Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate 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) 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.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
123 Comments so far
Show AllWill Siberia be the new Amazon?
C'mon.
I heard this week that smog causes light particles to be deflected, thereby making plants grow better.
Burn, baby, burn, you haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin .
Siberia will be the new Dunkirk. That's where the last remnants of mankind will gather in their cannibal hordes and fight for the last scraps of food as the ecosphere dies. Siberia is outgassing methane at accelerating rates which will cause runaway greenhouse effect.
Honey, I've killed the planet.
I don't think so as the Arctic Ice is very near its 1979-2000 mean today. Based on short term observations, it appears that the ice is growing at a very rapid rate which would concur with the general cooling of the planet at this time.
Solar winds are down 28% verses long term averages. Our atmosphere has shrunk by over 100 miles, which allows satellites easier orbits, and also reduces the cross section and friction with the solar winds which results in less warming.
So many things to learn.
Do the lies EVER stop with you people? The arctic ice cap is not only smaller on average every year but the ice is thinner too. The extent of multi-year, thicker ice is getting smaller as smaller ice caps allow the wind to blow the older thicker ice out the Greenland straits.
Solar winds are down but even at the solar minimum 2008 was one of the ten hottest years on record. The atmosphere is smaller because global warming keeps more of the atmospheric heat in the lower atmosphere. This is the same effect as putting a thicker layer of insulation in your attic. The insulation at the top of the heap will be cooler in winter. Go to Realclimate where real scientists post real science about climate change.
Climate change denier pseudo-science is brought to you by the same people that promoted the Iraq war, the Afghan war, US operated torture camps and for-profit health insurance. These people will sell any set of lies to keep their clients profitable no matter how many people it kills.
it is indeed sad to see, as the accumulation of man's waste is deposited back upon the planet, how this slow demise is unfolding. even more sad is seeing humanity, with all its self-proclaimed wisdom, fouling its own nest.
Wow,
What a vast liberal conspiracy! Lush Limpbra says we are entering a cooling trend! (inside his well-stocked refrigerator that is...)
Corporate scientists from the oil industry payroll say there's nothing to worry about!
They will be here shortly to explain how flat the Earth really is!
Oh happy day! Republican economic Recovery drilling the Arctic is here to save us!
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Is there climate change? Yes...quite evident. Warming or cooling? Cooling by every measurement.
The question is....is it caused by man? No scientific evidence that it is caused by man. None at all.
Why is it that if a scientist has a counter opinion to the opinion that it is man made, he is a tool of the oil industry? Both opinions are just that, opinions.
And you have fallen into the trap set by conservatives of turning everything into a political opinion, where there is no absolute right or wrong, truth or falsehood, just a matter of opinion.
In this instance it is the claim that man made global warming or climate change is scientifically proven. It is not. I looked as carefully as I could and every scientific proof offered has been nothing but opinion or based on models. That is not scientifically proven.
It is a theory only and I for one wouldn't care to make decisions that will hurt so many people based on theories. Especially when the projected results are so minimal.
'It is a theory only and I for one wouldn't care to make decisions that will hurt so many people based on theories. Especially when the projected results are so minimal.'
Thomas, do you see no facts in the world that would require the decisions you refer to be made, though hurting so many people? Which decisions would these be?
Our current, and expanding, industrial and electrical path, complete with physical decimation, chemical alteration and looming radiation, will leave nothing alive...therefore, we must leave that path...forget about arguing theories, face facts...decisions must be made and behaviors altered, or doom is upon us...
dubet
Thomas, do you see no facts in the world that would require the decisions you refer to be made, though hurting so many people? Which decisions would these be?
I can see many things we can and should be doing. Many. But none concerning "global warming/Climate Change. A waste of time unless it is man made and unless we could actually have some effect on it if did something.
The best figures I can find on say Cap and Trade are a reduction of .03 at the first of the next century. Aside from which, I know I'm a heretic, but its simply a tax. Hasn't worked in Europe won't work here for anyone but the companies.
But there are immediate things we could do that would have an immediate effect. They aren't sexy like stopping the use of coal whuich is absolutely not going to happen. Better insulation. Reduce taxes on smaller homes. Raise them on larger homes. I'd charge triple electric rates on folks like Al Gore. Talking the talk just doesn't impress me.
Rethink auto rules to fit regional needs.
Develop as much and as efficiet energy domestically as possible.
Put money into enegy research rather than unsustainable electric cars or hybrids.
