Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Global Warming's Toll: Glacier in Bolivia is Gone
CHACALTAYA, Bolivia - If anyone needs a reminder of the on-the-ground impacts of global climate change, come to the Andes mountains in Bolivia. At 17,388 feet above sea level, Chacaltaya, an 18,000 year-old glacier that delighted thousands of visitors for decades, is gone, completely melted away as of some sad, undetermined moment early this year.
What was once the Chacaltaya glacier has now virtually disappeared
(Edson Ramirez/Miami Herald)
''Chacaltaya has disappeared. It no longer exists,'' said Dr. Edson
Ramirez, head of an international team of scientists that has studied
the glacier since 1991.
Chacaltaya (the name in Aymara means ''cold road'') began melting in the mid-1980s. Ramirez, the assistant director of the Institute of Hydraulics and Hydrology at the Universidad Mayor de San Andres in nearby La Paz, documented its disappearance in March.
Approximately 35 miles from La Paz, it takes an hour and a half to drive the gravel and rock road up tortuous switchbacks to the top of the mountain of the same name. Visitors on a clear day -- and there are many such days -- can see the Bolivian highland plain, or altiplano, thousands of feet below, and the nearby Huayna Potosi and Illimani mountains, part of the Cordillera Real de los Andes.
AN EARLY DEATH
Ten years ago Ramirez and his team of researchers concluded that the glacier would survive until 2015. But the rate of thaw increased threefold in the last decade, according to their studies. He believes the disappearance of Chacaltaya is an indication of the potent effects at higher elevations of the interaction of greenhouse gas accumulation and an increase in average global temperatures.
And he thinks other glaciers in the region also may be melting at a rate faster than previously known. Illimani, the colossal 21,200-foot mountain that looms over the city of La Paz and has served as the backdrop for postcard-perfect pictures since film was invented, is the home to several glaciers. They likely will melt completely within 30 years, he said.
''It's very probable that other glaciers are disappearing faster than we thought,'' he said. Researchers fear that Chacaltaya's fate will be shared by other glaciers in other areas of Bolivia, and in Peru and Ecuador as well, he said.
In May, the members of Ramirez's research team will gather here to honor the fallen glacier and to commemorate the end of 18 years of work.
Chacaltaya became well-known long before it started melting. For decades it was declared, and aggressively marketed, as ``the highest ski run in the world.''
Despite the melting of the glacier, today a handful of hard-core alpinistas and the occasional adventure tourist still schlep their skis and poles over the summit a few hundred yards from where the glacier used to be. On a lucky day, when a little snow has fallen just below the stony ridge, they can ski for about 600 feet. Then they walk back.
THE SKI LODGE
''Very few come to ski now,'' laments Alfredo Martinez, 73, who is one of the founders of the Club Andino de Bolivia, based in La Paz. A lifelong mountaineer, Martinez and a small cadre of mostly young followers keep the ski lodge open, serving tea and soup and burning old wooden boards from a nearby building in the fireplace for warmth. They charge visitors 15 bolivianos, the equivalent of $2.10, for a clean-up and maintenance fund.
In the good old days, when every tour agency and guide book heralded Chacaltaya's unique altitudinal fame, the Club Andino organized ski competitions and stored the equipment of dozens of its members in the lodge. A large stone-and-wood building housed a winch-and-cable tow operation that dragged skiers to the top of the glacier. The descent was often heart-stopping, and if the skiers didn't stop in time they could end up on the rocks below the snow-topped glacier.
WATER SUPPLY
But it's not the end of alpine skiing at Chacaltaya that worries researcher Ramirez, but the death of the glacier and what that means for the people of the Andean cordillera. On the western, mostly arid side of the Andes, millions of people depend on rain, snow run-off and melting glaciers like Chacaltaya, Illimani and Huayna Potosifor their water.
There's another problem, too. Not only are the glaciers melting, but less rain seems to be falling in the Andes, according to recent studies. The big rain-carrying monsoons drifting west from the Amazon basin have declined in size and intensity, another indication of major climactic changes, Ramirez said.
This year, for the first time, the amount of water flowing out of reservoirs serving nearly 2.5 million people in La Paz and its adjacent city, El Alto, will exceed the amount of water flowing into them. This eventually will become a major political issue for leaders in La Paz and El Alto, he said.
To Juan Velazquez, who grew up just over the mountain from Chacaltaya in the now-abandoned mining town Mulluni, and later moved with his family to La Paz, the defunct glacier means less income. As a taxi driver, he can earn the equivalent of 50 U.S. dollars driving tourists from La Paz to the glacier and back. That's the equivalent of a month's wages for some in this impoverished land.
BEYOND INCOME
But the loss of the glacier is the saddest part for him, not the lost wages.
As a child, he and his playmates would use paint to darken under their eyes, just like they saw in American movies, then journey up to Chacaltaya to play in fresh snow atop the glacier.
''It's a tragedy,'' he said. ``It's as if someone had died.''

73 Comments so far
Show AllThis is going to hit home in the US. The snowpacks on the Sierra Nevada, Cascade and Rockie mountains provide year round water that goes to farmland. Without these glaciers there will be less water and less food to go around.
The global economy is crashing because we crashed the environment. A starving man cannot pay back bank loans now matter how low the interest rate. Global warming means there will be less of everything for your children except sorrow.
This has a touch of the dire "The World is Coming to an End" preaching of the downtown soul-saver. I continue to hope that suffering is minimized, whatever happens ahead.
The global economy isn't our best friend. I see that good things come out of collapses.
If collapse disables the American military machine, that will generally improve the quality of human life.
Global warming is a communist plot! And FYI: The world is flat, the holy bible is the word of god, the heavens and the earth were created in just 6 days, smoking marijuana leads to hard drugs and the economy is in shambles because of Bill Clinton and the liberal media. Didn't you know that?
So let's go shopping!
Moondoggy May 9th, 2009 11:45 am ................And make sure you use a credit card!
Don't forget that tax cuts make revenues go up, the world is UNDERPOPULATED, and that we're fighting "them" over there so that way we don't have to fight "them" over here!
Oops, almost forgot. Torture is good, legal, and funny. Waterboarding is no worse than a fraternity prank.
