September 17, 2005
Global warming 'past the point of no return' A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover.
I guess I'm finally going to buy that property in the Orkneys, soon to be the new Mediterranean. Not that there's anything funny about this at all. Scientists are in virtual agreement about the reality of Global Warming, see here and here, the US, arguably the greatest contributor to GW, has only recently acknowledged that there may be a problem that deserves further research. Too little, too late. Despite the debate on whether GW is principally caused by human activity, as discussed here, there is little doubt that we are at least contributing to it and we therefore have/had an obligation to do whatever we could to ameliorate the situation.
What will future generations make our criminal neglect of this long forseen catastrophe?
aren't we just the coolest country EVAR!??
I think so
They will waggle their gill flaps in disgust.
Whatever! I mean, ice on the roads is dangerous. Maybe you shouldn't be such a worry-wart.
(the world according to a local newspaper editorial. pre-katrina, at least)
"what will future generations make of our criminal neglect of this long forseen catastrophe? Sheesh, how many times do you have to preview before you eliminate obvious and glaring errors? 20? 50?
Come, friendly H5N1, and knock us humans back down to sustainable levels.
Crikey! I even screwed up the correction!
/gives up
Bjorn Lomborg says Save the world, ignore global warming.
I like to think that global warming is just another way of saying, "global antibody."
Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist. Is there much support of his view from real scientists?
Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war, asked Bob Woodward.
And he(Bush) said, History, and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off.
And then he said, History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.
History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.
On balance, I find that a healthier outlook than Tony Blair's increasingly frantic attempts to create a "legacy".
"Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist. Is there much support of his view from real scientists?"
Will this do: Warming hits 'tipping point'
Monkeyfilter: We'll all be dead.
I blame James Watt.
History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.
"Cos' raptures a comin', hallelujah! I feel it in ma' gut."
Scary.
Yeah, that Siberian peat bog news is seriously scarey s#@t.
The climatologists talk all the time about how the fossil and climate record is full of environmental tipping points, and now we've actually got one happening.
I wonder if anyone's modeled the minimum time to return the environment to 'normal', given the way we're going. 1000 years? 10,000?
It's a bad time to retire any place hot, and particularly dry.
Make sure to check out the awesome three-part series on global warming by Elizabeth Kolbert that appeared in the New Yorker earlier this year:
1. THE CLIMATE OF MAN—I: Disappearing islands, thawing permafrost, melting polar ice. How the earth is changing.
2. THE CLIMATE OF MAN—II: The curse of Akkad. (I found this piece in particular to be fascinating -- about cities and cultures that have disappeared due to climate change.)
3. THE CLIMATE OF MAN—III: What can be done?
It's important journalism.
Lomberg's got a point. Global warming is a big hand-wringer in the developed countries but the developing world couldn't really care less. They've got much bigger problems on their hands.
Either way the ball is clearly in their court....and both China and India (who will likely soon outstrip the US as greenhouse gas emitters) aren't interested in Kyoto.
While I suspect that someone has come up with some data that better equalizes the arguments, I have to wonder whether we aren't right to worry about global warming at least as much as other issues for developing countries.
I mean, assuming the AIDS crisis was brought under control in Africa, how much of the continent would turn into a dust bowl by 2050 due to global warming? China is trying to turn itself from a 2nd to 1st world nation, but if oil prices spike while the Gobi desert races across the country and their water table plummets, will they drop to 3rd world instead?
On a minor, more personal note, over the last ten years I've watched the prevailing winds completely change direction in the area where I spend much of my summer, with quite noticeable effects on local conditions.
Global warming? A mere long term periodic shift? Who the heck knows?
Anyone else noticed very obvious, unarguable, 'long term' local climate changes?
"A writer named Fynes Morrison, touring England in 1607, describes melons as growing freely. Andrew Marvell, in a very well-known poem written about fifty years later, also refers to melons. Both references make it appear that the melons grew in the open, and indeed they must have done so if they grew at all."
http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19441103.html
OK, so global warming might be a Very Bad Thing. On the other hand, imagine a zinfandel called Chateau Milton Keynes 2024.
describes melons as growing freely
Oh that wacky Olden Thyme Englishe! They probably meant zuchinni, or pine cones, or bull frogs, or something else vaguely football shaped. Poetic licese, illiteracy, and all that.
The British climate changes periodically (every few hundred years, I think), presumably due to changes in the Gulf Stream, or something similar.
What I've noticed is that the springs are drier, followed by drier summers. Then high precipitation autumns.
So farmers crops begin to grow, then get stunted and almost wiped out by harvest time.
But I don't have anything to document that.
(and I'm being rushed out the door)
later,,
I think we've probably been through this 100s of times before but you cant "notice" global warming- its a change of a few degrees over a long period, not "oh it seems so much hotter then when I was a kid"
and if 'scientists" and "experts" say it everything in that article must be 100% accurate
It is a much more productive and realistic policy to deal with and prepare for changes that we see happening and that we can predict than it is to try to suppress industry/technology/economies/other nations to stop the predictable change.
Ironically though we've just had the hottest summer in Ottawa in the past 45 years.
China is trying to turn itself from a 2nd to 1st world nation, but if oil prices spike while the Gobi desert races across the country and their water table plummets, will they drop to 3rd world instead?
I think that's the difficulty: what *is* the total effect of global warming? Is it necessarily the desertification of large parts of the world. Or could it be the opposite? With the melting of the polar caps, there'd be more water and more precipitation. Maybe we would actually see the greening of the Gobi and the Sahara. I guess we don't have the models that would tell us who would gain and who would lose.
OTOH, we do know that millions will definitely die from AIDS and malaria if nothing is done.
and if 'scientists" and "experts" say it everything in that article must be 100% accurate
Just to round out this point, it should be pointed out that the article makes clear that for all practical purposes the entire scientific consensus is that global warming is happening.
Even if we assume that the entire respected scientific community may well be wrong, as quite admittedly they have been wrong at other times in human history, is this really an issue rational humans wish to simply ignore them on?
If all the hunters agree that there are rabid tigers in the woods, do you want to advocate not bothering carrying rifles, simply because you're not totally convinced they are right? Or that the tigers might not be rabid?