Set realistic goals for energy production.
Stop Big Agri welfare. Develop smaller farms and methods of production.
Restore PE to schools for every student and get the sugar machines out of the schools.
Etc.
thank you, Thomas...that is a good list...I would argue that we need to go farther, but I know some of my wishes may not be realistic...I believe we are both thinking along some similar lines, though...eventually, reflecting your comment about smaller farms, I always end up back at locally-growing food...with fresh, growing food available locally, many things are possible - without it, not so many...
dubet
"I would argue that we need to go farther"
I wouldn't disagree. There are so many small things that could be encouraged that would have very large effects for small costs its mind boggling.
How about really subsidizing solar panels instead of blue sky electric cars and hybrids?..................................
Thanks for your thoughts.
"It is a theory only and I for one wouldn't care to make decisions that will hurt so many people based on theories."
Isn't every scientific finding merely a theory, open to peer review and disputed findings? Given this, isn't every theory accepted or rejected based on the number of findings by said scientific peers?
The _overwhelming_ scientific consensus is that global warming is, if not created by humans, greatly exacerbated by humans.
This is a key piece of information to know. It gives us impetus to change actions which the overwhelming number of scientists are telling us are making things worse. Far better to look at it this way than to bend over and kiss our asses goodbye, because that is what we will be doing if we don't change our ways.
Ted
Scientific proof usually demands repeatable results which so far have been missing from the "man made" climate change argument.
"The _overwhelming_ scientific consensus is that global warming is, if not created by humans, greatly exacerbated by humans."
Overwhealming is a bit of an overstatement as far as I can see. A lot of the evidence are things that have happened before in our history. Most is based on modeling which at best is faulty. Proposing changes at the government level based on these theories is fearmongering at the best in my opinion.
Why is it so hard to say this is a theory, but it might be correct and in any case there are a number of things we need to do to lessen our dependence on foreign oil?
It seems like one of those we are the enlightened who know best and you poor plebes need to shut up and do as you are told.
"Scientific proof usually demands repeatable results which so far have been missing from the "man made" climate change argument."
If you want repeatable proof of climate change, go find another Earth and recreate all its infinite factors :-)
"A lot of the evidence are things that have happened before in our history."
So what factors are different, instead of the same, between now and other times our climate has changed in the past? This one shouldn't be hard to figure out.
"Most is based on modeling which at best is faulty."
So is nearly any plan of consequence in this world, no? Business plans, marketing plans, economic forecasts, military strategies, etc. Should none of these happen because their structure is faulty?
"Proposing changes at the government level based on these theories is fearmongering at the best in my opinion."
Our country has a history of only reacting to catastrophic events, not even attempting to head them off. This time, it could lead to billions dying. I don't think fearmongering is a problem in this case.
"Why is it so hard to say this is a theory, but it might be correct and in any case there are a number of things we need to do to lessen our dependence on foreign oil?"
Because the media and those dependent upon the industries that led us to this purposely distort understandings of scientific information. They try to equate scientific theories with political opinions, in which there is no right or wrong...I've mentioned this before.
"It seems like one of those we are the enlightened who know best and you poor plebes need to shut up and do as you are told."
In terms of what our government will do that's not true, because it is elected and, theoretically at least, carry out the people's will. In the case of accepting the scientific basis, you could be right, but that's just how it is. That's why these people spend decades in education, research, etc before putting out information like this. Would you argue with your doctor about every treatment he decides you need for any problems you have? No, because he's a fricking doctor, and supposedly knows what the hell he's doing.
zmann
You are missing my point, I have no doubt that we have climate change. That is proven.
My doubt is that it is man made. And yes computer models are faulty at best otherwise we wouldn't have the economic problem we have now. I simply don't see enough proof that it is man made.
But most importantly, lets say it is, then which parts are causing it and can we do anything about it? Not symbolic, but something concrete with proven results. And something that America can do by itself that would correct it because we cannot force anyone else to do anything.
"Our country has a history of only reacting to catastrophic events, not even attempting to head them off. This time, it could lead to billions dying. I don't think fearmongering is a problem in this case."
I could certainly be wrong here. It just seems to have the earmarks of that type of presentation.
Frankly I'm not sure I trust this government to do anything. They look completely incompetent. In fact they are beginning to make Bush's administrative picks look good.
The will of the people does not reflect doing anything about this at this time. That is the will of the people. I guess I feel the people should be consulted a bit more on important thiongs like health care,climate change, illegal immigration....things that have a real impact on their lives.