Don't forget Jimmy Carter!
Under what presidential administration was the financial industry de-regulated?
It was the Clinton administration (continuing the deregulation that the Reagan administration started) that did away with the Glass-Stegall Act of FDR's time.
It's arguable that we have a one-party democracy. That party being a business party.
See you at the mall!
Did I say shopping? Sorry, I meant skiing. Until the last glacier melts. Then I'll shop for a new mountain bike. Seriously.
When hell freezes over, I'll ski there.
...
Which mall paul sprawl?
Death control - birth control + moneypower concentration = overpopulation + pollution + resource depletion + species extinction
The Kilimanjaro Glacier is almost gone, and the Fox Glacier has retreated 10km since I first saw it in 1977. Ditto the Columbia Glacier. These are the ones that I have personally watched disappear over the past 30 years. Whether you believe in anthropogenic warming or not, climate change is upon us.
So, how fast are we reducing C02? not fast enough. Should have been done reducing by now, to almost nil.... bUT WE ARE STILL INCREASING!!!!!
I've been watching the ads and listening to the changes we are making in order to go green... so I start to feel guilty for being a doomsday sayer.
But then there are these types of events...glaciers melting droughts etc... and reality strikes and I say- what is the world going to look like in just a couple of more years-2-3. Most Americans still donot feel the effects of climate change and that's why they ignore or deny it. But that is slowly changing.
Soon the drought, the floods, will bring about so much food and water shortage that it will really feel like hunger and thirst to the average Amercian. When the average American starts to suffer, I mean really suffer, all hell will break loose. Then the mad max scenario will be up on us...
I think that Obama truly wants-wanted to do what it would have taken to halt the on slaught of climate change. As far as his performance overall-I think he's the only person we could have put in to make at least some head way--
AND BEFORE SOME OF YOU START THE OH-BLA-BLA ARGUMENT - no I don't think he's done every thing right. I'D LOVE TO SEE CHANEY AND BUSH BEHIND BARS FOR LIFE... I'm also angry about our response to Gaza and Israel- -requiring Gaza to "ACKNOWLEDGE ISAREL AS A LGETIMATE STATE BEFORE THEY GET THIER AIDE... AFTER BEING TORTURED UNDER THAT ATTACK - AFTER THE FACT THAT THE BoaRDER IS NOT OPEN... ETC ETC. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IN HELL WE NEED TO BE IN AFGANISTAN AND AND AS I UNDERSTAND FROM LISTENING TO THE NEWS THIS AM, PAKISTANI'S ARE NOW BLAMING THE U.S. FOR THE SUICIDE BOMBINGS AND THE TALIBAND "PROBLEM" THAT THEY HAVE NOW- AND THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE WE WENT INTO AFGANISTAN.
iT'S LIKE WE JUST CAN'T LEAVE THINGS ALONE.... I MEAN, IF TERRORIST WERE GOING TO COME HERE, IT SEEMS WE COULD COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF DEFENSE AND I SAY DEFENSE(not offense as we are doing now) TO KEEP THEM OUT OR FROM BEING EFFECTIVE... BUT TO CONSTANTLY STICK OUR BIG FAT NOSES INTO OTHER COUNTRIES...LOOK WHERE IT GETS US -RESP0NSIBLE NOW FOR PAKISTANS NUCLEAR WEAPONS-WHICH ARE NOW A PRIZE IN THE EYE OF THE TALIBAN.
nOW, ALL THIS STARTED WAY BACK WITH RUSSIA BEING THEIR AND THEN US COMING TO THE RESCUE OF THE AFGANIES... OH WAIT IS THAT WHAT WE DID ???????????
ANY WAY THE NEXT THING WE DID WAS TRY TO SNEAK A NICE BIG FAT PIPELINE THROUGH THERE AND HIRED THE TALIBAN TO "KEEP THE PEACE" FOR US SO WE COULD BUILD IT... WELL THAT REALLY WORKED DIDN'T IT.
EVERYTIME I HEAR THE WORDS "PROTECT AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THE REGION" I WANT TO PUKE.
WE KNOW THAT AT FIRST MOST OF THE RICH WILL BE TRYING TO HOARD AND SAVE EVERYTHING FOR THEMSELVES AND BARRICADE THEMSELVES IN THERE WALLS WITH BLACK WATER STANDING GUARD....
YA' KNOW WHAT'S REALLY TORTUROUS, THAT IT'S LIKE WATCHING A SLOW MOTION FLIM EVENT. INSTEAD OF THE THING JUST HAPPENING SO WE CAN JUST DEAL WITH THE SURVIVAL PART- WE ARE IN LIMBO.... YEAH, SOMEOF US ARE DOING SOME THINGS TO MAKLE CHANGES AND TO PREPARE... BUT WHEN I STILL SEE AND HEAR THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL FIGHTING THE EFFORTS TO MAKE IT BETTER, I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE IT... IT'S LIKE WALKING THROUGH PEANUT BUTTER.... YOU PUT OUT A LOT OF EFFORT AND JUST CAN'T MAKE MUCH PROGRESS BECAUSE OF RESISTANCE....
Continues to amaze me that since the end of the last ice age that glaciers have been retreating all over the world.
And now all of a sudden this is something to get excited about? Imagine if you were living 8,000 years ago what the headlines would read.
Take the needle out of your arm.
Rubbish giggled:
"Continues to amaze me that since the end of the last ice age that glaciers have been retreating all over the world.
And now all of a sudden this is something to get excited about? Imagine if you were living 8,000 years ago what the headlines would read."
TJ says:
Good "Bevis and Butthead" impersonation!
Uhhhhhhh, Bevis, dude:
It's not the repeat of the cycle that's significant. It's the RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE that's 100 fold over the geologic record for one of these cycles. The only time climate changed this rapidly in the sedimentary record was when a meteor or volcano or solar flare hit the planet.
Absent those cataclysmic events; it's safe to deduce that it's your car doing this. The CO2 spike confirms his dude.
Hah hah....... hah hah
Science Rocks...... huh?
Those who engage in ad hominem attacks are not on the side of truth.