From the New Yorker articles:
"The year 1990 was the warmest year on record until 1991, which was equally hot. Almost every subsequent year has been warmer still. The year 1998 ranks as the hottest year since the instrumental temperature record began, but it is closely followed by 2002 and 2003, which are tied for second; 2001, which is third; and 2004, which is fourth. Since climate is innately changeable, it’s difficult to say when, exactly, in this sequence natural variation could be ruled out as the sole cause."
So, drjimmy11, its entirely possible some of us DO feel the heat more than we used to. It doesn't take a 'scientist' or an 'expert' -- (or even a journalist) to read a thermometer.
With the melting of the polar caps, there'd be more water and more precipitation...I guess we don't have the models that would tell us who would gain and who would lose
From my understanding the models are pretty clear on predicting more drought. While there might be more water in total, higher temperatures might well bind more of it into the atmosphere.
Higher temperatures also promote more extreme weather patterns, so there could easily be much more drought worldwide, with countries still experiencing higher overall rainfall confined to only a short period of the year. In other words, bake then flood.
As you say, the models aren't good enough to tell us who gains and who loses, though a better description is probably who loses and who loses their shirt, pants, mortgage and kidneys.
Siberia! Boom zone of the north! Teach your children to speak Russian and Chinese, buy some rubber boots.
Anyone else noticed very obvious, unarguable, 'long term' local climate changes?
Fuck me, yes! Goddamn mastodons tracking sand into the house. Again!
How I hate them.
Also, rabid tigers are very warm and will melt polar ice if left unsupervised. Please mind your hydrophobic tigers appropriately.
though a better description is probably who loses and who loses their shirt, pants, mortgage and kidneys
Some might do exceptionally well. Maybe a multi-year drought strikes the U.S.A. Which may mean, um, that fresh-water giant, Canada, becomes considerably wealthier.
i still have the evap cooler going, for what it's worth.
The Curse of Akkad, the NY article linked to by HWingo (thnx HW) is great reading.
Here's two interesting little tidbits from it:
"...at 378 p.p.m., CO2 levels are significantly higher today than they have been at any other point in the Antarctic record. It is believed that the last time carbon-dioxide levels were in this range was three and a half million years ago, during what is known as the mid-Pliocene warm period".
So at least we are not breaking completely new ground here.
Another interesting point:
"Many climate shifts of the past have no known forcing associated with them; for instance, no one is certain what brought about the so-called Little Ice Age"
...which to me means that the mathematical models they are using are not complete.
If all the hunters agree that there are rabid tigers in the woods, do you want to advocate not bothering carrying rifles, simply because you're not totally convinced they are right? Or that the tigers might not be rabid?
We know that global warming is happening but we don't know what the long-range impact will be. That tiger may turn out to be a pussycat. In which case we'd bought the rifles for nothing. It's true to be on the safe side, the rich countries could afford to try to scale back their CO2 but once again, the rich countries are not going to be the biggest problem.
That tiger may turn out to be a pussycat
Ah, but that isn't the argument. The experts are agreed on the existence of rabid tigers, not on their precise behaviour. Is the simple existence of rabid tigers in the woods not enough for rational people to agree on the prudence of carrying rifles? Will you truly feel that the rifle was a poor insurance policy should you meet the rabid tiger and it licks your face, against obvious likelihood, instead of eating you?
the rich countries are not going to be the biggest problem
Please elaborate on this point.
The experts are agreed on the existence of rabid tigers
Hmmm, maybe it's the analogy that's throwing me off here. The experts agree that global warming is happening. Are you calling that a tiger? If you are, you're assuming that global warming by itself is necessarily dangerous. Some experts are predicting drought but to me it looks like informed speculation rather than fact. (Those incomplete models again).
Add on top of this, societies may be able to mitigate some of the harmful effects of drought if it happens. E.g. newer drought-resistant grains, water conservation technologies, and so on.
There is huge waste of water resources in North America. A prolonged drought may actually be a good thing. It would do for water what OPEC did for oil. Push us towards responsibility. A harsh drought will cause economic stress but I wouldn't call it a rabid tiger.
I think I'd like to reserve the rabid tiger label for nuclear proliferation, avian flu pandemics, runaway financial speculation, AIDS and malaria, that kind of stuff.
the rich countries are not going to be the biggest problem
Within a few years, the developing countries are going to be the biggest CO2 generators.
Five million cars were sold in China this year. They're just warming up.
I'm using rabid tiger as an analogy for the effects of global warming, which are likely to be quite bad, just as meeting a rabid tiger would likely be quite bad, even if the result is not absolutely certain.
Those incomplete models again
It is certainly reasonable to keep in mind the incompleteness of the models. However, since the model predictions are generally quite bad, to use that incompleteness as an excuse for inaction or skepticism inherently assumes that the vast majority of unknown factors would have positive effects. That seems an unreasonably optimistic assumption.
Assuming 50% of the values of the unknown factors have positive effects, that still leaves a rather poor outcome from the model.
There is huge waste of water resources in North America. A prolonged drought may actually be a good thing
I would consider that attitude one that looks on the drought as strictly a local phenomenon, and overlooks the fact that in a global warming scenario the deliterious effects would be world-wide, and have a resultant compounding effect. (Not to argue with the fact that water resources are often poorly managed in NorAm.)
societies may be able to mitigate some of the harmful effects of drought if it happens
Hmmm, yes, that's the thing. How much do we want to rely on may?
Entrepreneurial advances in solar energy technology may lead to natural market shifts away from coal and fossil fuels without any need for government intervention. The track record does not support such a likelihood as being probable, though it is possible. I'm not really convinced I want to rely on such an uncertainty when considering the environmental quality of my retirement years.
the developing countries are going to be the biggest CO2 generators
Does that mean when the developing countries (i.e. China and India) are proportionally contributing as much CO2 as current developed countries, you'd support an agreement that saw all countries reducing their admissions?
Frankly, I don't give a rat's rump if global warming in the future is caused by our pollution and auto emmissions. Do we have to live with/breath this crap RIGHT NOW? I can drive from Mountain Home on a lovely blue winter's day and look down on the black hideous inversion that is covering Boise so thick that I can smell it (and Boise doesn't have near the pollution of a "real" city.)
Why do we have to live with this? Why do we have to pass it on to our kids? Can't we do what's right for the planet (and for us) just because it's RIGHT?
You have to express that opinion to more than just monkeys, and loud and long, if you want things to change, maybe.
