Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

[bystander]

As I said, if you don't wish to believe in all the AGW hype, that's all well and good with me. But there definitely are problems. And man and his arrogance are the major cause of most of them. So are you part of the problem? Do you just sit back and say, "No, this isn't happening. I'm not a part of this." Do you refuse to take responsibility for pollution and environmental destruction just because you don't wish to be associated with green. If so, then you, sir, are the problem.

[aristarchusinexile]

As I said, if you don't wish to believe in all the AGW hype, that's all well and good with me. But there definitely are problems. And man and his arrogance are the major cause of most of them. So are you part of the problem? Do you just sit back and say, "No, this isn't happening. I'm not a part of this." Do you refuse to take responsibility for pollution and environmental destruction just because you don't wish to be associated with green. If so, then you, sir, are the problem.

Bravo! Bravo! Encore! Encore!

[StACase]

As I said, if you don't wish to believe in all the AGW hype, that's all well and good with me. But there definitely are problems. And man and his arrogance are the major cause of most of them. So are you part of the problem? Do you just sit back and say, "No, this isn't happening. I'm not a part of this." Do you refuse to take responsibility for pollution and environmental destruction just because you don't wish to be associated with green. If so, then you, sir, are the problem.

Oh, human beings are fouling this planet in many ways; I just mentioned the pet trade and loss of habitat regarding frog extinctions. You seem to have extrapolated skepticism regarding "Global Warming" as skepticism about pollution. Your brush is way too broad, and you only read what you want.

You talk as if "Global Warming" is a problem. I listed some positive things about "Global Warming" how long is your negative list? Climate has changed and will change again, and when it does, I vote for warmer, how 'bout you?

[BMAONE23]

Problem is, there isn't any problem.

If you don't wish to believe in all the AGW hype, that's all well and good with me. But to come out and state that there isn't any problem is bordering on criminal negligence. That kind of attitude is part of the problem. Do you also bury your head in the sand and pretend that no one can see you?

There are lots of lies about "Global Warming", we just discussed one; frogs are going extinct because of a fungus, not "Global Warming"

But what caused the Fungus to become so virulent other than its changing environment?

The biggest lie that has been foisted on the human race by a worldwide propaganda machine, and it is all of that, is that "Global Warming" is a bad thing. "Global Cooling" would be a concern, but warming?

And what does global warming lead to?

Longer growing seasons, more rain, more vigorous crops, less ice and snow, lower heating bills, shorter flu season etc. it's a long list.

It also leads to global cooling phases

The geologic and archeological records tell us that it has been warmer is the past

Depends on how far in the past you wish to discuss[

and that those times were a benefit to human civilization, but Al Gore and James Hansen behave like Lewis Carroll's March Hare and Mad Hatter turning logic upside-down.

A look at the past will also show that ALL warming phases were followed by cooling phases with more extreme warming followed by more dramatic cooling.

It is true that, in Earths past, CO2 was significantly higher. During the early eras of the dinosaurs, global CO2 levels of 6000ppm were common though the source was volcanic eruption and the system that controlled the ammount of residual heat was the aeromatic Ash clouds blocking sunlight. But we (Man cannot readily survive more than 600-1000ppm on a daily basis) It is also true that in the past, prior to EVERY Ice Age, the Earth went through warming trends. The Earth also experienced what we would consider normalized cooler temps in the few years between the Maximum heating year, and the Ice Age onset.

So your statement "The geologic and archeological records tell us that it has been warmer is the past" is true but it neglects to discuss the effect of that warming period on climate 20 years after the fact or the ensuing Ice Ages.
And your other statement "and that those times were a benefit to human civilization," is also true but it also neglects to discuss the decimation caused by the cooling trend to follow which destroyed crops, caused widespread famine, and led to the deaths of millions of people. (Think MWP vs LIA)
Then there is this Great Sound Byte "Al Gore and James Hansen behave like Lewis Carroll's March Hare and Mad Hatter turning logic upside-down" that also refuses to mention how StACase obviously neglects to think in terms of cause and effect.