The sedimentary record can not discern changes over very small periods like the current 30 year period and historical data from paleoclimatolgy has very large uncertainties.
The end of the ice age was an example of climate change, and the glaciers have been melting for 18,000 years globally. Also, the Little Ice Age lasted from 1450 to 1850, and since the end of this we have been warming, but are still cooler than in the MWP which was from 1100-1300 when Greenland was much greener. Over the last 120 years, temperatures have risen 0.6 deg C, and much of that was in the last 30 years when the sun was unusually active when compared with historical records of sunspots.
At present, the sun is pretty quiet, and temperatures have not been increasing in recent years globally, despite rising CO2 levels, leading some scientists to question if we are entering in a period like the Dalton Minimum from 1790-1830 (ice was noted in the Gulf of Mexico), or even worse, the Maunder Minimum from 1650-1700 which gave us the coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age.
Science rocks when it is free of political and corporate interests, unfortunately, that has not been the case for over 50 years now. (response will be that I am a shill for the coal or oil industry, while I could counter others are shills for the neo-malthusians politacal agenda )
Hey Green is Commie,
It's not an attack; it was a form of humor. I guess I should have put a smiley in there for you.
You said, and I quote:
"Those who engage in ad hominem attacks are not on the side of truth."
Whose truth? The oil company's truth? (you know, your paymaster?) Then I am proud that I am not on the side of corporate rape of the planet for profit.
Then you said:
"The sedimentary record can not discern changes over very small periods like the current 30 year period and historical data from paleoclimatolgy has very large uncertainties."
Who cares? If you knew (as I know) that 90 percent of the species disappeared in a heavy line of black volcanic delineation twenty feet down in the dirt, then you can be sure a volcano caused it. The exact time it happened is irrelevant. We are in a rate of change of that magnitude. Extinction will follow.
When your children are gaging on the floor for air; I hope you realize they will curse your dead body long after you are gone.
There is no free lunch. History tells us that if you Republicans keep treating the atmosphere as a trash can, you're going to create an extinction event.
You said:
"At present, the sun is pretty quiet, and temperatures have not been increasing in recent years globally, despite rising CO2 levels, leading some scientists to question if we are entering in a period like the Dalton Minimum from 1790-1830 (ice was noted in the Gulf of Mexico), or even worse, the Maunder Minimum from 1650-1700 which gave us the coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age."
Just exactly how many weather stations and satellites did they have in 1100-1830ad? Huh? None. Typical of you NeoCONS to take literally a passage of ancient text and try to pass it off as a legitimate data point for science. I suspect you are a religious nut also; for you have no respect for the process of science.
It doesn't matter what a few corporate scientists say for money. It takes, by some empirical scientific guesswork, about thirty years for the heatsink function of the oceans to be affected by present day temps. The myth of the Northwest passageway is now a reality. Containerships and tankers go to Asian from Europe via CANADA because the Earth is melting. They go where Captain Cook, Captain Baffin and Captain Hudson could not. The "GOP worry" campaign that we are going to snap back into an ice age is fantasy. There is no data showing that this is happening. Will it happen? Yes, In hundreds or thousands of years. The "cooling trend" carnard is always trotted out by climate deniers. See my earlier posts which address blips in the short term.
I'm sure you can verify all this, but you're a corporate Ho with no soul; so you won't volunteer information like this that doesn't fit the anti-AGW model you are peddling.
I hope you can't sleep tonight. You're a real piece of work.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Ha ha. Being called a neo-con and republican is hilarious. After 8 years of Bush bashing and getting called a socialist, liberal, terrorist sympathiser. Proof that both the left and right are irrational and defend their beliefs with a religous fervor. And the green movement is simply a neo-malthusian religion pretending to be science.
Your arguments on the science defy rebuttal since there is no logic to it. On the one hand you bring out paleoclimatology when it serves your purpose, and when it does not, you reject evidence based on paleoclimatology. However, we do have observations recorded by history in which to support the paleoclimatogical evidence in the MWP and LIA. The telescope was also invented 400 years ago allowing sunspots to be recorded.
The historical record is clear that we have been in an ice age for 2 million years, and interglacials such as the current period are infrequent and of relatively short duration. We are 12,000 year into the current intergalacial, which is the average length of interglacials over the last 600,000 years. Scientists are no better at predicting when we will enter the ice age than they are at predicting what the climate will be like 30 years from today.
Sure. they have models, but then again, so did the banksters have their financial models. Given enough free parameters, models can predict anything you want. The level of understanding of climate is low due to it's complexity and the lack of good data, so there are many free parameters.
As far as the rate of warming, we have data from the last 30 years that shows warming. But Paleoclimatology can not be broken into 30 year periods. Tree ring data is loaded with uncertainty and assumptions. Ice core data are from samples that represent 400 to 1000 year averages, not 30 years. So there are no historical records to compare and allow us to state that the current short period of warming is unprecedented. Over the last 100 years we have seen roughly 30 year cycles of warming, cooling and warming, and we may be in a cooling cycle now.
As for your concern over species extinction, you must not believe in evolution. Evolution and extinction go hand in hand. It is estimated that 96-98% of all species that have existed are extinct today. That said, the biodiversity today is higher than it ever has been. Species adapt to changing environments, or they die off. Thats been true since life began on this planet.
And unless you have some evidence I am being employed by Exxon, then stop making the accusation, it makes you look foolish since I have commented many times how it is a myth that we are running out of oil, and that this is convenient for Big Oil to keep prices high.
I sleep pretty well knowing the planet is not going to be destroyed by mans CO2 and that there is plenty of oil for everyone. Each breath I take provides food for my plants. I do worry about how science is being corrupted by neo-malthusian political interests though. And I have some concern we are not doing enough to prepare for the next ice age. That would kill billions given our dependence on agriculture.
The coming ice age is actually of huge concern Green is Red. I am a farmer, and the climate variability has increased, but to the cool side where I farm. IN fact, right now I am 23 days behind my normal 1st day in the field.
When this happens, it concerns me as I also live in a glacial lake bed and the glacier was here less than 10,000 years ago. And it will prob be here in the near future again if past climate cycles are repeated, which, historically would be a very good bet.