GramMa, you're driving your inefficient, polluting vehicle from Mountain Home just as the the residents of Boise are driving - because you, and they, haven't yet been given a reasonable alternative.
So long and thanks for all the fish...
If future generations are fair, I don't think they'll regard us as criminally neglectful, for various reasons.
First, the theory of global warming is fairly new, and really the damage was irrevocable before we even realised what was happening. Recycling your old bottles and using your car a bit less isn't going to make any noticeable difference: I'm not sure anything we could do at this stage is likely to have an appreciable impact.
Second, there still is a large measure of uncertainty over what is happening and what the impact is likely to be. Back in the sixties, if I remember rightly, we (led by the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion) believed a new ice age was irrevocably on the way; that the world's oil resources would be totally exhausted by the end of the twentieth century; and that by about 1990 people would need to work only a few hours a week. We don't know much about climate change, really; but I believe there is good reason to think some weather patterns are chaotic; ie that large changes occur without any recognisable cause, and that the climate is just not susceptible to accurate computer modelling, even if we understood it much better than we do.
Third, combating global warming is not a no-cost option, and we can't therefore just opt for 'the safe side'. My impression is that to really make a difference, we might need to de-industrialise the world entirely, which implies that a lot of people are going to die, and there'll be no more planes or cars (or computers) ever again. It's not irrational (though it may be wrong) to think that on balance, global warming, whatever it turns out to be like, might be preferable. It's conceivable, though perhaps not likely, that there are technological solutions to some of the problems which we'll only discover if the world economy keeps growing.
There are strong moral undertones to most of the discussion about this, which are not always helpful (and they may lead some to regard some of the views above as sort of naughty, repugnant or backsliding) but I have to say I don't think we're as wicked as all that.
Does that mean when the developing countries (i.e. China and India) are proportionally contributing as much CO2 as current developed countries, you'd support an agreement that saw all countries reducing their admissions?
It doesn't matter whether I support it or not. It's all about the developing countries. They are the ones who are not going to sign emissions agreements and without their compliance, we're stuck with global warming.
I am in favour of subsidies for adopting alternate energy, (geothermal/wind/solar) because it reduces our reliance on oil/natural gas and has the desirable side-effect of reducing emissions. I guess what i'm saying is that reducing emissions in itself is not a strong policy priority for me.
One way to address emissions is to go nuclear. Nal, would you support full conversion of all our fossil-fuel generation plants to nuclear? To reduce emissions to practically zero, we could build even more nukes and use the electricity to power electric cars.
Assuming 50% of the values of the unknown factors have positive effects, that still leaves a rather poor outcome from the model.
Either a model works or it doesn't. If a model doesn't work (i.e. is incomplete) then I'm not sure we can say anything about its predictive value let alone its value under the influence of unknown factors.
I would consider that attitude one that looks on the drought as strictly a local phenomenon...
Yes, that's my assumption.
....and overlooks the fact that in a global warming scenario the deliterious effects would be world-wide
This is essentially the assumption I'm not buying in to and likely the source of our difference in opinion!
It would do for water what OPEC did for oil. Push us towards responsibility.
That happened? One word: Hummer.
I guess what i'm saying is that reducing emissions in itself is not a strong policy priority for me
You seem to have an interesting attitude towards global warming (and I'm honestly not trying to be snide). From the discussion it appears that you do share genuine concern for the issue, though you are somewhat skeptical, yet you aren't interested in the primary method for dealing with global warming.
I'd go back to the tiger analogy for a comparison, but I don't want to be annoying ;)
Nal, would you support full conversion of all our fossil-fuel generation plants to nuclear
Certainly as a possibility. I'm definitely not knee-jerk anti-nuclear, though I am very skeptical about the current NorAm nuclear industry's ability to safely and efficiently develop the technology. New nuclear technologies such as 'pebble bed' point the way towards how the tech might be developed with reasonable safety and efficiency.
Unfortunately we have a surprisingly limited supply of nuclear fuel as well, so it's only a partial solution, and then of course there is the massive public phobia to overcome.
One direction I do support, though I believe will require strong government advocacy and support to encourage, is distributed micro power generation. So electric cars that charge off solar panels (windmills, etc) on your house, or solar panels (etc) on your house constantly feeding into the grid, and that power used to crack water into hydrogen gas. Basically, a large network of trickle chargers installed into private property.
Either a model works or it doesn't
Not necessarily. A model can be like a cake recipe, where the majority of the steps must be followed in careful order to achieve a valid final result, or the model can be like making nachos, where no matter which order things go, you still end up with something pretty similar to nachos.
My layman's view is that climate modeling, at this point in the technology, leans toward nachos.
This is essentially the assumption I'm not buying in to
So, just to clarify, you don't currently believe that the effects of global warming will be felt world-wide (i.e. the deleterious effects will be felt in strictly limited areas of the globe)?
Or you don't believe that the compounding effects will be great enough to cause serious difficulty in dealing with them? (i.e. draught next door to floods, so the countries simply swap, to use a crude example)
One word: Hummer
That's it! A Hummer with a giant water tank in the back, that constantly sprays a shower of cooling H20 over the vehicle, in your own private rain storm. Preferably Evian.
To the patent office! MoFi's future funding is assured!
I just read that the latest intro-level Hummer will be ~$30,000. I'm thrilled that the tools who consider themselves elite for owning one will now share the privilege with their office assistants and frappucino-makers, but I'm more terrified of the number of these monsters on the road going up ten-fold. Won't somebody please think of the children? I'm serious. What happened to people caring about what kind of world they leave to their kids?
What happened to people caring about what kind of world they leave to their kids
Hadn't you heard? The Big Picture is considered seriously declasse.
Also, StoryBoard is completely wrong about the developing countries being where it's at in terms of policy change. The US is still the biggest per capita CO2 polluter and gas consumer, and the Bush administration had done nothing but diminish pollution limits. And the country that China and India are trying to emulate? That would be the US. If we changed our act, it would certainly be a model for developing nations. And more effective than modeling pro-environmental changes, we can require them. We currently have the trade clout to demand low emissions standards (or whatever other environmental requirements) from countries we trade heavily with. The US is the biggest player in the game, and we can thus push the hardest for rule changes. Laying the blame on developing countries ignores that fact and is just a big cop out.