[Chris Peterson]

There are lots of lies about "Global Warming", we just discussed one; frogs are going extinct because of a fungus, not "Global Warming".

Who is telling this particular "lie"? I don't see any mainstream opinion stating that global warming is the primary cause of amphibian extinctions. Quite the opposite- most people studying this recognize that several diseases are mainly to blame

The biggest lie that has been foisted on the human race by a worldwide propaganda machine, and it is all of that, is that "Global Warming" is a bad thing...

You're oversimplifying the problem. It isn't warming as such that is the problem, it is the rate of change. We have little problem adapting to warming and cooling cycles that happen over hundreds or thousands of years. The problem is that we are seeing rates that are significant over decades, and that's fast enough to cause all sorts of problems and stresses. It doesn't matter if there have been times in the past that were hotter or colder- when I hear people give that argument, it tells me I'm listening to somebody who is driven by dogma and is scientifically clueless, since the argument has absolutely no bearing on the ramifications of modern, anthropogenic climate change.

[aristarchusinexile]

Global warming is probably is not the sole cause of the fungus. Fungus thrive on dead and dying things. PollutionPoisons are killing lots of things, weakening immune systems, allowing the fungus, which must exist naturally and normally doing little harm, to thrive. I just learned that predator fish target fish which are weakened, the weakness allowing fungal spots which indicate a target to the predator. These things are part of the natural cycle .. intensified by poisons and warming .. an effort by the 'organism' planet to rid itself of the generators of the poisons and heat. If you want a biblical take from Revelation on global warming I'd be happy to respond to primate messages, but of course can't discuss it on the forum.

[aristarchusinexile]

There are lots of lies about "Global Warming", we just discussed one; frogs are going extinct because of a fungus, not "Global Warming".

Who is telling this particular "lie"? I don't see any mainstream opinion stating that global warming is the primary cause of amphibian extinctions. Quite the opposite- most people studying this recognize that several diseases are mainly to blame

The biggest lie that has been foisted on the human race by a worldwide propaganda machine, and it is all of that, is that "Global Warming" is a bad thing...

You're oversimplifying the problem. It isn't warming as such that is the problem, it is the rate of change. We have little problem adapting to warming and cooling cycles that happen over hundreds or thousands of years. The problem is that we are seeing rates that are significant over decades, and that's fast enough to cause all sorts of problems and stresses. It doesn't matter if there have been times in the past that were hotter or colder- when I hear people give that argument, it tells me I'm listening to somebody who is driven by dogma and is scientifically clueless, since the argument has absolutely no bearing on the ramifications of modern, anthropogenic climate change.

Not knowing a complete history of the planet, I suspect that this may be the first time a warming has been global instead of localized. It seems to be my understanding, for instance, that the Greenland warming was a strictly local event accompnied by a cooling in Europe .. a result of a shift of the Gulf Stream.

[Chris Peterson]

Not knowing a complete history of the planet, I suspect that this may be the first time a warming has been global instead of localized. It seems to be my understanding, for instance, that the Greenland warming was a strictly local event accompnied by a cooling in Europe .. a result of a shift of the Gulf Stream.

In that sense, warming isn't global now. There are regions of the Earth that are cooler than they were a century ago. But the worldwide average is rising, thus "global warming".

There have been many cycles in the past of such global warming, where the global average was high, and where most of the surface of the Earth was warm. We are currently still in what would generally be considered an ice age, but in an interglacial. The global average temperature is currently lower than it has been for most of the Earth's existence.

[bhrobards]

PS I drive a prius 50-52 mpg and comfortable, not for CO@ emmissions but for the economy.

Well that's a bit silly of you. It's been pretty clearly shown that a Prius will typically never pay for itself based on fuel cost savings.

Chris, I hate to say this but you are a uniformitarian. I am making a long term bet that the dollar is going way down. You may not have noticed but the markets are way down and our totally irrational gov has severe inflation baked in the cake. The Treasury Sec is publicly attacking oil companies because of "their contribution to global warming." Check with me in a few years we'll see if the prius is a bad bet. Please tell me which car pays for itself.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, I hate to say this but you are a uniformitarian...

