible to say the least.
Addendum: The point of whether global warming is caused by humans is at once inconsequential and germane. Inconsequential, because we are neck deep in climate change/warming, and we must adjust. Germane, because if we keep pushing down on the accelerator while pressing down on the brakes, we're merely burning out both the engine and the brakes. We're also being very stupid.
I simply believe its too important to go off half cocked.
Don't listen to Fox (not) News' numbers. The EPA estimates it'll cost the average household up to $140 extra a year. Two staffers on the House Energy Subcommittee who worked on the bill estimated the cost to be about $219 per year (60 cents per household per day, they said). There are many other ways to reduce the cost, such as increasing use of smart meters by electric utilities, and meters in the home that can tell you what the electric rate is at that moment so you can choose to do occasional energy-intensive duties, such as laundry or dishes, when the rate is lower in the daily cycle. Also, more and more appliances are becoming more energy efficient than they used to be, and more people are learning that simple things such as unplugging a TV before you leave for work in the morning saves energy and money. And don't underestimate the ability of people to adapt to price changes...just look at how much driving fell when gas shot up. Did the country fall apart? Nope. People found other ways to live their lives, such as combining errands into one trip, walking more, biking, taking public transit, etc.
This has nothing to do with Fox news. Can you point to anywhere this has worked? Nope.
White House staffers? Are these the same bright boys that are telling me the economy is going to grow next year at a higher rate than it has in years?
The EPA hasn't been right in years.
This is a pure tax, nothing more and its not only a stupid time to impose it, its useless. And were you unaware you are going to have to pay for those smart meters?
You betcha! This is going to save money for us poor old "consumers" just as electric deregulation did for the lucky folks in Texas.
And this is magically going to create new "green" energy? All you have to do is make it hurt enough and magical new energy sources will appear.
This is a fools errand. And I'll bank my experience on these things against all the sales talk.
"Can you point to anywhere this has worked? Nope."
This bill has safeguards in it to prevent polluters from profiting like they have in Europe. Whether they stay in there once conservative Congresspeople have a crack at it is another question.
"White House staffers?"
Uh, no, career staffers for the House Energy Subcommitte...as in House of Representatives, not political flunkies at the White House.
"The EPA hasn't been right in years."
And conservatives have been in charge of it for years. Coincidence? Nope.
"And were you unaware you are going to have to pay for those smart meters?"
So you're assuming American households won't want to buy another shiny newfangled gadget, especially one that will save them money?
As for the rest, that's just rhetoric and I won't address it. I'm sorry you're so pessimistic on this.
You hear so much b.s. about climate change and the one about the differences between scientists is a smoke screen. The latest was a physicist who had not studied the weather trying to tell those who do they were wrong. If by chance the global warmers are wrong what is so wrong about cleaning up the air, water and land of the only place we live? Do you dump in your living room? I should rephrase that because in some of the houses I work in they do. The corporate shills are still at it about Gore. Please tell me how he can get rich again. I must be dense. It seems to me that someone who is trying to clean up the Earth is not too bad. The Becks Hannitis Limbaughs etc seem to do what ever their corporate big wigs tell them.
One more time. Scientists massively support that the evidence shows there is global warming, and that human activity is a basic cause. The idea of global warming is being suplanted by the concept of climate change to focus on the overall weather disturbances/catastrophes and accelerating rate of animal and plant extinctions. See the inexpensive dvd, The Eleventh Hour, which understates the case according to more recent evidence.
Global climate disruption (another term intended to catch the essence of the event) is, in itself, just a component of the sixth major extinction event--now underway--in planetary history as we know it. The only predictable outcome of an extinction event of global proportions is an evolutionary rush to fill unoccupied niches. May happen with us, may happen without us. No one can say.
"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the way nature works and the way man thinks."
--Gregory Bateson, 1976
The term "climate change" was necessary for the Homer Simpson's who look at their thermometers in their backyards on a January 5th morning and say, "D'oh, looks pretty damned cold to me!"
How does the arctic ice extent look now?
Pretty good! Recovering nicely. It will probably pass the 1979-2000 summer average by mid May.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
The Catlin Arctic Survey is hunkering down in a blizzard waiting for re-supply.
Posted on 4/27. Temp -22 C ( -8 F ) Windchill -40.5 C ( -41 F )
"Yesterdays weather window has now firmly closed. The ice team are positioned in the path of a huge storm. Pen reported this morning that winds are picking up, and the Ops team can see that over the next 36 hours the team will experience blizzard conditions with winds of up to 40 knots and a strong possibility of heavy snowfall."
