Keeping up with the theme set by the London Hailstorm post, I bring you this. As you can see in the above picture created by NASA, an sizeable section of the Polar ice cap has melted. The image was created with data gathered in 1979 and 2003.
Dwindling Arctic Sea Ice – Nasa.gov: Arctic perennial sea ice has been decreasing at a rate of 9 percent per decade since the 1970s. The changes in Arctic ice may be a harbinger of global climate change. Most of the recent global warming occurred over the last decade, with the largest temperature increase occurring over North America. Researchers suspect the loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused by changing atmospheric pressure patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, and by warming Arctic temperatures that result from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The image above shows a comparison of composites over the Arctic Circle, acquired in 1979 (top) and 2003 (bottom) by the DMSP Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI). The first image shows the minimum sea ice concentration for the year 1979, and the second image shows the minimum sea ice concentration in 2003.
This whole argument aways comes down to
“Does so!”
“Does not!”
“Uh-un!”
In either case the argument is irrelevant. Reducing pollution and environmental impact is good. There will be *some* human impact on the environment. I dont know about you, but I’m not going back to hunting/gathering. Lets find a balance
So in the end – who gives a shit? The conservationists are using Global Warming / Climate change as a boogeyman to further their agenda. But at the end of the day their goal – less pollution, nicer planet – is an admirable one.
I’ll try that link again… link
tcc3, I agree that pollution is screwing our planet, but what pollution is causing the most harm? The shit we dump into our drinking water and the ocean every day or CO2? You are shrugging your shoulders at trillions of dollars in expenditures and many thousands of lost jobs that might turn out to be a meaningless waste. You can feed the world with that kind of money
Mister Mustard, I apologize for the “idiot” in my reply.
Getting back Mr. Christy, the person you were initially referring to, his official position is this:
“I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation. “Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration (the statement you posted), and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is “still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”
If you are a staunch supporter of the IPCC, read this little gem…
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science.
Yes Mister Mustard, lets follow the money…
….governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists.
>>If you are a staunch supporter of the IPCC
Not sure I know anyone who is a “staunch supporter of the IPCC”, although I know many people who are staunch supporters of the environment. And that whole hurricane tempest in a teapot has been blown way out of proportion by disgruntled ex-IPCC member and contributor Christopher Landsea. Hell hath no fury like an environmental scientist scorned.
And if you look at who pays for the IPCC, and who pays for Tim Ball and the other petroleum industry flacks, I think RES IPSA LOQUITUR. Follow the money. That Deep Throat was a prophet.
When you take action, do you do it on the “best evidence available” or do you wait until the evidence is overwhelming?
There are doers and waiters. Who has the better position is never known until it is too late. Doers avoid the calmity, waiters die in the calamity.
That reason alone makes watching the first Poseiden Adventure worth watching. “If I die, I’m going to die trying to get out of this.” There never was any proof you couldn’t exist forever in an upside down boat.
Do’ers do. Waiters wait.
>>Climate Change on OTHER PLANETS in the solar system.
Tee hee! Are you being paid by the petroleum companies like the rest of the anti-global-warming industry, S&B? Or is the idea of cleaning up the environment so offensive to you that you just object on principle?
Hey bobbo, you can’t fool me, your really George W. Right?
If there is all this warming and melting, why is the ocean not rising right now? I happen to live right next to the Atlantic Ocean, and it hasn’t budged in the past 14 years since I moved here. What gives?
Oh come on Mustard, the IPCC purposefully lied to the public about hurricanes, in total defiance of the consensus within the hurricane research community, WITHOUT the slightest concern for truth OR science, in order to capitalize on the publicity opportunity that the hurricane season presented… and you reaction is make excuses for them. You must be a Christian.
>>You must be a Christian.
Hey hey, JimR. Enough with the hate talk. My religious beliefs are none of your business, and they have nothing to do with the OVERWHELMING scientific concensus that global warming is occuring, it is being (at least) significantly helped along by “civilization”, and it’s going to have severe and negative consequences.
As I say, this whole “hurricane” thing is a tempest in a teapot, and side-show entertainment in the global warming debate. The scorned environmental scientist is pissed, but I don’t see too many other informed scientists coming to his defense. Of course, maybe they’re all being paid off by the tree-huggers and the sixties dropouts, hm?
The sky is falling….
I don’t know what’s come over me. Sorry for calling you a Christian.
The scientist wasn’t scorned, he was lied to… as were many others. Most are afraid to speak out . When someone lies to me to get me to do something for them and I find out…. I stop believing them.