Plus, all the economists that say 'well, it's too late to stop global warming, why should we waste money trying?' are missing the point that reducing emissions is the start of the solution, not the whole thing. It's what we can do in the mean time to try to minimize the damage while we search for other solutions. I'd like to see a huge research push to find ways to offset atmospheric warming. You think hydro-electric powered ocean floats that churn up sea water to create low-lying clouds will reflect the sun before it can heat the ocean? (not my idea - that was actually published in ?Nature? a few years back) Sounds great - figure out a way to test it and build us a prototype or two. And don't tell me that the free market will eventually come up with solutions - we all know that's bullshit. Ok, apparently I'm past the point of talking reasonably about this. Time to go read another post.
It would do for water what OPEC did for oil. Push us towards responsibility.
That happened? One word: Hummer.
It's two steps forward, one step back. The average gas mileage of a passenger car these days *is* considerably better than it was before the OPEC crisis of 1973-74.
From the discussion it appears that you do share genuine concern for the issue...yet you aren't interested in the primary method for dealing with global warming.
The primary method for dealing with global warming is getting those developing countries on board and that's just not going to happen. I'm not interested in solutions that aren't practical. Add the uncertain projections of the impact of warming and you get...an "interesting attitude" ;)
My layman's view is that climate modeling, at this point in the technology, leans toward nachos.
I get the opposite impression. It's nowhere close to nachos if you read this EPA description of the lack of consensus of the different models.
"These complicated models are able to simulate many features of the climate, but they are still not accurate enough to provide reliable forecasts of how the climate may change; and the several models often yield contradictory results."
That doesn't sound like nachos. That seems more like pot luck.
And the country that China and India are trying to emulate? That would be the US. If we changed our act, it would certainly be a model for developing nations.
Consumers aren't driving cars in China and India because they're trying to copy the U.S. The reason they drive cars over there is the same as over here - they're convenient, they're fun and for males, they correlate with cojones.
We currently have the trade clout to demand low emissions standards (or whatever other environmental requirements) from countries we trade heavily with.
The U.S. currently is going into the poor house buying goods hand-over-fist from a nuclear-armed dictatorship with a bad human rights record. But now we're going to take them to task over their emissions standards?
So, just to clarify, you don't currently believe that the effects of global warming will be felt world-wide...?
Or you don't believe that the compounding effects will be great enough to cause serious difficulty in dealing with them? (i.e. draught next door to floods, so the countries simply swap, to use a crude example)
I'm open to good evidence on either of these points so if you got it, I'd like to see it.
I think Katrina might be evidence of the impact of warming. But the damage that was done was largely because of human mismanagement. The human cost there is certainly less than that of the great flood of the Netherlands in the 1950s when close to 2000 people died.
Islander:
Exactally! I'm as guilty as all the rest. And I hate it. Why hasn't the research gone into an affordable car that gets 50 mpg? I don't need to go more than 60 mph, I just need to get there safely, cheaply, cleanly.
*takes aim at a Hummer driver.
It's also worth remembering that, on geologic time scales, there have been many periods in the Earth's history that there were no polar ice caps at all.
I think it overstatement when environmentalists proclaim the pending destruction of the Earth. The Earth and its biomes are going to keep on keeping on, just probably not in the way it has been in recent centuries, and possibly in a way that people would generally agree is disfavorable for us.
It's a shame that when I hear a lot of people talking about the destruction of the Earth, I hear the same sort of oversimplified black/white talking points I hear from the corrupt administration which happens to sit on the other side of the ideological fence.
they're convenient, they're fun
I see you have never been on the road in China.
those developing countries on board and that's just not going to happen
I would have to say that I have a less pessimistic attitude on that front, especially considering that most developing countries are in regions likely to feel global warming most negatively. Remember that they got on board with the CFC ban. I would have predicted that as being much more difficult than limiting emissions. You don't see too many ozone holes over Beijing or New Delhi.
if you read this EPA description of the lack of consensus of the different models
I would strongly advise you not to use the EPA as a reliable source on this issue. They have a gross record of scientific revisionism under this administration, and on this issue.
I am not arguing with the possibility of your coming to differing conclusions given the current evidence, but you letting yourself be played for a fool if you give any substance to what comes out of the current EPA.
That particular page on climate models read to me as typical of their recent attempts to muddy the waters and split hairs.
But the damage that was done was largely because of human mismanagement
Certainly the death toll is the result of human mismanagement, but the physical damage to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is very possibly entirely attributable to global warming.
The New Orleans levee and pump system was designed for a category 3 hurricane, nothing more. Even if that system had been in optimal condition it would have been expected to fail spectacularly during a direct hit by Katrina.
Even assuming one believed the worst case projections for global warming, would it have been economically viable to relatively quickly upgrade the entire levee system on the off chance of a direct strike by a Cat5 hurricane, given the recent weather record? I admittedly suspect the answer would be no.
That is a crux of the issue right there. Even though the evidence for catastrophic effects of global warming is not yet conclusive, I believe it is strong enough to forcefully encourage that we act as much as economically viable.
And yes, that means it costs us all some money. 'Economically viable' means we don't go to the poorhouse, not we all get rich.
It might have been economically unviable to upgrade the levees over a few years, but a sustained program over a couple decades that prudently played the odds a bit could likely have been a wise course.
Either way the ball is clearly in their court....and both China and India (who will likely soon outstrip the US as greenhouse gas emitters) aren't interested in Kyoto.
You are in error. Both China and India are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol and both ratified the treaty in August 2002.
Good points biffa and Nal.
....and both China and India (who will likely soon outstrip the US as greenhouse gas emitters) aren't interested in Kyoto.
You are in error. Both China and India are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol and both ratified the treaty in August 2002.
You are technically correct! What I should have said was they aren't interested in lowering their greenhouse gas emissions. Both China and India signed the Kyoto agreement but it means nothing because as a "developing country" the treaty imposes no obligation on them to do *anything* about their emissions.
I would strongly advise you not to use the EPA as a reliable source on this issue.
I don't wanna be no fool so I will follow your advice and give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's set the EPA stuff aside.
Here's another article, Defusing the Global Warming Timebomb (PDF) to look at instead. It's by James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. If the name sounds familiar, it's because he's cited in the second of the New Yorker articles linked above, as well as being one of the most vocal scientists behind the campaign on the dangers of global warming.