I didn't vote to change a neocon tyranny for a Progressive tyranny. Perhaps a bit strong, but reflective of the rhetoric and what is being revealed as reality.
Thank you for your reasoned arguments.
"Why is it so hard to say this is a theory..."
Why is it so hard for you to follow a discussion?
Ted Markow April 28th, 2009 8:47 pm: "Isn't every scientific finding merely a theory, open to peer review and disputed findings? Given this, isn't every theory accepted or rejected based on the number of findings by said scientific peers?"
"It seems like one of those we are the enlightened who know best and you poor plebes need to shut up and do as you are told."
Now you're getting defensive. C'mon Thomas.
Look, science determined that tobacco causes cancer. Yet, there are many people who smoke their entire lives without any dire consequences (except for stinking to high heaven). There have been scientists (shills for the tobacco industry, perhaps) who have disputed the link, yet science has concluded that tobacco contributes to disease and early mortality. Does this mean that the studies done were wrong or that the findings will never be reversed? No. But until then, the many peer-reviewed studies will stand and those who live long lives will be studied as anomalies - they prove nothing for the vast majority of us.
Many studies have been performed on ice core samples, air samples, soil, plants, bodies, etc. Scientists can tell, by looking back in time, what happened and when. The _overwhelming_ consensus is that global warming is, if nothing else, exacerbated by human industrial activity. And yes, computer models are a good way to extrapolate data.
Why is this important? Maybe for the same reason it's important to stop smoking when you develop a dry hack, or a black spot on your lip or tongue, or god forbid, when your doctor suggests that you quit. Those who don't stop and who get cancer have no one to blame but themselves. With global warming, we have ourselves to blame if we ignore the findings and stupidly keep doing as we've been doing. As things get worse, and folks like you continue with the anthropocentric hubris, society will naturally focus on you to blame. Not a threat, just a word to the wise.
Ted Markow
"It seems like one of those we are the enlightened who know best and you poor plebes need to shut up and do as you are told."
"Now you're getting defensive. C'mon Thomas"
Probably. But after a while the inane wears on me. (no, not you)
"consensus is that global warming is, if nothing else, exacerbated by human industrial activity."
That I believe is easily proved and has been.
Nice analogy! But I wouldn't for a moment refrain from doing some things to easse these pressures we know of. But dire and extreme measures that are being proposed with no real proof (in my view) that climate change is caused by man rather than just enhanced as I believe is evident. And secondly, things that are not any where close to being shown to help with any surety.
It simply reminds me of Bush's rush to war. And a lot of the reasoning seems to be because Congress and the President believe they can get it thru now....doesn't seem to matter to them if they should or not.
Now the designation of an anthropocentric viewpoint I'll freely accept. If there are no human beings there is nothing but animal and vegetable matter. That is indeed my viewpoint if I remember the meaning correctly. Hubris....no, can't go with that one. Don't believe that has ever described me....of course thats my opinion.
As to the last, no one says we have to do as we have done nor in my opinion should we, but I'll predict this now....because of this push by these folks now, because of the way its being presented, Its not going to pass. I'll gladly take the blame if it turns out I'm wrong, but I never move till I'm as sure as I can be of the situation. And there is no proof that these actions will help a problem I'm not even sure exists. Which is Man Made Climate Change.
And lastly, lets say its a given that its true and these things will solve it....is that true if America acts alone? Can we accomplish this by ourselves?
My regards for your civility and reasoning.
Gravitation is only a theory also. Please find a tall building and test your hypothesis that theories can be ignored.
Once some idiot starts on "it's only a theory, on a computer yet, you know you're dealing with a one-neuron intellect."
Pangolin
Your reply fairly well demonstrates your intelligenge level, your rudeness, your smug self indulgent attitude of superioty and ignorance in refusing to consider other opinions.
Only an "idiot" speaks as you do. And you and the others like you are self evident by your displays and attitudes.
I would rather trust the opinions of the people who study this stuff for a living and have data to back them up. NOAA, NASA, EPA... For example:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/25/noaa-methane-levels-2008/#more-6013
Its a good thing the Obama administration has started things moving with the stimulus package green economy piece, the EPA CO2 finding, and now the Waxman-Markey climate change bill taking shape in the House. Even the CEO of Duke Power, and Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox "News" Channel are getting what is going on. Even nuclear power is going again.