You’ve been had, and you seem want more. Do you also make up excuses for Bush? There’s no difference.
Where is the real discussion / debate?
Its funny how people denounce Bush and the Republicans for straw man attacks, specious analogies, accusations of being a terrorist and, “with us or again’ us” attitudes.
At the same time I see the global warming advocates do the same damn things. “You dont belive in GW? Why do you hate the environment?” “You must be a oil comapany shill!” “You have another point of view / contradictory idea? You must be stupid (or an oil co shill)”
I say extremism causes global warming. The point is – we dont know. Thats why its a debate.
As far as you’re concerned JimR – I think we’re pretty much on the same page as far as picking our battles. Im all for fewer emissions, less fossile fuel, not poisoning the environment, etc. But sometimes it seems like is their ultimate goal….for the sake of the wee turtles and baby ducks of course.
Leave it to the commie pinko dems to get it wrong. The important area is not the North Pole, it’s the South Pole. Every thinking person knows that Antartica contains 3/4 of the world’s fresk water. When that melts, it will take more than a bunch of dollars given to Halliburton to clean up the shark filled mess.
Lets leave Mars out of this, OK. There isn’t enough atmosphere there to make climate change there relevant. There are long complicated seasons there, and the temperature there varies greatly with dust storms.
>>Do you also make up excuses for Bush? There’s no difference.
Well, no. I think Bush is a fucking asshole, and the worst president that has ever afflicted this country.
On the other hand, to revile people who want to clean up the environment as paid shills of the tree-hugger industry, or people who think DIck Cheney’s secret energy cabal is being targeted by the sixties dropouts, well. I don’t even know how to respond to that. It’s so ludicrous and to not even warrant a response.
And as to calling people who have come out as revisionists in the global warming debate “oil company shills”, well, follow the money. Except for the extremist Rush Limbaugh dittoheads, they pretty much all are. And you don’t think the global-warming-doesn’t-exist industry is funded by dittoheads, do you?
42—–Nope, not me. I don’t use the internets here at the white house, – – – – – oops.
Wikipedia and other sites claim there is sea rise, can’t find a single one that says its not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
Point is, the debate is about when we reach the tipping point where nothing we realistically do will prevent a sea rise of 23 feet in one scenario and 60 feet in another ((depends on what chunk of ice breaks off first)) Some say that point is 10 years in the future, others say more like 50 and some 100 years. Depends on the model and the assumption===but they ALL trend that way. There is no debate about “if” just when.
Well, no. I think Bush is a fucking asshole, and the worst president that has ever afflicted this country.
I’ve decided I like you Mr. Mustard. 🙂
I made the correlation to the “fucking asshole” because of all the official reports from various governmental experts that there were weapons of mass destruction. No one believes Bush, Blair, et al anymore.
I feel that the IPCC is on a power high, and will say or do anything to keep it, and that scientists are forced to comply or face ridicule, loss of their research funds, and a tarnished reputation.
Too bad, because the truth is important.
@#48… cool.
@51, not necessarily bobbo. sun spots
You’re all DOOMED!!!!!!
52—So you advocate waiting.
I think “the best evidence” is we should act. Being carbon neutral rather than constantly polluting makes sense on global warming, and many other issues.
Absolute certainty?–no. Thought I posted 2 weeks ago a site on sun spots that said they would cause warming?? I guess there are counter opinions within cournter opinions.
Wait or act. Thats the ticket.
#40, Confederate Traitor,
I really love how you stretch someone’s idea into fact. Obviously you and other idiots that claim stupid ideas, do not understand the difference between weather and climate. I checked out your link to Jupiter. So they are having some weather there. What is your point.
Your Martian SUV story.
Abdussamatov’s work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
“And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report.”
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that “the idea just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations.”
Geeze, thank you for wasting my time. What I already knew has just been reinforced. Global Warming is happening.
BTW, talking to my dog a few minutes ago, he insists I mention that the SOUTH LOST THE EFFEN WAR. Loser.
>And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent >IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report.”
And that report contradicts the evidence presented in the previous IPCC report. Science is going to keep adjusting. In the meantime, the cost to the environment of waiting is close to zero. You can implement things twenty years from now, and you would get about the same environmental result. In fact, you might not even have to implement things, as technology is constantly changing.
Where is the downside of reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Where is the downside of making more energy efficient everything? Where is the downside in saving electricity? Where is the downside of making our air cleaner? Where is the downside in researching and developing solar, wind, and other renewable sources?