With that said, these are truely exciting times. WE are learning more and more about our climate each and every day. We are learning that even tho the TSI doesn't change a lot from the sun, other factors seem to bear great impact on our climate. The science of climate is infant and should be taken for what an infant would know. The level of uncertainty is huge for predictions of future climate related to AGW forcings.
All things on earth cycle, and the climate is never static. WE have been lucky during the later Halocene period to have a stable climate compared to historical climates of the past. But even in that stable period, temps have flucuated by over 5C. If you wanted to include the earlyyyy Halocene, temp flucuations would be even greater.
I will never drop my mantra of conservation as being the key to living a good life. And being a good steward of the earth is rewarding in and off itself to me.
ThomasJefferson is correct. Its the rate of change that is alarming.
We do not need to refer to the sedimentary record; scientists look at the ice record which accurately trap (sequester?) the atmospheric and climatic record at the time. Tree rings provide even greater accuracy in recent times.
We are undergoing a major catastrophic extinction, unseen since the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, indicating that the biosphere is undergoing a sudden, traumatic event. It's not a volcano. It's not a meteor. It is man. Or it is rapid climate change. It is highly probable that Man may be responsible for the rapid climate change.
The evidence for rapid climate change is overwhelming, and to see intelligent people clinging to the minuscule evidence to the contrary is rather sad. I usually associate obstructionists with the Republican Party of No.
Denial is human. People who have been conditioned to think in a specific way find comfort and stability in their beliefs and will not change, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. It takes a generation to change attitudes. So, the most important thing we can do individually is to live our lives in more sustainable ways. Teaching by example, despite advances in communications, is the most important thing that we can do.
I also agree with TJ. But who cares who I agree with? I could just as easily agree with Exxon "climatologists", which proves nothing. As an amateur, I have been reading about and observing the climate first hand for nearly half a century. From my minute, sheltered and admittedly biased viewpoint (let's be honest, shall we?) I see that we are definitely in a major period of transition.
I won't site any publications, only my unproven and unpublished observations and opinions, for what it's worth.
I grew up in Southern California, and have lived for half my life in the Northern Rockies. I've been skiing and backpacking since early childhood. I remember when the snow was over my head, and now it only comes up to my knees. Of course I'm taller now, but winters have for the most part lost their punch.
I could go on about winter, but let me tell you about glaciers. When I was 11 we hiked to the foot of the Palisade glacier above Big Pine, California. It was one big glacier then, and is now broken into 3 or 4 smaller snowfields, barely any glacial ice left.
I've climbed Mt Raineer 3 times, Mount Shasta, all over Glacier National Park here in Montana, and up in the Icefields of Banff and Jasper in BC and Alberta and the glaciers of the Mission Mountains and Swan and Bitterroot Ranges of Montana, and on many peaks in Colorado and the high Sierra. I've seen and photographed a lot of "before and after" shots.
Glaciers are my obsession. I love snow. And what I've observed first hand is that despite a good winter this year, the glaciers and snowpacks are drastically shrinking. There is a glacier clad peak above our ranch that used to be covered with numerous icefields. Now by late August there is not much left.
I could name numerous glaciers I've observed that have shrunk or nearly disappeared. I climbed Mt Athabasca near the Columbia Icefield in 1984 and looked down on the Saskatchewan Glacier below. I went back in 2006 and it had retreated back over a mile. I could name several more examples.
Republicanesques would say it's due to increased solar activity or some other lame excuse to justify burning fossil fuels as usual. Meanwhile the ongoing measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere show a startling trend. I don't need to demonstrate that CO2 is a heat trapping "greenhouse" gas, or that burning massive amounts of fossil fuels is the culprit.
So here is a possible scenario: Glaciers melt, bringing sea levels to new heights. The massive displacement of ice, now water, is a tremendous redistribution of weight on the lithosphere. This would quite likely trigger major seismic activity which could release many volcanoes into activity. Think of how much dust was put into the atmosphere from Penatubo (sic)!
One example of how water weight can cause earthquakes is found in the filling of a reservoir on the Feather River in California. When the water began backing up behind the dam, earthquakes followed. The weight of the water made the earth tremble for months. That's just one reservoir. What's that to the oceans?
All the volcanic dust in the atmosphere from increased seismic activity would cause planetary cooling, possibly plunging us into a sort of nuclear winter. Snows increase, glaciers advance, sea levels drop. So here is one possibility of how our man-made global warming (GCC) could actually trigger the next ice age.
In any event, without empirical evidence, it's clear as smog to me that our "human volcano" which spews all kinds of nasty fossil fuel fumes is destabilizing the balance which makes our civilization possible.
So what's the answer? Not to belabor, but: ride a bike, plant a garden, put up solar panels, become a vegetarian, lobby politicians to cut back on military spending and to spend the money instead on universal health care and renewable energy, boycott polluting corporations, etc. And for the next 2 or 3 generations don't have more than 1 or 2 kids per couple worldwide.
Sustainability promotes stability. It's up to us, folks.
And in other parts of the world the glaciers are growing.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/05/himalayas-glaciers.html
Interesting article. It starts with potential dire consequences of glaciers disappearing, concludes the growing glaciers are at very high elevation and are exposed to more moisture as oceans have warmed and weather patterns have changed, and ends with even these high elevation glaciers will be endangered as the freezing line continues to rise.
My point is that this is part of the natural ice age cycle. The earth goes into an ice age, glaciers etc grow, and in between ice ages, they shrink. No one is going to change that cycle no matter how much we may wish to do so.
The oil companies and other corporate vested interests have long since stopped funding climate change denial, now they fund the "debate", despite that climate scientists are virtually in full agreement that climate change is real and caused by human activity. As long there is a "debate" there will be no progress. They have already delayed action since the 1980's, they can probably stretch out inaction for another decade. Some of the posts above are evidence of their PR success.
"Rubish" writes that he fails to be convinced that glacial warming is related to human activity- anthropomorphic-
Rubish is simply not exposed to the scientific community.
Most people are not and go around declaring they know what they are talking about.