The word has so many meanings that I am unable to determine how you mean it to apply to me.

[bhrobards]

Actually I'm kidding you. I was referencing the two hundred year debate between catastrophists and uniformitarians in the sciences. We are now in the middle of a financial catastrophy that is far from over, that couldn't happen according to uniformitarian sellers of financial paper. Their advice, hold for the long term. I personally think that stuff about prius not paying off was drivel put out by terrified American car manufacturers who are now almost defunct because of their uniformitarian incompetence, and I mean that. I guess I use the term to mean a belief that trends will continue, that things stay the same or change gradually. It is a deeply held human belief that comforts our deepest fears. But I digress. You are kidding your self if you think gas prices are down because of demand and will stay that way. Besides I got a leather interior.

[bhrobards]

Aristarchusinexile: That photo is only proof that you own alot of luggage.

[Chris Peterson]

But I digress. You are kidding your self if you think gas prices are down because of demand and will stay that way.

I don't think that at all. I fully expect gas prices to get back up where they were last year, or even higher. Indeed, I hope they do. I think gas prices around $10 gallon would be healthy, and more accurately reflect the true cost of the product.

My comment about the Prius was based on a recently published analysis of the payback period assuming $4/gallon gasoline, and it was something like 7-8 years IIRC. That's longer than the typical car owner keeps a vehicle. Basically, the point was that most people who get this car for purely economical reasons are deluding themselves.

[aristarchusinexile]

Aristarchusinexile: That photo is only proof that you own alot of luggage.

That's not much luggage for me, my girlfriend and four children on a cross country tour. The bike gets a bit crowded sometimes, so the girlfriend has to walk.

[aristarchusinexile]

Shame on APOD!

To speak of "global warming" as if it's a factual phenomenon, and not an issue frought with debate over terms, methods, biases, serious conflicts of interest, outright fraud, and global political ties, is downright irresponsible.

APOD authors may have their political and even scientific prejudices about the issue, and as human beings they're entitled to such things, but as the guardians of an allegedly non-political site, friendly to all comers - not just those with like-minded views, they should have the intellegence to completely avoid offensive rhetorical statements.

Shame on your intellegence, shame on your insensitivity, shame on your cultural ignorance, shame-shame-shame!

I have taken APOD off my Firefox FastDial homepage, removed it from my web page Links, and have suggested to all my clients and friends that they cease to promote the site as well.

You guys blew it - BIG time. Not only because of which side you took, but because you TOOK a side.


svs95

Shame on svs95 for claiming that global warming isn't happening when all that is needed to confirm the fact is to determine summertime sea ice extent and the gradual decrease in polar ice that is residual rather than annual.

SVS95 is obviously an ultra rightwinger. One of my best friends swung that way in the past few years, and now he and I can't have a conversation without me being called a communist. His flattery is appreciated. My curiousity has been stimulated though .. are there any scientific measurements of the sun increasing its heat ouput in the past decade or two?

[bhrobards]

But I digress. You are kidding your self if you think gas prices are down because of demand and will stay that way.

I don't think that at all. I fully expect gas prices to get back up where they were last year, or even higher. Indeed, I hope they do. I think gas prices around $10 gallon would be healthy, and more accurately reflect the true cost of the product.

My comment about the Prius was based on a recently published analysis of the payback period assuming $4/gallon gasoline, and it was something like 7-8 years IIRC. That's longer than the typical car owner keeps a vehicle. Basically, the point was that most people who get this car for purely economical reasons are deluding themselves.

Where to start? You said I was "silly" to buy a prius for economic reasons. You set up a strawman when you speak of studies and average ownership. You used the words "purely economical reasons" not I, another strawman. You concede $10 is possible and in your imagination "healthy." Now lets plug that number into your study. When you say "true cost" I suspect I have an inkling of what you mean and no one on earth knows that number, you are expressing a bias. I would be willing to bet that $10 a gal gas will be accompanied by more environmental damage than $5/gal. Poor countries are dirty, the more centrally controlled the filthier,you travel a lot you should know. Nice web site.