Regardless of the cause of rising temperatures (and they are rising — everyone agrees on that), energy costs are climbing — which means food costs are climbing. The very things that we need to do to lower energy costs, are the things scientists tell us we need to do to slow down global warning. So where is the downside?
The only people who see a downside are the very people making a profit if we keep the status quo: the oil companies/countries, the auto manufacturers, the Republicans. I say screw ’em.
>>So where is the downside?
You hit the nail right on the head, ArianeB. All those seemingly noble endeavors don’t do anything to fatten the coffers of President Cheney’s energy cabal; in fact, the cut into their profits. And that’s plenty of a downside for the energy cabal.
So you can rest assured that as long as Presidents Cheney/Rove are in office, we’re going to continue to pollute the environment, increasing our dependence on foreign oil, wasting electricity, and giving tax cuts to Republicans who buy Hummers.
ArianeB, I’ll bet everyone agrees that there is no downside to ANY of your suggestions… but implementing the poorest costliest least efficient solutions in a RUSH could have devastating consequences, when it isn’t certain that what we do will even stop or slow climate change.
Let’s do all those things you mentioned but work hard to get the changeover as meaningful and permanent as possible. We don’t need a billions of dollars of solar cells installed immediately only to have them become garbage when a solar cell that’s 100 times more efficient and cheaper gets developed 2 years later.
I’m all in favor of reducing environmental polution. But by rationally means, and rational goals. Not by some irrational “Carry Nation” styled campagne (Al Gore playing the part of C.Nation very nicely). The last time we had such a politically and “morally” driven solution to a “problem”. We ended up an increase in alcohol consumption, rather an a decrease. And the jumpstart of organized crime in the USA. Our nation’s drug trafficing problem can be linked back to this ludricous crusade to band booze in the 1920s. Now we could very well be seeing a repeat of history. Only some cause fanatics have taken up an environmental issue, to gain prominence from. I can guarantee you that Al Gore doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the environment. I don’t see him selling off his millions of Oil Stock. And he did little to help when he was vice president. The Electric Car died on his watch. He’s probably got hedge fund protection is all the industries likely to fail if drastic measure are imposed to limit carbon emissions. The rich always find a way to profit. Even the Oil industry will, somehow. You can bet on it. Gore probably has ADM stock too. So naturally he would promote Ethanol. Who do you think profits most when the corn futures go up? Those that got the connections early, and who then advocated corn as a replacement fuel.
So while nations are screaming about how much the US polutes the world. They’re hoping we’ll further cut back our industrial production, so that then can vastly increase theirs. I noticed that the artic ice is melting mosting on China/Russia’s side. Yet we always get the blame. Could this not be from China’s increased industrial output. That country has one of the worst polution levels ever. And it’s probably just going to get worse. The tainted toothpaste, dog food, and “fresh” fish, should be example enough. They’ll just ship their tainted goods to another country, and have it relabeled as from there. That’s what they did with their drug tainted honey production. Channeled it thru Singapore.
Yes, you really don’t need to worry about Global Warming. If it is indeed real (a big if), the Chinese will do it for us, while they’re killing us off with toxic goods. I quess they figure their billion plus population stands a better chance surviving, against our 300 million.
Want to reduce air polution? Fine. Elinimate, as much as possible, the internal combustion engine. Build mostly electric powered vehicles. Produce the electric power to charge them, at the power plants where air polution is minimalized (using oil and coal) or from other non-poluting energy sources. We can do this, if we stop ourselves from being seduced by the auto industry to buy ever more worse gas guzzlers that we don’t need. Stop the feds from giving tax breaks for owning these things. Stop building urban sprawl, and leaving the inner cities to crumble. Plan UK style communities than don’t require long drives to access stores from home, and leave more surrounding farmlands untrafficed. Stop giving everyone their own private half acre, that they have to drive out to, just to boost the growth of the real estate industry and keep the auto industry profitable too.
Time for the bug Fry-n-Die (TM). Yay! Bring it on!
I for one, welcome the heat. It’s better than the solutions being proposed.
>>The tainted toothpaste, dog food, and “fresh” fish, should be
>>example enough.
What the fuck does this have to do with global warming? The Chinese put antifreeze in the toothpaste to save some money in the manufacturing process, and this somehow “debunks” the “myth” of global warming?
Get a fucking grip, Glenn E. Either you’re on the payroll of Cheney’s Energy Cabal, or you need to up your meds, big time.
btw, Ms Nation’s given name was “Carrie”, not “Carry”. And to equate prohibition with the development of energy efficiency is even more ludicrous than pretending that poisoned toothpaste debunks global warming. Good grief.