Check out UCTV.TV and see on their schedule all the science professors giving lecture after lecture with graphs and data points warning us all that this is a real problem - CO2 has to be reduced etc etc.
I am running for school board this year-- I have no kids in school but- I want todays kids to be exposed to real science-- we need education and we need children and adults to value the natural life of plants and animals.
metamorph:
I see that you are not well read. There is much more to climate than co2. As we learn more and more about the sun, solar winds, ionization,(Which has no TSI value, but does have a huge influence on clouds)....just a few things for you to think about.
I am a strict conservationist who believes that people are NOT entitled to drive large suv's just because they can, people that build a 2200 sq ft house to house 4 people are nuts etc.
I am also a person who examines evidence very closely. IF you read the 2007 IPCC report, the whole report and not the 13 page summary, you will see the level of certainty is barely over 50%, which statistcally, amounts to no certainty.
People need to read a lottttt more and think.
"I am also a person who examines evidence very closely."
You sound like a scientist. If you have studied these issues, and given the huge impact of this, will you please give us your real name so that we may find out whether you are indeed "a person who examines evidence very closely" or merely an industry shill?
Don't you think you should support your claims with your name? It's only your reputation.
Good Morning Ted:
I used my name in the past but was banned here, so I will refrain from doing so now.
I am a farmer, and have been studying climate change for decades. 10 years ago, I was certain that co2 was the main driver behind climate change because the known science at that time supported that conclusion.
The known science now is showing that co2 is not the main driver behind climate, but rather the sun/solar winds etc. It is all part of learning with new data.
Carbon cap and trade is a horrid idea. It will not solve any emmission problems. Only make someone feel better when they are buying carbon credits from ME!
I very much enjoy watching the turbines turn on the windfarm just to the west of me as I know that the energy produced by those turbines does not emmit polution.
I am not a scientist, but I truely enjoy reading and digesting any current information that I can obtain. My land is protected by shelter belts from wind errosion, and I take great pride in observing the beauty of a crop growing in the field. That crop is affected by climate, my lively hood is affected by climate. In order to make sound decissions about what to plant etc, I have to understand climate.
I had hoped the current admin would close military bases overseas, would get out of Afgan, Iraq etc. That does not seem to be happening and I am very disappointed.
I am also concerned about the quality of information that people read/hear. There is a lot of "cherry picking" done on both sides of the climate issue. This is too important to cherry pick, and for sure to important to deny the new data that is beginning to be accumulated.
The ocean temp started to fall in 2003, which is against all models of climate. Global temps have been falling since the peak of 1998, which also does not follow models. The Arctic NWP was open in 1944 as the St Rock sailed it. Canada has records on Arctic Ice that a lot of people want to ignore. When there is known facts that are either denied or not quoted, that also bothers me and indicates again......cherry picking.
Anyways, it is a cold morning here and I have to go move spuds while it is cool. Hope you have a good day. The environmental destruction, as another person so aptly expanded on, is much more of a concern to me than co2.
Do you mean the St. Roch? (not Rock)
Yep, the 1940-1944 trip you refer to took years; much of it on dog sleds: but you conveniently left that part out. Now supertankers take that route without any ice holding them up all. And they are dozens of times bigger than the "St Roch".
For the first twelve years the ship was in commission, Larsen and his crew took supplies to scattered RCMP posts in Canada's far north. The St. Roch was specially constructed to be able to survive being frozen in all winter. And, during the winter the RCMP officers who formed her crew would use dog sleds to turn the St. Roch into a floating RCMP outpost. During this time the St. Roch was the only Canadian presence in the far north, carrying out various governmental duties.
World War II provided Larsen an opportunity to follow in the footsteps of his hero and compatriot. In 1940 the St Roch was sent on a mission to travel from the Western Arctic to the Eastern Arctic. The St. Roch completed the West to East voyage in 1942, taking 28 months to do so. For most of these 28 months the St Roch was frozen in. The St. Roch was the second vessel to traverse the Northwest Passage, and the first to do so from west to east. Upon her arrival in Halifax the St. Roch was given an extensive refit, giving her a larger engine, and a deckhouse, increasing her accommodation. The refit was completed in time for her to make the return voyage to Vancouver during the ice-free period, completing her voyage in less than eighty-six days.
Any more distortions?
TJ
TJ:
The return voyage from Halifax to Vancouver was completed in 86 days during the Ice-free period. Did you not notice that when posting?
Where is the distortion?
Unlike you Rubbish man,
I post the entire data, whether or not it supports my position. It's called honesty. It's a liberating experience. The ice-free portion of the year refers to the pacific and atlantic inlets. The interior was not passable for ocean liner size ships until mid-century 1957&1969 IIRC (and then only sporatically). Correlates nicely with CO2 buildup from the industrial revolution.
The distortion is that it was a special crush proof ship designed to venture in 1944 where no commercial ship would dare because it might get closed in by the ice flow on the edges. Now the passage is wide open for ocean liners every single year due to AGW.
You see, I really hope I'm wrong about Ice packs breaking up. Then I could sit on the beach knowing my grandkids would inherit the property. But the data is everywhere that the poles are melting.
The European Space Agency (ESA) reported on Friday that the Wilkins Shelf, an enormous Antarctic ice shelf half the size of Scotland, could break away from the continent very soon.
According to reports, only a thin strip of ice connects it to the Charcot Island, and cracks are expanding rapidly. This is the largest shelf of ice so far to have disintegrated in the Antarctic.
In February 2008, the shelf lost 425 square kilometres (164 square miles) of ice, followed by a loss of another 62 square miles in May 2008.
"During the last year the ice shelf has lost about 1800 square kilometers (694 square miles), or about 14 percent of its size," said Angelika Humbert from the Institute of Geophysics at University of Münster in Germany. Scientists say that the shelf, if it detaches from the mainland, won't cause an increase in sea levels, as it is already floating.