So in a few years when the big El Nino/Solar Cycle 24/390 ppm CO2 extravaganza hits, we will be started on our way to carbon neutral. BTW, if you live east of the Mississippi, north of the Mason Dixon and not too close to the ocean, be kind to the refugees.
"I would rather trust the opinions of the people who study this stuff for a living and have data to back them up. NOAA, NASA, EPA..."
I have often cited these organizations to the deniers. I have never received a response.
Life is tough....It's even tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne.
Thomas,
Hi. You say; "The question is....is it caused by man?"
The author, John Vidal, doesn't address the cause, but merely speaks about the situation itself. You have said that you don't dispute the situation but dispute the certainty of the cause(s). That is fair enough, however, what I want to ask is why is the cause "The question"?
Isn't the soulution "The question", or more accurately; what counts?
We can engage in endless debate about the cause, but when the debate over whose fault it is takes everyone's attention, time is lost in addressing solutions.
I submit that we don't have the luxury of such debate in this situation, unless, through that debate we find solutions that are so much better they warrant the increased negative effects of postponement. In this situation, the solutions are many and pretty clear (though there is always room for improvement, obviously). In the worst case, those that argue in favor of the "opinion" that it is not man made, do so - it would seem - to slow changes/solutions that in fact are not disputable in terms of being things that need to be done to solve the problem. Hence, identifying the source doesn't further solutions, in this particular situation, but rather plays into everyone's penchant for debate and finger pointing as a pastime, only wasting valuable time.
I see you have argued for solutions and know you feel we do need to do things, I don't dispute your commitment to that. Nor am I saying you are one of those arguing that it is not man made.
Sure, no solution is perfect in every respect, and there will be some mistakes/casualties in the process; such as people/businesses that were forced to change when they maybe didn't really need to after all (as one example). But, the issue is so terribly serious, and the stakes so high, can we afford to wait until all the wrinkles are ironed out before we take strong actions? I think the debate over the cause just slows things down.
I can't imagine telling future generations who ask, 'Regardless of the cause, you all knew what steps could be taken and you didn't, why?', 'Well, we actually felt that identifying the cause was more important than future quality of life or the survival of Mother Earth and all her creatures, including you my dear grandchild.'
Again, I don't imagine you would advocate that, however, I re-state that that very well may be the result if we don't take drastic measures immediately and we cannot afford to take that chance.
Finally, I am not picking on you, I am actually just using your comment (one shared by many) as a jumping off point for what I am saying. Obviously, many, many people want to debate the cause, as witnessed by this thread and the ferocity of this debate most everywhere. It is the ferocity and mere existence of this debate in the first place that causes me to add to this discussion, as I find the debate itself to be counterproductive, given the time factor.
Spuds
This sure makes me lose my taste for meat.
as a youngster, I played one afternoon in natural pine forests...in the middle of these trees, in the middle of nowhere, eastern washington, a big hole dug into the earth and filled with rusting washers, dryers, mattress springs, water heaters, tvs, etc...a pond with the surface completely coated with thick, sludgy, oily gook...
of course, the damage we are witnessing is caused by man...i know, 'we're not talking about that, we're talking about climate change, and temperature, and debating obvious trends'...pretty narrow topic...
anybody show me any area of this planet where a large concentration of coordinated individuals is working to diminish the industrial and electronic footprint of man...I don't mean the random scout troop planting trees, I mean big time changes in the other direction, away from commercial products and electricity, and toward sustainable, agrarisn, acoustic living...
I don't see it anywhere, all societies of any consequence are hurtling in the 'jobs and development' direction, even arguing about trivia, while the industrial decimation and garbage piles increase exponentially...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012, the Autumnal Equinox 3 summers out...let's get planting, we'll need lots of good, local fruits, veggies, nuts, berries, animals and bugs!
dubet
"of course, the damage we are witnessing is caused by man"
Now thats a completly different matter than the theory of man made "warming"
This is quite evident and something we can certainly do something about. That we should do something about.
Though the return to the land you seem to be talking about is not possible I'd say.
you forgot to add, conveniently, thomas more, some opinions bear more credence than others.
Some opinions are backed up with evidence. Others are backed with the speculation of those in industry that wish to keep on doing what they've been doing for years. (who said that banks are the only irresponsible industry in the world, banks just screwed with the money supply, coal plants are killing us slowly)
lino
True. And its quite evident who is really interested and who simply parrots the current company line.
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.
Good points, all.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!"
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
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.
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