On page 5, there's a fascinating graph of the historical levels of CO2, methane and temperature change. From the graph it's clear that current levels of these gases are still less than they were in the previous interglacial period. What i find interesting is that these levels rose *by themselves* 120,000 years ago without human intervention to levels higher than they are in the current day.
(Incidentally, since we are due for a glaciation period as we speak, who is to say that global warming isn't stopping us from a frozen fate?)
The other notable thing is that Hansen talks about the effects of global warming solely in terms of rises in sea-level. I.e. local impacts. He does not forecast global deleterious impact. This is far from the apocalyptic projections that have been punted around. We're not off the hook of course, because there's still plenty of people who live on endangered coastlines. (But if you're inland during your retirement years, Nal, maybe you need not worry too much.)
Good points biffa and Nal.
Oy vey, and me I'm da chopped liver! :)
Hansen talks...solely in terms of rises in sea-level. I.e. local impacts. He does not forecast global deleterious impact
Professional research scientists in general, and particularly in hostile environments, tend to be very conservative in their predictions. I would strongly suspect that Hansen talks solely about rising sea levels because it is a known quantity. Whereas while he might be expecting serious drought, he can't point a finger and say the drought will definitely be anyplace in particular. On effects other than sea level, he only has likelihoods.
these levels rose *by themselves* 120,000 years ago without human intervention to levels higher than they are in the current day
Yes, it is points like this that give me hope that the situation is not lost, but not, unfortunately, that there is no situation.
Oy vey, and me I'm da chopped liver
Certainly not! You've volunteered to be tiger bait after all ;)
combating global warming is not a no-cost option, and we can't therefore just opt for 'the safe side'. My impression is that to really make a difference, we might need to de-industrialise
Now there's an appeal to consequences as hyperbole if I've ever heard one. The idea that we shouldn't act merely because it will cost us some money is pure capitalist fundamentalism.
There is certainly no widely accepted argument that we would have to de-industrialize to roll back human contributions to global warming. In fact, those opposed to not acting are often in vested industries which are inherently arguing against human advancement and technological innovation to protect their private short-term interests.
Take emissions as an example. There is no credible argument that we get rid of automobiles. However, shifting from fossil fuel to hydrogen/electric would have significant beneficial effects with little to no significant loss of functionality.
Yes, there would of course be transition costs, but the resulting industrial support base could likely be larger and more spread out than the current one. Pretending that economics forces us not to act is merely an excuse for selfish miserliness.
Yes, it is points like this that give me hope that the situation is not lost...
Long-term climatology is fascinating. I did a little digging in Wikipedia and found that there's speculation that 700 million years ago, the earth had icesheets that extended down to the equator. The theory is quaintly called "Snowball Earth"!.
Climatologists don't seem to know what causes Ice Ages. There's a guess that it's perturbations in earth orbit. But one of the most obvious possible causes isn't talked about because we don't have the data, namely, variations in solar activity/output.
...again this reinforces the point that we have inadequate climatological models.
In Hansen's article, he does take a conservative route, as you say. He even explicitly avoids the use of forecasting models, relying only on the Antarctic core ice samples to make his argument.
You've volunteered to be tiger bait after all...
Cat food = chopped liver, it makes sense!
One direction I do support, though I believe will require strong government advocacy and support to encourage, is distributed micro power generation.
I'm all for it. It would make our lives more self-sufficient/reliant not having to kowtow to the central grid. (One of the potential problems i can see though is people generating electricity in eco-harmful ways just to make a buck.)
Here's an encouraging sighting: A few days ago in the Canadian Tire flyer they had a home windmill on offer! The price $700 Cdn.
My other favourite alternate energy source would be geothermal - the use of heat pumps for cooling and heating. From a pure power consumption point of view, I would guess that heating/cooling is tops.
The New York Times adds more on the story of the shrinking ice caps.
Unintentional humorous moment near the end of the article:
"Ignatius G. Rigor at the University of Washington said that the change was likely due to a mix of factors, including residual influences from the atmospheric cycle."
Hieronymous P. Sloppiness on the other hand, was unconvinced.
Every day, the damn waves come in and the tide goes in and out. Every day, the damn sun shines. The wind blows nearly everyday here and other places.
Why the h*ll can't we get these alternate forms of energy going?
Oh wait, nobody will get rich on them.
Never mind. Carry on.
That is very interesting homunuculus!
Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form
*takes off skates, climbs into waterproof handbasket, prepares to go to hell*
*hands GramMa some suntan lotion*
well fuck me.
Glacier National Park might soon need a new name.
This guy has some really nice photos of Glacier.
Here's the story about Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, and here's the trailer. Interesting stuff, as Al makes a comeback that will scare the shit out of people.
Halliburton Solves Global Warming: SurvivaBalls save managers from abrupt climate change
Heh.
Sen. Inhofe explains everything to Pat Robertson.
They have to be hysterical about something. I recommend, except for the dirty words, a great book written by Michael Crichton. I think we talked about that. It's called State of Fear. He is an author, a medical doctor, and scientist. He was going to write a novel about global warming and all the horrible things, so he researched it and he thought, wait a minute, this thing's a hoax. So he wrote a book about the fact that it is a hoax, and while it's a fiction book and a novel, the footnotes are incontrovertible in terms of science.
Nice linky h-dogg. the global cooling myth and A Few Words on Michael Crichton's Fiction from the aforementioned link.
Is it ironic that people with kids buy SUV's?
Soon to stand for SUbmersible Vehicles.
Maybe it's just a blip in the eons-term weather patterns for California, but last year and this have been like nothing I remember, and I've been here for most of 67 years: cool, rainy springs extending into May (November to April was the rainy season in the past) in the southern San Joaquin Valley, then temperatures rising quickly. Both years, we've seen weeks of temperatures over 100 degrees (F) without a break. The number I remember for last year was 107. This year, we reached 116, and lost an across-the-street neighbor to heat stroke.
Another change is that tropical moisture, which used to affect only desert areas on the east side of the Sierra Nevada, where their rainy season has generally been in August, is how hitting us. We had thunder storms in the western reaches in the middle of summer, almost unheard of. The effect was that the humidity stopped any cooling off during the night.