Most scientists believe that the incident is further evidence of global warming. Average temperatures in the Antarctic peninsula have increased by about 2.5 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past fifty years.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Massive_ice_shelf_expected_to_break_away_from_Antarctica
I forgot to include the 2008 part:
On November 28, 2008, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the Canadian Coast Guard confirmed the first commercial ship sailed through the Northwest Passage. In September 2008, the MV Camilla Desgagnés, owned by Desgagnés Transarctik Inc. and, along with the Arctic Cooperative, is part of Nunavut Sealift and Supply Incorporated (NSSI),[56] transported cargo from Montreal to the hamlets of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak. A member of the crew is reported to have claimed that "there was no ice whatsoever". Shipping from the east is to resume in the fall of 2009.[57] Although sealift is an annual feature of the Canadian Arctic this is the first time that the western communities have been serviced from the east. The western portion of the Canadian Arctic is normally supplied by Northern Transportation Company Limited (NTCL) from Hay River. The eastern portion by NNSI and NTCL from Churchill and Montreal.[58][59]
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
TJ:
Please read the link I am posting now. Thanks
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Rubbish Man,
metamorph is better read than you might think. Methane, caused by the melting of permafrost and the seafloor outgassing is even more of a greenhouse agent than just CO2. But we can't control Arctic methane directly. We can control CO2 output but shuting down all coal plants and outlawing the private automobile.
Cherry picking details out of a report or citing one dissenter out of a thousand scientists (corp payoff?) is not how how "well-read" people function. You must not dismiss the summary conclusions of every major country. Here's some reading for you:
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, 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
Best Regards,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
.
.
.
And the point is....?
So what if man is contributing to this warm of phase of the regular ice age cycle?
By the time action taken to 'remedy' the green house gas effects from humans, the next ice age will probably be getting on the road to 'cooler' days because it would take about 2000 years to go through the process of of fighting with corporations to stop and switch to less climatic influencing methods of making a quick buck and then the rest of the pollution and crap that has been poured into our land, air and water to get back to a balance conducive to... well the next up coming ice age.
The most important thing about it is that getting the corporate industrial world to stop their polluting is about the only action that can be taken because you cannot command the weather and it will do whatever it does and the rest is actually taking attention away from other important issues, mainly the huge destructive human footprint on the environment of 6.8 billion people which is by far and away more people that the environment has been influenced by in all of history and that is the relation of humans to the so called global warming everyone seems so intent in idolizing.
Another thing about the ice age cycle is that when as much water as is tied up in glaciers and ice sheets reaches a maximum, then there is about a 600 foot difference when most of the water in ice sheets and glaciers is at a peak from when that water is melted and flowed back into the oceans, which at this point it is estimated that if the ice on greenland and the antarctic melted, it could raise the sea level about another 200 feet.
http://www.geoportalen.no/planetenjorden/klima/sealevel/
Yup, talking monkeys are just too stupid to take care of the only home they'll ever have. They're so taken by their ability to make useless sounds that they'll accept delusions for reality. Gonna love to watch the suckers drown in the melt.
Misanthropy rocks!
High altitude pictures of deforestation in Brazil and resulting destruction of the "flying rivers" - and why the indigenous peoples are demanding conferences with with heads of state.
http://riosvoadores.com.br/WordPress/?cat=4
Think about it.... flying rivers, to moutaintop glaciers ... terrific maps on the site tracking circulation currents
old goat ... 6:45 pm,
Do you know of an English-language website providing the same sort of photos and information as found at the riosvoadores.com.br webpage you posted a link for; or if not an English-language website, then one that includes a section for English readers?
I can also read French, but given that CD is a website in the USA, ....
Good pictures that look like nice scenery aren't bound to convince viewers that the pictures are about anything bad when the readers can't read the information accompanying the pictures. Ya see. :)
"Rubbish May 9th, 2009 7:07 pm
... There is much more to climate than co2. As we learn more and more about the sun, solar winds, ionization, ...."
I POSTED quite a number of times about this over the past year or more at CD after having read articles from various sources that stated that a considerable number of scientists in relevant fields of sciences were saying some changes with the sun, unusual or unusual enough changes, were causing serious climate changes on a number of other planets and that this would be the greatest cause for climate change (CC) on Earth. Some of these scientists were totally against the hypothesis or theory that we are part of the cause of CC on Earth, but enough of them said that they believed we contributed, while surely or likely less than the sun's changes.
And I haven't seen any such articles for a while now, but did come across some information quite recently about sun or cosmological changes or new discoveries at the NASA website. I lost the bookmark, but it shouldn't be difficult to find the information at the NASA website; I expect not, anyway.
Rubbish:
"IF you read the 2007 IPCC report, the whole report and not the 13 page summary, you will see the level of certainty is barely over 50%, which statistcally, amounts to no certainty."
That seems like an important point.
I also have read that some of the scientists named as supporters in that report have since retracted this support. While I guess they couldn't do this in official terms, like making their names disappear from the report like with ink that'd disappear upon telepathically signaling retraction, say, these scientists purportedly have stated in articles or to article writers that the support's been withdrawn, nevertheless.
It'd be useful to provide links for the articles I've read, but am not going to take the time to search for these now and some are probably in need of being found through Web searches; given my bookmarks files get corrupted now and then due to .... Actually, I just tried a Web search test using Google to try to find some articles and found the following links, so far; not necessarily articles I've read, but still containing information of similar kind, except for the piece by Prof. Easterbrook, which is different from what I had previously read.
"Global Cooling is Here
Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades",
by Prof. Don J. Easterbrook,
Dept of Geology, Western Washington U., Wa., US,
Nov 2 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
"Climate Change: Breaking the "Political Consensus"
The Science of Climate Change: What does it Really Tell Us?",
by Andrew G. Marshall, Aug. 7, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9763
"Global Warming: A Convenient Lie",
by Andrew G. Marshall, March 15, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
The latter article provides a number of resource links, such as from National Geographic, about "a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth"; NASA, re. "massive storms on Saturn," indicating "climate change" there, and the "Hubble Space Telescope" having also recorded "massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton". There are plenty more resource links in this latter article by A.G. Marshall.
His first-above article has more than several resource links in the notes following the text, instead of hyperlinked within the text.
Using search terms from these above articles should make it easy to find more; en masse.
We will have climate changes even if not due to CO2, per se, because the vastly diminishing forests like those of the Amazon will cause climatic variations. But not being scientifically studied enough to be specific on what the changes will or can be, I will just guess that, f.e., vanishing forests will definitely mean fast or certainly much faster evaporation of moisture or water from what used to be forest floors, so increasing humidity and ... the effects that this can or will have.