Yep, that's only weather, but it does corroborate the climate trend of recovering arctic ice. The Sun is the driver of the climate. During increased activity there are warmer temps on Earth, during decreased activity, there are cooler temps. The sun has been pretty inactive for about 4 years now, extremely quiet lately, and we're recording a cooling trend now as the oceans bleed off the excess heat energy accumulated during the previous highly active cycles. Temp data for North America is skewed due to placement of monitoring stations in the middle of, or adjacent to, artificial "heat islands", like rooftops, parking lots, street corners, sewage treatment plants, etc. Satellite lower atmospheric temp data do not indicate warming.
A number of scientists involved with IPCC have, in the past year or two, are now questioning the validity of the IPCC report and AGW in general.
"Cap and Trade" is a scam being sold by people who stand to profit from it, like Al Gore, who has investments in a C&T broker. Plus it will do nothing to reduce atmospheric pollutants.
So lets focus on the toxic pollution that matters. Life on earth requires CO2, it's nothing to be frightened of. Keeping atmospheric pollutants, of all sorts, to a minimum is a wise thing to do, of course. We also should not loose sight of all the other pollution that is constantly dumped into our waterways, aquifers and land. We really can't do anything about climate, so how about focusing on the things that we can do something about? In the end, "greenhouse gases" would be reduced as a result anyway.
What we need is a comprehensive plan for social, environmental and economic sustainability, not falling for the fearmongering that distracts us from these goals.
There are also a number of scientists who now believe the IPCC predictions were way too conservative, and other scientists who believe its already too late. As far as fear mongering goes, my elderly parents love Hannity and Glenn Beck, but seem to miss that these are guys coming just short of calling for an armed insurrection against the Obama administration. If they want to believe them that climate change is a nonsense, that's OK. (I do draw the line at bombing Iran!) They should be able to live out their lives believing we have a future. I also try to limit the really harsh stuff when discussing climate change with the kids. I want them to believe in a future, too.
Personally, I feel gulilty not having done enough. The Obama adminisration is at least getting things moving. It would be nice for our children to have a future. A future with wildlife in Africa, coral reefs, polar bears, glaciers feeding rivers, Florida above sea level... would be even better.
bbr-001
"If they want to believe them that climate change is a nonsense"
Perhaps you could suggest to them that these guys are wrong because there is clear scientific evidence that there is climate change. Almost undisputed evidence.
Man made is certainly unproven, but if they are saying there is no climate change, its easily proven to your parents. Even most neocons admit that.
What would cause you to think that Florida won't be above sea level? AT least for the next few 100 years. Beyond that, it is difficult to call as sea levels are at historical low levels compared to past climatic events.
To propose a carbon tax is just plain foolish, unless you want to increase tax revenue. The science is NOT settled on AGW, and as another poster has indicated, scientists involved with the IPPC report are jumping ship as we ARE cooling, quit rapidly in fact.
We have been cooling since 6,000 years ago, Arctic ice has been thin to non existent in the recent past....circa 1944 in fact.
The co2 thing is a sham, and the sad thing about it, is that government scientists are losing credibility, so that when there reallllly is something to worry about, no one will listen.
Sources?
I thought not.
Ted, it's the new tact out of the fortune 500 playbook: Deny reality; Make up some facts that sound good.
I used to have a neighbor like this. We were eating dinner in his trailer dining room one night when it started raining and a torrent of water came down the chandelier all over our food and the table. He kept eating like nothing had happened. I said: "Doug, I think maybe you have a leak on your roof."
He yelled: "There's no leak on this roof! I've been working on it for weeks and THERE'S NO LEAK ON THIS ROOF!"
I finished dinner as best I could and never went back. He later fell off the roof repeatedly and is disabled to this day.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
So many words concerning "blame". Was is the sun? Was it the earth cycle? Was it cow flatulance? All this is nothing but ring around the rosey concerning the real question: what are we going to do about it? and when?
In all probability, if we continue to solve the problem of 'climate change' at the same rate we have solved the problem of creating world peace, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
The one good thing: When the world either goes into a deep freeze or an eternal flame, the corporate bastards that put us there will freeze/fry like the rest of us.
what are we going to do about it? change the way we live around the globe, together...turn off industry and electricity...take responsibility for our own lives again...reclaim our inherent rights as living creatures...stop working at 'jobs' and spend our life-time engaged with the planet and our neighbors for our sustenance...
when? September 22, 2012...let's stop talking and get food growing!
Dubet,
I don't think we can drop everything we're doing in an instant and do just as you say. I do believe that, by default, over the next few years we will be doing exactly as you suggest. This whole 'job' scam was created by a few wealthy robber barons who worked out a scheme to get the whole population pitted against itself so that it could amass even more wealth than they already possessed.
And for you freaks who are constantly concerned with liberals re-distributing the wealth; the wealth has been re-distributed upward from the poor to the rich for hundreds, if not thousands of years now.