So, yeah, I want to move north when I can. But, it reached 109 in Danville, in the Sfo Bay area a week or two ago, and air conditioning is pretty much unheard of there.
Is SeAtttke far enough north, or do I want to try to British Columbie?
Seattle.
Easy there path, I have it on good authority from aaaaaa Missterrrrrr . . . Limbaugh, that there is in fact NO warming trend. So, as you can see, it's all a liberal plot.
What's Banff like?
Oh nice.
I just read a cheesy sf/disaster novel in which giant methane bubbles trapped in the ocean floor are released, causing rapid warming/ginormous hurricanes---->general disaster 'n' mayhem (fun to read, if not experience)
considering the book was written in the mid '90s it was a bit freaky in light of katrina etc.,
I really enjoyed this tidbit:
"We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."
*lights a filterless Camel cigarette*
*disconnects exhaust system from Hummer*
*chops down a tree in celebratory glee*
*signs up for the endangered wildlife hunting safari as an added bonus*
Global Temperature Highest in Millennia
I think Hansen is just jealous of Michael Crichton.
Is it Doomsday yet, d'ye think?
There's a good chance that Bush will be pilloried by future generations more for his attitude to the environment than for his ill-conceived foreign misadventures. What a gobshite.
The producers of An Inconvenient Truth have offered to supply American classrooms with 50,000 copies of the movie free of charge. That offer has been rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the nation's leading science education teachers group, citing a risk to funding from key financial supporters.
One of those supporters is Exxon-Mobil.
Bring out yer nutjobs! Bring out yer dittoes!
You know, I'm glad that all my early schooling was public and free, even if it is funded by "evil planet haters." Although, they may get their "agenda" pushed forward, I certainly don't remember any lectures in my "early ed." supporting "big oil" - it was pretty much the "opposite." They never "denied" global warming. Maybe that's just "Canada," but if "education" gets some subsidies from the "bad guys" it at least keeps textbooks in the hands of students and, more importantly, the bleeding-heart "liberals" in front of "the" class to kick "planet hating ass" and take apples when there are no "apples" left to take.
In "other" words, "they" are telling us that driving a "hummer" teaches kids "science" more effectively than driving a "hybrid."
"I'd" rather have stupid malleable "kids" myself if I wanted to pursue such a myopic cause fraught with little (yet sensatonalized) returns due to a pre-existing knowledge and caution. Then again, this may be a "real issue" for the intelligent designs of folks in "Georgia."
I'm sure someone "said" that before.
So if we were rich enough, we could basically all pay the NSTA to support our pet theories in their current curriculum? Or squash those we don't like?
I say we take up a collection and pay them to say that monkeys are evolved from men! And also to teach kids that math is a lie.
Shoot. In my above comment "they" refers to the makers of the documentary, not the NSTA.
*Takes quotation marks away from InsolentChimp.*
And thus the thread was saved from inappropriate "mischaracterization" . . . but . . for how long??
/fadeout
Al Gore Inteview with Bob Edwards
To have it treated by these outfits that get money from Exxon Mobil and some of the other worse polluters to put out phony pseudo-scientific statements that directly conflict with these very careful rigorous scientific reviews that have taken years in many cases, and then to have them treated in many cases as if they have equal weight—it’s really outrageous.
The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.
I wanna see! YouTube me Ceeb!
UN downgrades man's impact on the climate
I dunno who that guy is, but he needs to knock it off.
(Seriously that's the most-fucked-up-way-possible to state "humans destroy their habitat, perish ignominiously later than originally thought")
It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.
Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.
Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.
Hottest year recorded since 1659 spells doom
Bonus nifty chart.
Freakishly large insect nests more common due to warmer weather year 'round
*stands on tiptoe, waves goodbye to sinking islanders
*glub*
NY's December snowless for first time in 129 years
One meteorologist urges calm, says global warming is not to blame.
The weather is prone to short-term fluctuations, and forecasters said the mild winter does not necessarily mean global warming is upon us.
"No cause for alarm. Enjoy it while you have it,"
I may be missing something here, but 129 years of snowfall doesn't seem short-term, and it doesn't fluctuate. It snows every @#! year. For three, four, or five generations it snows in winter. Except this year. THAT'S NOT A SHORT TERM FLUCTUATION, BY DEFINITION.
No cause for alarm? Really.
Well I'm just glad smart people are running things.
I just ran across this as well pete. Sure, it's just Earth recalibrating itself...
I was just wondering the other day (being a denizen of NYC), what's up with no snowfall? The snow boots flew off of the shelves, but for what I ask? A slight nip in the air now-and-then, but with massive chunks of ice shelves breaking off, and islands disappearing under the waves - - - I dare say how lucky we are in this day and age to have the smart people running the show! Here, here!
*looks for the nearest carbon dioxide bar*
It's the latest and hippest, ya know...
Crunch Year for Planet Earth
Places everyone, places!
*clap!* *clap!*
Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.
"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."
Right-wing blathering foutainhead Rush Limbaugh to debunk the claims of this groundbreaking report . . after the break.
*Ad for McDonalds*
Experts slam upcoming global warming report
Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.
But that may be the sugarcoated version.
Oil And Gas Companies Ready Drilling Projects For Newly Melted Arctic
Well, at least there's a plus side to all that Arctic melting...
Lara, I can't even bring myself to click on that link, the headline alone has me flabbergasted.
Chairman: Bush officials misled public on global warming
Chairman said officials mislead by "injecting doubt" into global warming science
Huh.
Give it ten more years, and then see if there is any doubt.
By then, no one will need a scientist to tell them that the global climate is dramatically changing.
You make a good point, nunia. Global warming is an issue whose complexity is in direct proportion to its importance for us all – and yet you exothermic assholes are just sitting there on the couch, belching carbon dioxide, farting methane and jizz-squirting sulphur hexafluoride like there's no tomorrow. Newsflash, carbonites: THERE IS NO TOMORROW - unless you people wake the fuck up.
Basically, the science-wallahs all agree that - thanks to the vast quantities of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere by burning dinosaurs - the Earth's climate will, by the end of this century, rise by between 2 and 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.
That might seem manageable, and would even make it more fun to try to establish a link between Kevin Bacon and, say, Hollywood's acutest angle, Linday Lohan. But if things go on like this, and atmospheric carbon rises beyond the critical limit of 550 ppm, then runaway climate change will see the number of degrees between two movie stars rise to intolerable limits.