While some people may argue that the destroying of large forest areas will mean that increases in CO2 will contribute to climate change, I'd respond to this by saying that if, and only if (aka 'iff' in mathematics, f.e.), this is true, then it will still not have been the cause; instead, it'd be a consequence that could have been greatly reduced if we hadn't majorly destroyed the world's most important forests. Consequences have consequences, but the first ones are always followed by the others. It's not increasing CO2 that is destroying forests, but the latter definitely help with the recycling of CO2, when the forests exist, that is.
That's a greater issue to me than the increasing CO2 is.
Okay, with that said, the OIL industry and all of the consumption of CO2 causes increases in CO2 and, in this respect, I'm concerned. But I'm not particularly concerned by the increasing CO2 as I am in the cause and this cause involves extremely criminal wars of aggression, genocide, environmental destruction and therefore "omnicide"; etcetera.
CO2 increases are consequences in these two above respects.
Complaining about forest fires, ... causing CO2 is not a valid argument, imo. But illegally, criminally setting forests afire is something I'm also concerned about.
yes, of course the climate changes -over a very long and slow time period. But why speed things up? Why is it so hard to believe a scientist when they say that CO2 keeps the warm air in our atmosphere and causes a speeding up of the proces of climate change... So that we can't keep up with the adaption nor can the animal and plant life.
I'd like the nay-sayers to tell me what they know about the tiny plant and animal life in the ocean and what the state of those are now. WE cannot survive if the basic ecosystems on this planet are destroyed.
What do you have to say about that?
Sir:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
When you talk about a long slow process, please read this link. At times it seems, it has been less than 30 years for a very abrupt change in climate.
Another article I just found to include a link for, in addition to those in my first post in this CD page is the following piece.
"Global Warming gets the Cold Freeze
Global warming hoax exposed by record global cold",
by F. William Engdahl, April 7, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583
He refers to, f.e.:
*) increased snows "over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China" as greatest since 1966;
*) the "US National Climatic Data Center" saying the US has experienced "record cold" in Jan. and Feb., including a colder [average] for Jan.;
*) the most "brutal winter" in China over 100 years, and that the "normally mild south" was colder, enough to cause losses of electricity for long periods;
*) "many snow and ice storms" in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec from Jan. to Feb. or else Feb. to March, depending on which month the above article was originally written in, for his articles sometimes appear a little later at globalresearch.ca; and I know we got a [solid] winter over 2007-2008, not having seen such a real winter for decades, here (and feeling quite "at home" about this, for winter and I usually get along fine and I gripe when we have winters that are too mild);
*) the ice melting in the Arctic has reversed course;
*) a number of climatologists having said their initial "predictive models" were flawed, while these people include "Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona";
*) etcetera.
After presenting such facts, like above, the article then explains or states a view on the related geopolitics and closes on or about the "two major factions within the Western political power establishment internationally". In that closing part he says that the IPCC's reports were proven "to be fundamentally flawed in scientific methodology".
Rubbish as well as myself, in my prior post, below or above this one, have both stated and/or inferred (clearly enough) that it's important to [beware] of the IPCC report; we both stated reasons for stating that caution is warranted or more than called-for.
Don't trust Al Gore on this topic unless you like siding with people who are proven criminals. Al Gore a proven criminal, clearly so, to boot? Definitely. See what's known history about him during the Clinton-Gore administration in the following history of the USA's use of extraordinary renditioning and torture, for one certainly relevent proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
A more "global warming"-specific reason to certainly distrust Al Gore is ... well, two-fold, I guess. Firstly, he's a major energy consumer with his extremely piggish luxury lifestyle, clearly not a person to lead by example; being spineless, profiteer or racketeer, self-interested, .... Secondly, well, being profiteer, racketeer, corporatist, economically [greedy], very much so. He cannot be truly trusted in his words about "global warming", for what should be trusted about him in this case is the profiteer's racket game for ... [profit]; business, big business, big profit.
Mike:
You are correct about several authors in the IPCC report withdrawing support for the report. The main reasons that they withdrew was because of the false summary report, and what they authored being ignored.
I can't remember all the names I have read, but one person does stand out. He is/was a prof at MIT. The MIT name indicates to me that he had to be a good prof.
Also, the amount of co2 that would have to be added to the atmosphere from man is so huge, being co2 is logarithmic in radiation values, that it really just isn't important.
The sun IS important and not just TSI. In defense of the IPCC folks, the new satalite that is orbiting the sun is providing a wealth of information of the effects the sun has on the earth. That satalite is showing that the sun has influence way beyond TSI. This is becoming better understood each day, but has a long way to go yet as well.
Your comment about wars for resources in and off itself is enough reason to conserve fossil based fuels. The results of our military adventurism for resources is nothing short of totally criminal. It corrupts our leaders, as it did with President Bush, and seems to be doing the same to President Obama.
How very very sad this is.
And....final note. You are totally correct about Mr. Gore. He should be in jail alongside Mr. Cheney, etc. What scum.
"theinitiate May 9th, 2009 9:31 pm
... But why speed things up? Why is it so hard to believe a scientist when they say that CO2 keeps the warm air in our atmosphere and causes a speeding up of the proces of climate change... ...
I'd like the nay-sayers to tell me what they know about the tiny plant and animal life in the ocean and what the state of those are now. WE cannot survive if the basic ecosystems on this planet are destroyed.
What do you have to say about that?"
STOP DESTROYING THE PLANET'S MAJOR FORESTS, for starters.
I'm not a nay-sayer in the sense theinitiate speaks of and my first or second post, if not both, explains why; in part anyway. The post(s) referred to the OIL industry and that the major consumption of oil, which we know the U.S. is most guilty of (although also Canada), is a cause of increasing CO2, so the answer to theinitiate's above question is inherently obvious. Reduce your damn consumption of oil!
I have nothing to worry about; couldn't be a lesser user of oil than I already am (not), not even owning a car or any other motor-vehicle, traveling by foot and public transporation.