Aristarchusinexile-you must be joking about being complimented about being called a communist, maybe a live-and-let-live-free-spirited-idealist but not a communist you must not have seen their work.

[Dr. Skeptic]

The reality of the situation is human nature is to resist change. Human behavior will not change until the present behavior becomes more agonizing than the concept of the change. People will exhibit their bias to a situation based on their comfort level, I would like to see one of our AGW skeptics tour some of the small villages in Africa and South America where the mountain streams have all but dried up from lack of seasonal snow fall leaving millions of people destine for starvation in the next five to ten years. It is the imperialist attitude of (some of the ignorant/arrogant) American people that makes them callus to the situations of the “Lesser” of us sharing this planet. Because all is fine in my back yard and we can’t “Prove” global warming is man-made, should we resist change increasing the probability these people will die? Or, be indifferent to the millions that will die resulting from micro-particulates from the unheeded use of fossil fuels, habitat lost to acid rain, heavy metal exposure…?
As long as it’s “others” in the line of fire, sacrifice them – don’t inconvenience me over some conspiracy.

… “Head in the Sand”…

[StACase]

... small villages in Africa and South America where the mountain streams have all but dried up from lack of seasonal snow fall leaving millions of people destine for starvation in the next five to ten years.

And if we all stop burning stuff it will rain again?

[BMAONE23]

... small villages in Africa and South America where the mountain streams have all but dried up from lack of seasonal snow fall leaving millions of people destine for starvation in the next five to ten years.

And if we all stop burning stuff it will rain again?

In a sense...
The Earth is naturally suited to handle a certain ammount of Carbon Dioxide. These Natural Carbon Dioxide Sinks include the oceans which absorb through diffusion (Diffusion of carbon dioxide into the oceans accounts for nearly half of the carbon extracted from the atmosphere.)

Ocean Life forms also Scrub Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere in the form of Carbonate Precipitation
Many forms of sea life, such as coral, clams, oysters, and some microscopic plants and animal extract carbon and oxygen from seawater and combine them with calcium to produce calcium carbonate. They use it to produce shells and other hard body parts.

Forests (boreal and Rain), breathe in Carbon Dioxide for use in Photosynthesis.

With the exception of massive volcanic activity, the Earth is well equipped to balance a normal load of Natural Carbon Dioxide. But the Natural Sinks can only handle about 220 gigatons annually. This is also about the normal natural ammount of Carbon being produced.
So If you remove Man's addition to the Carbon levels and also add back Man's Carbon Sink reduction (deforrestation) the Earth would be able to balance itself without going to extremes, and Rain could return to more normal levels (whatever "Normal" might be.)

[StACase]

... With the exception of massive volcanic activity, the Earth is well equipped to balance a normal load of Natural Carbon Dioxide ...

As near as I can tell from various internet searches, volcanoes do not add a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere. Folks on my side of the argument sometimes like to claim they add more than fossil fuels do, but they don't.

[bhrobards]

The reality of the situation is human nature is to resist change. Human behavior will not change until the present behavior becomes more agonizing than the concept of the change. People will exhibit their bias to a situation based on their comfort level, I would like to see one of our AGW skeptics tour some of the small villages in Africa and South America where the mountain streams have all but dried up from lack of seasonal snow fall leaving millions of people destine for starvation in the next five to ten years. It is the imperialist attitude of (some of the ignorant/arrogant) American people that makes them callus to the situations of the “Lesser” of us sharing this planet. Because all is fine in my back yard and we can’t “Prove” global warming is man-made, should we resist change increasing the probability these people will die? Or, be indifferent to the millions that will die resulting from micro-particulates from the unheeded use of fossil fuels, habitat lost to acid rain, heavy metal exposure…?
As long as it’s “others” in the line of fire, sacrifice them – don’t inconvenience me over some conspiracy.

… “Head in the Sand”…

This subject is too complex for me this AM. I just wanted to end with "Sand in the Head."