Think about it: one day, maybe 20 years from now, you'll have to face your grandchild's innocent question: "Mommy, was there ever a link between Kevin Bacon and Oscar winning composer Ennio Morricone?" and THEN you'll break down and cry when you think that, if not for your selfish energy habits, the answer would have been as simple as saying: "Yes honey, Ennio Morricone worked on 'Stanno Tutti Bene' with Marcello Mastroianni; Marcello Mastroianni was in 'Used People' with Marcia Gay Harden and Marcia Gay Harden was in 'Mystic River' with Kevin Bacon".
So "BE COOL" don't "BE A FOOL" and let's all take action against climate chaos, by photosynthesising that CO2 into sugars and other delicious nutrients as hard and as often as possible.
Thanks.
*stands on seat, applauds wildly*
BRAVO! Brrrravoooo! Whoooo!
This was no composition by a performing monkey. This was a music I had never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing. It seemed to me I was hearing the voice of God.
Well, technically, the Pope. of MoFi.
*adjusts the Kevin Bacon thermometer*
I blame Footloose.
Has the White House interfered on global warming reports?
The short answer?
Is yes.
More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.
Global warming real, scientists say.
So there you go.
Global Warming May Have Been Caused By ‘Dinosaur Flatulence’
Dinosaur farts. You can't make that stuff up.
Wait . .
We're having a massive snowstorm today, and my department took our lunch hour to go out and play. As scared as I am that I'm not going to make it home today, it struck me as sad that in a few decades we may never have this kind of fun again. We were having 50 degree weather until mid-January this year.
A picture for posterity.
Nice, Lara! Looks much better than the slushly dirty
snowice pellets of Manhattan today.
I hear people comment on this all the time. Oh, remember back when it would snow two feet on a regular basis...
Just the other night, as I walked home in the bitter cold with the ice/snow stinging my face, I smiled in enjoyment - - and in the back of my mind I thought, 10 years from now, this might be a distant memory. I took my two kids out late last night to enjoy it - a neighbor looked at me in shock, but, it's horrible weather out there! Yeah, yeah... talk to the hand, buddy. Enjoy it while you can!
*gulp*
This is the thread that I am most afraid to click on
Al Gore announces Live Earth, designed as an exercise in "mass persuasion" about threats of global warming. The global concert event is slated for July 7th.
Climate change: scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps
Himalaya Melting: Glacial lakes pose a new peril as ice turns to water.
Jerry Falwell says global warming is "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism..
At last, a fair and balanced view.
Philip Cooney, an oil industry lobbyist now working for Exxon Mobil, conceded during a congressional hearing yesterday that while he was chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality he watered down reports on the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet's climate. "My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration."
My favorite bit is from pages 21 & 22 of his deposition:
Q: And what college-level science courses did you take?
A: Well - -
Just, in general, if you remember.
The Witness: I believe it was physics that I took to meet the requirement for the Liberal Arts degree, but I don't really remember.
BY MR. DOTSON:
Q: Have you taken any postgraduate-level science courses?
A: Well, I went - - I have a law degree
Q: I am going to ask you in a moment about that.
A: Okay. So, in some cases, law courses cover scientific issues, but no, I didn't take scientific courses, per se, postgraduate.
Q: You did not take postgraduate-level science courses?
A: No, but I took legal classes, obviously, that had the elements - -
Mr. Tuohev: So the answer is, no, you did not, okay?
The Witness: 0kay. No. Okay. No.
He should ask for his money back from Villanova, if that's how he does in examination.
Retreating Himalayan icefields threatening drought in Bangladesh.
Kerry, Gingrich debate global warming
Gingrich said he accepts there is a general consensus among scientists that Earth has gotten warmer over the last century and that humans have contributed to that problem, conceding that his views might not find favor with some of his fellow conservatives.
But the former GOP speaker said he believes the best way to solve the problem is to unleash the spirit of American entrepreneurship, not the power of government. That means using tax credits and other incentives to encourage the development of technology to reduce carbon emissions, rather than capping them by government decree.
. . .
Kerry agreed that the marketplace will play a key role, but he said an "economy-wide" cap on carbon emissions is vital because climate change is such a pressing crisis.
"You can't just sit there and say, 'Oh, let the market respond,'" Kerry said. "That's like saying, 'Barry Bonds, go investigate steroids.' Or like saying, 'Enron, you take over the pensions for America.' Not going to happen."
An island made by global warming. Warming Island, they call it.
Our gummint is gonna get right on it!
McCain Hires Prominent Global Warming Denier To Help Craft Global Warming Policy
Thank goodness McCain is irrelevant. I admit it was shameful to see a once-proud man brought to heel by the likes of Karl Rove. What the North Vietnamese could not achieve, the Republican Party did.
More than two centuries after the first British settlement was established in 1788, there is a belated recognition that 40,000 years of Aboriginal lore may contribute to the complicated science of Australia's capricious climate.
y'think?
The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet
The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades...
ExxonMobil Lied, Continues to Lavishly Fund Prominent Global Warming Deniers
ExxonMobil LIED????
*yawns
About what, this time?
*gets dizzy, falls down watching the record profits meter spinning 'round and 'round
Kilimanjaro not a victim of climate change, UW scientist says
The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming
I totally have a doom-n-gloom crush on homunculus :D
Meet me in the graveyard at midnight.
Here's twenty bucks. You two get a crypt, okay?
promise to recite statistics on climate change and global destruction please!
It's a common denial mechanism to want to get it on in the face of disaster. (Just don't get a crypt in New Orleans, New Jersey, or parts of California.)
Dang! There goes the vault I bought on the coast.
I wish they would have given a sense of scale in the pic and provided more than one.
Hope you don't melt today, GranMa. Stay cool!!
yay garlic!
Climate change challenging gardeners
Of course, since there is no climate change, it's not clear what the problem is...
/sarcasm
Well, if one freak year in the 30's was hotter than 1998, then obviously there is no evidence of global warning.
Fucking fraudulent travesty, I tell you!
weather != climate
Oh, come on. It's obvious from the link above that we've been lied to!
/sarcasm
*fans self
Too much hostility generating heat in here.
Earth's newest advocate, Osama bin Laden, on global warming:
The life of all mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories the major corporations.