But as I had also stated, the increase in CO2 wouldn't be as harmful if we weren't majorly destroying the Earth's critically important, voir essential, forests, so this is a major issue.
Consider the huge forest areas that have been destroyed by humans and then calculate what this means for ... major loss of natural recycling of CO2. I don't know what the calculation works out to, but know that it is rather extremely significant.
That should be a serious concern to people like theinitiate, given Nature's recycling of CO2 is being destroyed by greedy and demented humans, dumbest animals (!), and the CO2 not being naturally recycled is harming the Earth's waters, the aquatic organisms.
Whether climate change is cooling or warming, whether we have increasing CO2 or not, ..., we must stop the insane and huge destruction of the Earth's crucial forests, which definitely are an undeniably essential contributor to Natural balance; essential for sustaining [all] life forms ... on Earth.
People can individually control their oil consumption, but people must do that [and] reduce their consumption of products derived from insanely, criminally destroyed forests, as well as their consumption of products from and made from farms the forests were destroyed for "making room for".
If CO2 turns out to truly be a minor contributor to climate change on Earth, then people still need to reduce oil consumption in order to boycott wars of aggression for oil; while the same applies also to gas, or any energy resources imperialists, ... will work to get governments to war for.
The more huge swaths of crucial forests are destroyed through human insanity, criminality, ..., the more serious forest fires will increase in terms of general environmental significance. Everyone knows that serious forest fires can certainly happen due to natural causes. And we know that serious forest destruction could also happen due to massive or serious volcanic eruptions.
Both of those causes are part of Earth's environment, naturally contributing, but the more [we] destroy forests that are important, the less there are available for [buffer]; for sustaining life when natural causes destroy much of forests.
FORESTS ARE ESSENTIAL! CO2 increases are consequences. Forests make life possible!
A last way of answering theinitiate's question is:
If the increases in CO2 definitely are a minor contributor to climate change, then the article this CD page is for is about climate change melting glaciers, not about aquatic life in oceans.
Melting glaciers might possibly benefit aquatic organisms in oceans, rivers, ponds, lakes, ..., but while also affecting terrestrial life populations near rivers, .... It might also seriously impact aquatic life in ponds and lakes at high altitudes in mountains where there formerly were glaciers, but that's evidently not the aquatic life that theinitiate's question at all relates to.
Forests are essential "any which way you wanna consider them", well, other than meaning for purposes of [greed], financial profit, ..., that is.
"ThomasJefferson... May 9th, 2009 11:31 pm
...
TJ says:
...
It's not the repeat of the cycle that's significant. It's the RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE that's 100 fold over the geologic record for one of these cycles. The only time climate changed this rapidly in the sedimentary record was when a meteor or volcano or solar flare hit the planet.
Absent those cataclysmic events; it's safe to deduce that it's your car doing this. The CO2 spike confirms his dude.
Hah hah....... hah hah
Science Rocks...... huh?"
PERHAPS the joke is on you, ThomasJefferson.
See the articles linked in my prior posts in this page and search for other sources providing similar information from the [scientific] world. See the ones referring to the cosmological cause(s) of the dramatic climate changes happening far from only on Earth, f.e.
The latter topic should be important to you to verify, given you say that such changes are [absent], while scientists state the opposite. Or if you know that they're wrong, then present the resource links for people to be able to verify which sources you use.
You probably have no knowledge of such resources though, given you would've stated what they are, if you knew of them.
Mike,
That has already been accounted for in the IICC report. Perhaps you don't know what accepted science is. Many scientists publish trail balloons, but a small number of dissenting published papers as you imply does not an accepted theory make.
From wiki:
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]
You don't seem to know the difference between Accepted Scientific Theory and Theoretical Astrophysics. Cosmic radiation Red-Herrings aren't relevant. The only thing powerful enough to drive the weather is the sun. The only thing trapping it's historic thermal energy from escaping is emissions caused by man. Your long-winded scatterbrained posts do nothing to focus on the fact that Global Warming caused by man is now accepted science.
Regards,
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Rubbish: Do you mean satellite when you write 'satalite'?
My friend from the French Meteorological Services, with advanced post-doctoral work in climatology at several renowned scientific institutions (and who is an authority on the life-protecting ozone layer, which he monitors with his own programs running on some of the most advanced supercomputers in the world), does believe that CO2 contributions by humans have increased the desertification of the planet, via the feedback amplification of the greenhouse effect; that is, he believes in global warming influenced by humans, as do almost all other scientists of his caliber and expertise.
He also is an authority on the winds of the world, and has numerous publications to his credit. In the latter capacity, he can see the changes to the atmospheric weather systems that humans have greatly influenced. There is no doubt that humans can influence the weather, just as does vulcanism or any massive natural phenomenon, which humans are now. In fact, the combined CO2 output of humans is about the same as 17,000 volcanic eruptions... without end. This may have some slight impact on the weather perhaps... ya think?
Al Gore did not pull global warming out of his hat, but became concerned when a former professor of his, Roger Revelle of Scripps Institute who has a university college of science named after him, told him about this effect. Mr. Gore is the first to say he is not a scientist, but that his contribution is to be able to inform a wider public about this situation.
The science is clear on global warming, but it is a typical Republikan Dirty Trick to argue endlessly to prevent any government action to avert catastrophe, and to politicize and propagandize to obscure the facts - to try and talk 'their truth' into being the truth. See the tobacco lobby, the drug lobby, the oil lobby, the coal lobby, the nuclear power lobby, the bank lobby, the auto lobby, the anti-tax lobby, the... all the goddamn whores of greenback-babylon K Street. (Unless it is about a war... then all discussion is off, let the killing commence immediately. There is real money in war... war is business by other means.)
If you wait to be dead certain about global warming, you will most probably be dead. Along with a planetload of other people; just wait until the Himalayas burn off their glaciers.
But perhaps magic fairies keep airplanes aloft, too. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Global warming is real. Period. However, maybe Mr. Rubbish's 'satalites' are telling him something else.
Epic post Mr. Horn. :-)
Much better than mine.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
You both sent Rubbish and his garbage science to the compost heap. Well done, gentlemen. Bravo!