backtop


Print 205 comment(s) - last by eyebeeemmpawn.. on Oct 24 at 12:45 PM


Glacier Bay National Park. Two and a half centuries ago, the entire area was covered by thick sheets of ice.
High snowfall and cold weather to blame.

A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound", said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years".

"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August."

Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it's been a "long time" since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance -- an increase in the total amount of ice they contain.

Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.

Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers.  Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time -- an area the size of Connecticut.

One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn't exist at all -- only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.

Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

Molnia says one cold summer doesn't mean the start of a new climatic trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age.

As DailyTech reported earlier, Arctic sea ice this year has also increased substantially from its low in 2007.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 9:51:30 AM , Rating: 3
Damn that global warming!!!

Seriously though, climate is cyclical. The sooner we admit and accept that, the sooner we can stop wasting billions of dollars saying we're fighting it.




RE: Son of a...
By poodles on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By porkpie on 10/16/2008 11:39:30 AM , Rating: 4
WTH does New Orleans have to do with global warming? Are you trying to connect Katrina to it, when every single hurricanologist says otherwise?


RE: Son of a...
By Samus on 10/17/2008 1:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
Katrina was a pretty weak hurricane in comparison to many, many others from the past and the present.

The only thing that makes Katrina significant as a reference point is because the levee's failed (mostly because of poor maintenance.)

Hurricane Katrina and ALL hurricanes in the gulf region are completely unrelated to global warming. They've been going on for millions of years and they haven't gotten any 'better' or 'worse'. Climate change has nothing to do with the power or frequency of hurricanes.


RE: Son of a...
By Aloonatic on 10/17/2008 4:11:06 AM , Rating: 2
I thought (and I accept I may be wrong) that hurricaes are generally more powerful/have more energy of late as they rely on energy from the water that they pass over in the gulf region (or anywhere else) and that water is a little warmer these days?

Mostly due to (pom pom poooooom) global warming/climate change?

The main problem that New Orleans had/has though (from what I can see) is that some fool went and founded a city bellow sea level?

It didn't help that the flood defences failed miserably and then the place was left in ruins with an appallingly poor response from the federal government.

What is New Orleans like now by the way? Anywhere near "normalcy", as you guys seem so fond of saying? :)


RE: Son of a...
By clovell on 10/17/2008 11:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
The water is warmer due to ENSO, not Global Warming. You'd do well to read about the variations in Atlantic Tropical Cyclone between 2005 and 2008.

New Orleans is the final port on one of the nation's most vital waterways. Below sea level or not, founding the city was not foolish.

It's flood defenses failed because government contractors did not build the levees to specifications. The botched response compounded serious problems that began at the state level.

New Orleans isn't back to normal, because it will never be the same. I was there everyday for two years after Katrina. It is coming back, not the same, but better - not because of, but more in spite of, folks like yourself.


RE: Son of a...
By Aloonatic on 10/20/2008 4:11:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
New Orleans isn't back to normal, because it will never be the same. I was there everyday for two years after Katrina. It is coming back, not the same, but better - not because of, but more in spite of, folks like yourself.


Erm, not really sure how, as a UK subject, I have anything to do with why a city, it's population and the surrounding area in the richest and greatest country in the world are/have being left in their own filth for years on end???

That you guys are ashamed and embarrassed about it is a good start, but really, it is shocking what has gone on there.

It's great that some people (like yourself I assume) have been trying to help but it should not still be in that much of a mess?

As for the warmer water, more powerful/energetic hurricanes/storms comment, I was simply commenting on what is often reported in the news media.

Having been caught directly in the path of hurricane Ike this year I know these things are no laughing matter but I was only trying to be light hearted when commenting on the use of the word "normalcy" and how climate change/global warming is blamed for everything.

If I offended anyone........ meh


RE: Son of a...
By werepossum on 10/20/2008 6:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Erm, not really sure how, as a UK subject, I have anything to do with why a city, it's population and the surrounding area in the richest and greatest country in the world are/have being left in their own filth for years on end???

Well, that one's pretty simple. By questioning anything regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, even in jest or sarcasm, you make Gaea cry. Gaea's warm salty tears raise the sea level directly and melt the glaciers, which also raises sea levels. Thus it's selfish bastards like yourself, not decades of spending levee maintenance funds on Mardi Gras fountains and bypasses to casinos coupled with pants-on-head retarded local and state government, that caused Hurricane Katrina as well as the disaster that followed. Learn some science before you kill us all, man!


RE: Son of a...
By Aloonatic on 10/21/2008 3:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have learnt my lesson so I will buy a birch from a tree that has died of natural causes and give myself 20 lashes every time I question a celebrity who tells me that global warming is real and happening and that I should turn off all my lights, central heating, live in a cave quietly and unquestioningly whilst only using my car to get too and from work at the most whilst they jet their little rat dogs around the world to get their nails clipped just how they like it (they can tell) and cappuccinos from their favourite coffee house in NY to London etc.