And they said he was a turrorizhstt!
So... if we want greehouse gasses reduced, we're siding with the terrorists, now?
Well. That's just great.
So we're pretty much doomed, then.
*sigh*
Nice knowing you guys -- maybe we'll see each other on the flip side...
*fires up whale-oil-powered ATV, rides reverse-cowboy to the strains of We'll Meet Again*
Ice-free Arctic could be here in 23 years
Melting ice cap triggering earthquakes
Not just cows belching, but mammoth poo?
When will it end?
"When the organic matter left behind by mammoths and other wildlife is exposed to the air by the thawing permafrost, his theory runs, microbes that have been dormant for thousands of years spring back into action."
That's the part about defrosted mammoth dung that worries me most. Especially since vastly different microbes swap DNA and cross host species all the time. Do we need another new or improved mystery disease?
But I already have a mammoth dung disposal idea: when Scotland runs low on peat they could burn it to flavor whisky. I'd like a bottle of Islay/Yakutsk please.
The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will seek to advance the global agenda on climate change when he meets with heads of state and other top officials from more than 150 countries at United Nations Headquarters on 24 September.
More than 70 heads of state or government will attend the one-day event, making it the largest meeting ever of world leaders on climate change.
Yes, but will they accomplish *anything*? Gov. Ahhnold scheduled to speak this morning even...
On the other hand, they offer free checking.
How far into the hole do we have to slide before we realize that big business is NOT our friend.
I used to thing the MegaBiz profits were cutting the lives of my children and grandchildren in half.
Now I'm pretty certain that that mine will be shorter as a result of their greedy grasping for profits also.
Growth has already pushed Earth past tipping point, new study says
cool. I'm tired.
Exactly. People always point to the end of the human race like it's a bad thing. It's a good thing. Think of all the arguments that are put to an end by the demise, at our own hand, of our species. Think of the shopping possibilities. End Of The World specials everywhere. We all get to smoke and drink again! Sex and debauchery like we've never seen before(not you, Medusa). No more long-term-planning headaches, no more budgeting, forecasting and "building for the future". We take everything we've got and build for an hour from now!
Of course, for those of you with young children, this sucks the big one. But, you should have seen it coming.
I'd write more, but my neighbor wants me to help him blow up his barn. At least I THINK it's his.
"It was eviscerated," said a CDC official...
Yup, you expected to hear the truth from your government?
Not hardly.
We were eviscerated long before, and now nobody's got the guts to call 'em on their bullshit.
Full Version of White House "Edited" CDC Climate Report - with highlights!
Pfffft!
Nothing to see here, move along.
Impact of melting Arctic sea ice seen in drier California winters
Climate change denialists winning the race for "Best Science Blog"
I tried to vote for Bad Astronomy last night, but the weblog awards site was broken. It's up again now, but Climate Audit is leading...
Bacteria to blame for global warming? Nifty little hoax doing the rounds.
California sues EPA over refusal to let state limit greenhouse gases
Scientists to Make Cows Fart Like Kangaroos to Cool the Planet
*looks forward to seeing this on a future episode of Dirty Jobs*
Research finds (once again) that climate change is not caused by cosmic rays
A large chunk of an Arctic ice shelf has broken free of the northern Canadian coast
"There are only five of these ice shelves left," Mueller said. "They are retreating and they are not coming back."
Unprecedented warming, melting forces Arctic tourist evacuation
well...that was rather grim.
Kitten please, preferably not jumping into a pack of wild dogs.
In about 10,000 to 100,000 years, the study suggests, Antarctic-like "permanent" ice sheets would shroud much of Canada, Europe, and Asia.
I'll bet those dang Cannuks can't thank us enough for THAT!
In about 10,000 to 100,000 years, the study suggests, Antarctic-like "permanent" ice sheets would shroud much of Canada...
More like in about a month and a half, amirite?
More like Monday, neighbor. Read the forecast.
Even last year Australians were getting a nasty taste of the global warms.
Ice Ages Start and End So Suddenly "It's Like a Button Was Pressed," Say Scientists
"climate change chasing us down hallways"
LOL
Close the window, will ya?
"Almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."
Global warming: contributing to your weird, wonderful, unpredictable weather now!!
Can't believe in global warming because you're freezing your asp off?
Keep drivin' your Hummer, sucka, because things are going to get worse.
The Wilkins ice shelf holds on by a 500m-wide "thread" of ice.
Consider it gone...
yeah, I watched that vid yesterday. not sure I'd want to land a helicopter on that 'filament' dude...
MIT Scientist: Republicans Misusing My Climate Change Paper
Republicans: We Stand By Our Distortion of MIT Study
Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide
Noooooooooo...:(
Pishaw! Global warming is a hoax. I heard it on the radio. What do them science people know, anyway?
And I'm sure BP's little 'problem' won't have any environmental effects, either.
The North-West passage is due to open up, and then all those mega-sized oil tankers will be cruising through, bouncing off icebergs, punting slow polar bears, and liberally lubricating Santa's Workshop.
No problem, Ed. The icebergs are melting and the polar bears are dying off.
And there is no Santa.
Gotcha covered, Oil Industry!
Climate scientists say attacks against them have increased stolen e-mail flap
Montana's melting glaciers: The poster-child for climate change
Newsflash: Montana's premier park renamed Muddy
Waters National Park
More then-and-now pics
Love the narrator's RP 'glacy-eeer' compared to the homeboy's pronunciation.
Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters
Yah THINK!!
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I say. Surely the Tea Party wouldn't have a bias or a specific agenda?
Fire and Ice
Rbt. Frost
Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Actually, I think the world will perish because ofice hoass holes.
Hypocracy much? No change to believe in.
Scientist ‘Gobsmacked’ At Disappearance of Major Greenland Glacier
Harsh Political Reality Slows Climate Studies Despite Extreme Year
No shit.
Our illustrious leaders will wait till everything goes totally to shit then withdraw in to their taxpayer financed compounds, leaving the rest of us to die slowly.
Peru's Glaciers Melting, Decreasing Water Supply 20 Years Earlier Than Expected
Global warming may actually boost biodiversity (if it happens slowly enough)
NOAA: 2012 Was Officially The Warmest Year On Record For The U.S., Second Most Extreme
« Older Y.A.B.A.M.U. | Soup! Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