[aristarchusinexile]

Aristarchusinexile-you must be joking about being complimented about being called a communist, maybe a live-and-let-live-free-spirited-idealist but not a communist you must not have seen their work.

Being called a communist is at least as flattering as being called an Imperialist or Free Enterpriser or Capitalist or Conquistador or Founding Father or Corporate CEO .. after all, estimates have from 30 million to 50 million aboriginals living mostly in harmony with each other and with creation in Canada and the U.S. at the time of the Caucasian invasion which resulted almost immediately in Genocide, Infanticide, destruction of the natural environment to the degree today and what is to come tomorrow. And of course the plague and guns and genocide spread wherever the merchant ships sailed. Can you tell me one crime communism committed which was left uncommitted by the other economic-political--power systems the greed and avarice of man has spawned?

[aristarchusinexile]

The reality of the situation is human nature is to resist change. Human behavior will not change until the present behavior becomes more agonizing than the concept of the change. People will exhibit their bias to a situation based on their comfort level, I would like to see one of our AGW skeptics tour some of the small villages in Africa and South America where the mountain streams have all but dried up from lack of seasonal snow fall leaving millions of people destine for starvation in the next five to ten years. It is the imperialist attitude of (some of the ignorant/arrogant) American people that makes them callus to the situations of the “Lesser” of us sharing this planet. Because all is fine in my back yard and we can’t “Prove” global warming is man-made, should we resist change increasing the probability these people will die? Or, be indifferent to the millions that will die resulting from micro-particulates from the unheeded use of fossil fuels, habitat lost to acid rain, heavy metal exposure…?
As long as it’s “others” in the line of fire, sacrifice them – don’t inconvenience me over some conspiracy.

… “Head in the Sand”…

Even nature itself declares 'those who destroy the earth will be destroyed'. Nature has an easy balance.

[bhrobards]

Aristarchusinexile-you must be joking about being complimented about being called a communist, maybe a live-and-let-live-free-spirited-idealist but not a communist you must not have seen their work.

Being called a communist is at least as flattering as being called an Imperialist or Free Enterpriser or Capitalist or Conquistador or Founding Father or Corporate CEO .. after all, estimates have from 30 million to 50 million aboriginals living mostly in harmony with each other and with creation in Canada and the U.S. at the time of the Caucasian invasion which resulted almost immediately in Genocide, Infanticide, destruction of the natural environment to the degree today and what is to come tomorrow. And of course the plague and guns and genocide spread wherever the merchant ships sailed. Can you tell me one crime communism committed which was left uncommitted by the other economic-political--power systems the greed and avarice of man has spawned?

I'll go for cleaning up industry, I'll go for many things. Human beings are generally not nice, especially politicians. But this self-loathing fingerpointing at Caucasians and equivilency between free-enterprisers- capitalists-corporate ceos and imperialists-conquistadors-communists is a little much. Its a matter of scale and context. Make corporations be clean but don't imply that they a craven murderers of millions because they aren't. In my experience all of humanity has been at each others throats since time immemorial, including aboriginees in the New World.

[Chris Peterson]

My curiousity has been stimulated though .. are there any scientific measurements of the sun increasing its heat ouput in the past decade or two?

There is no such evidence. Measuring solar irradiance is difficult, and can only be done accurately from space. There have been a half dozen satellites capable of such measurements launched since the late 1970s. All show the expected variation in output with sunspot cycle (about 0.1%), but any other trend is statistically indiscernible. That's not to say some trend isn't there, just that there's no data of high enough quality to detect one.

Over longer periods it is even more difficult to say, because there are no direct measurements at all, and all the indirect (proxy) methods have very large uncertainties- indeed, they have uncertain uncertainties. I think the broader thinking is that there is little evidence of a long term change in solar output over the last centuries or longer, but nobody thinks the evidence as such is good enough to make that assertion with any certainty at all. This consensus is probably related more to natural scientific conservatism than anything else (that is, most scientists will take the simplest position in the absence of any evidence one way or the other).