I have committed the original sin and I must be punished.

There's no way I'm giving up Mardi-Gras and you may take away my freedom but you'll never take the pants off of my head, so I'm with the politicians on that one! =D


RE: Son of a...
By overlandpark4me on 10/21/2008 9:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but New Orleans will be a chocolate city again, lol.


RE: Son of a...
By johnadams on 10/16/2008 2:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
and global warming is to blame for the current economic crisis.
yes.


RE: Son of a...
By LostInLine on 10/16/2008 5:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds about right.

While we were all being distracted by the false god of global warming alarms from Al Gore and Maurice Strong (so they could pedal their wares of carbon trade) members of congress got paid (by Franklyn Raines) to NOT regulate Fanny Mae. Henry Waxman, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Melvan Watt flat out blocked regulation of Fanny Mae claiming there were no problems.


RE: Son of a...
By Neutrion on 10/20/2008 6:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Green brainwashing is the most efficient, modern way to capitalize on liberal guilt. You also get to pass it off as altruism. Best of all, you can squeeze money out of an investor for this by making him feel ashamed to be a person of means. Is Al Gore riding a bike to his book signings? Yea, thought not.


RE: Son of a...
By Schadenfroh on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/16/2008 10:49:49 AM , Rating: 3
Nice sarcasm, since no one got it and because of that you got downrated...

It was a sarcasm, wasn't it?


RE: Son of a...
By Bruneauinfo on 10/16/2008 12:35:26 PM , Rating: 4
of course it was sarcasm..... and it was funny.


RE: Son of a...
By reredrum on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By straycat74 on 10/16/2008 6:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
Liberals going socialist? They went that way in the 1970's. Conservatives Fascist? Conservatism is LESS government intervention and smaller government. You want Fascism, look the Obama supporters. Tell me you want the government "suggesting" you hang these on your wall--

http://obeygiant.com/images/2008/09/obama-hope-she...

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/05/o...


RE: Son of a...
By bpurkapi on 10/16/2008 11:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
Conservatism is, at the moment, for more government intervention and larger government: No right to suicide(death with dignity), no right to privacy(outlawing abortion and the patriot act), no financial responsibility(cutting taxes while waging 2 wars, and a 700 billion dollar blank check. Which has resulted in the largest heap of government spending in a looongg time). I could go on but really who wants to beat a dead horse? The argument that liberals are socialist is funny when we want to cut government spending by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, and repeal tax cuts, which obviously didn't help the middle class or the economy(lets talk wages not taxes, taxes only matter if I actually have more money.) My only question is how can you be so focused on nonsense, that you don't see the world for what it is? Conservatives have been responsible for all that we face as a nation: War, Economic downturn, and distrust of those who have different opinions than the platform of: drill baby drill, abortion is bad, people who don't think like us are bad, muslims and chinese are bad, god is good, guns are good, and people smarter than us are bad. Wonder why the media asks got ya' questions? They don't their questions are quite simple, you're just crazy and the rest of society wants to know how crazy: Believe in humans riding dinosaurs crazy or believe in end of days crazy. That is my largest rant of all time and funny that it happened on a tech website.


RE: Son of a...
By straycat74 on 10/17/2008 12:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
All life is important.

quote:
The argument that liberals are socialist is funny when we want to cut government spending by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, and repeal tax cuts


The economy has really tanked in the past two years. I forget what happened in November of '06. I am sure it was important.

Why is it that all of the countries that tried socialism are turning toward giving power back to the markets?

Government intervention throws off the balance. Government doesn't produce anything. Look into their policies that forced mortgage loan quotas on banks that ended up being bundled together and sold off to create a slight dip in the economic security of the, uh, world.

Liberals voted for the war.

Next time you get the urge to rant, take a breath, swallow your meds (It's OK, just keep taking them) and take a nap. You'll feel better.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 7:29:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Conservatives have been responsible for all that we face as a nation


Is it fun not thinking for yourself and just listening to BSNBC?


RE: Son of a...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/17/2008 11:10:36 AM , Rating: 5
"The argument that liberals are socialist is funny when we want to cut government spending by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis"
What's funny is reading peoples thoughts on government who have never really studied the subject.... Never has the Socialist Democratic party ever want to cut spending - never. They want to pull out of the war because it was popular with the media. They would not give you money back nor would they lower your taxes. They want to spend that money on their pet projects and raise your taxes. Read Obama's tax plan on his web page.... NO YOU DO NOT KNOW HIS TAX PROGRAM. What he is going to do, what he say on TV are 2 100% different plans...Do not argue with me on this, go to his page and read it. Remember Congress really controls the economic state of the country (not the President – he just reports it to the people). During the Clinton years when a budget was actually met guess what. It was the first Republican control Congress since the 1930's. Because the Republican could not make thing perfect in 6 years (after 60 plus years of Democrats in control) the people voted more Democrats into office and not the economy is going into the tank once again, go figure. If you want to see change then change the way you vote and stop voting the same people back into the office. For those missing the point, this would mean for many people voting republican for the first time in their life (that would be a change). Democrats have been the socialist non-workers party for decades. Now they are pushing to be Communist. The more government has control of things the more we become communist. The democrats want the government to control everything... Insurance, all school, racial quotes to jobs and neighborhoods, how much TV I can watch… When you really start to listen to the speeches and not the bias news sources, it is very, very scary to what they are saying.
Just FYI of course neither party is perfect…. Just need to see who is going to do the least amount of damage to your personal pocket book.


RE: Son of a...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 10/24/2008 12:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They want to pull out of the war because it was popular with the media.


hmm...and here I thought it was because the occupation of Iraq was never justified...Don't believe me? How about a Senate investigation that was led by a Republican?

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id...

They did a great job of burying this story, releasing it on a Friday. It got a 10 second mention of NBC by Brian Williams and the Daily show did a whole segment on it. Where is this liberal media you speak of? Oh right, they didn't want to take side in an election year, right.

I think its hilarious that you go on to blame our issues on Congress. Give me a break. You then go on to claim credit for the Republican Congress for Clinton's financial responsibility. Either you make over $250,000 a year, have a brain and you're just a liar, or you're a brainwashed-republican-serf/drone who thinks that abortion is bad and Mccain would actually do something about it. What we have in our great nation is socialism for the rich and cut-throat capitalism for everyone else. Where else in the world can your entire financial world be destroyed if you get seriously sick?

Check out who's going to be looking out for your personal pocketbook...
http://www.electiontaxes.com/
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
find your own if you don't trust my quick google results.

You scumbag terrorist rich people (sarc) shouldn't be so afraid to pay your share of taxes to protect our great nation. The Revenue Act of 1945 reduced individual income tax rates 3 percentage points and 5% (top rate fell from 94% to 86.45%). It could be a lot worse for you poor little rich folks.


RE: Son of a...
By jmunjr on 10/19/2008 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 4
bpurkapi wrote:
"Conservatism is, at the moment, for more government intervention and larger government"

You are describing most of the current REPUBLICANS, not conservatives. Today's Republicans are neo-conservatives and not very conservative at all. They do practice much of what you wrote.

A true conservative is rare in the Republican party nowadays, and today's neo-conservative Republicans are really closer to an old school Democrat/liberal than a conservative.

To find real conservatives you have look elsewhere in the Libertarian and Constitution parties. Fiscally they are very conservative and both are certainly all about less government.

There are a number of real conservatives running for office as Republicans, you just have to look for them. Problem is nobody cares enough to do so.


RE: Son of a...
By Ammohunt on 10/16/2008 6:09:12 PM , Rating: 5
Fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive; see Nazi party circa 1939. Also fascism is not extreme right equivalent as far left is socialism/communism.


RE: Son of a...
By cochy on 10/17/2008 10:01:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
i'd rather stop destroying our planet.


Haha. You think we can "destroy our planet"? Destroying the Earth might be more difficult than you imagine.

http://qntm.org/?destroy


RE: Son of a...
By InvertMe on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 10/16/2008 11:39:35 AM , Rating: 3
No, Global Warming is a coined phrase to sell fear and whatever else. Just ask Al Gore and the 780 Million dollars he's made of the phrase Global Warming....


RE: Son of a...
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 1:30:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
No, Global Warming is a coined phrase to sell fear and whatever else. Just ask Al Gore and the 780 Million dollars he's made of the phrase Global Warming....


I cannot disagree with you there. I wish the term would go away and people would just focus on living cleaner. Striving to use renewable resources, cleaner ways to manufacture the good we use, less toxic toys, computers and cleaners... All things that have tangible real world benefits.


RE: Son of a...
By Tsuwamono on 10/16/2008 10:49:00 PM , Rating: 5
really regardless of the debate of whether or not global warming is real the fact is that SMOG is and its bad for HUMANS. forget about the planet for a second, smog is bad for us.
I really see no down side to living alittle "greener"


RE: Son of a...
By nycromes on 10/17/2008 9:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
Anything to keep pushing that agenda....every time information comes out that shows the contrary to the environmental movement they shift the focus to something else until that is refuted.

If you want to live cleaner because it makes you feel better... be my guest. On the other hand, don't tell me I have to spend my hard earned money to live "greener" because it makes you feel better. You earn your money, spend it as you want, but that means I get to spend my money as I like as well. Green products are more expensive and very often, less functional when compared to other products that serve the same purpose (ie: E85 vs Gasoline). I know you can probably show some products that are cheaper or just as functional at the same price and thats fine. The beauty of this country is I can purchase which ever product I decide to, not the one you want me to purchase, regardless of reason.


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/17/2008 2:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
Smog cools the planet. Some of the recent warming during the 20th century may be due to cleaner air as pollution controls were adopted.

Most of the debate is about plant food (CO2, the trace gas that is essential for most of the life on earth), and why it is so important to live in a hut and eat bugs to reduce your CO2 emissions. The goal of most of these efforts is to enable central control so that the populace is at the mercy of the Gaia worshippers.


RE: Son of a...
By Bickers on 10/20/2008 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
People - pleased find the time (you’ll need it) to read what I believe is a seminal ‘paper’ addressed to John McCain that is quite brilliant in it’s demolition of the AGW scam:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_let...


RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/2008 10:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
What would happen if all of the ice covering Antarctica melted? Would most of the planet be covered by water, or just coastal areas?

If yes...

Could a brief warming of Earth and melting of the poles have caused the sudden extinction of most dinosaurs and plant life (on land), yet happened so briefly as to leave little evidence that most of the earth was covered in water at one or more points in history?


RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By borismkv on 10/16/2008 11:12:23 AM , Rating: 4
<Insert Noah's ark joke here>


RE: Son of a...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 11:10:44 AM , Rating: 4
If all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland melted, it would raise sea levels by about 70 meters...so any area more than 70m above sea level would not be submerged. Ice mass in Antarctica is on a long-term growing trend, however, so that's a very unlikely event anytime in the next several thousand years.

There have been times in Earth's far past when sea levels were as much as 400m higher than they are today...but that seems to have been driven by changes in topology as well as melting ice -- a 'flatter' Earth can be covered by a much smaller amount of water.


RE: Son of a...
By phazers on 10/16/2008 3:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
I read only 60 meters (200 ft) - see the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica - but still that would put most of Florida under water, not to mention the Netherlands.

Conversely if most of the Artic icecap melted, sea levels would not change much since Artic ice is mostly floating already. If you have a glass full of ice cubes and water, and leave it overnight, you won't find a big puddle next morning (other than condensation). In fact, ice is less dense than water (since it floats), so the total volume would go down as the ice melts.

If Al Gore melted, we'd all be knee-deep in liquid fertilizer :)


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
If Al Gore dies ManBearPig will kill our imaginations. The solution is to nuke our imaginations.


RE: Son of a...
By modus2 on 10/17/2008 12:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the volume remains constant, the ice displaces exactly the same amount of water it contains -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcimedes#The_Golden_...

There is one reservation though, since desity varies with temperature (highest at 4C (approx 40F)) the above holds if the water in the glass is given sufficient time to reach the same temperature after ice insertion as it had before.


RE: Son of a...
By jimbojimbo on 10/16/2008 2:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people think if you put ice in a glass and fill it to the very top with water that when the ice melts the water will rise and spill all over the place.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 10:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm agreeing with many of those people doing research, building models, and publishing in respectable scientific journals when I say that.


RE: Son of a...
By Lifted on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By porkpie on 10/16/2008 10:47:34 AM , Rating: 5
If you don't count the computer modellers and look only at the people doing real research in atmospheric science and climatology, most of them don't believe in AGW either.

All the scary stories come from the modelers, a group of people who have yet to make a valid prediction for even a year in the future.


RE: Son of a...
By borismkv on 10/16/2008 11:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
A year? Thus far their track record is worse than the local weather man.


RE: Son of a...
By Mitch101 on 10/16/2008 11:32:44 AM , Rating: 5
Is the glass half empty or half full?

I love the weather when here we have the worst drought in years and 50 miles west we have the worst rainfall ever.

Of course this is where people come out of the woodwork to claim you see the drought its global warming we need to do something immediately while never asking the people 50 miles away if they think there is a drought problem as their house gets washed away.

I don't know what makes people expect a rain cloud to take the same route every year but if they certainly know something about this then by all means let them predict the path of a hurricane 7 days out and measure how far off they end up being. Then let them explain why its didnt go that way.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCraparo on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By Dove2Three on 10/16/2008 11:34:03 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know about him, but your post (and you aping his login name) is about the most childishly immature thing I've seen all month.

If you're trying to make him look good by comparison, congrats, you succeeded.


RE: Son of a...
By Nfarce on 10/16/2008 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 5
I see those kinds of juvenile tactics (morphing/spoofing other people's IDs) all the time on political blogs. The real funny thing is they really think they are making a difference and swaying people's opinions about the bloggers they've spoofed. It reminds me of a five year old child throwing a tantrum for attention.


RE: Son of a...
By werepossum on 10/20/2008 6:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see those kinds of juvenile tactics (morphing/spoofing other people's IDs) all the time on political blogs. The real funny thing is they really think they are making a difference and swaying people's opinions about the bloggers they've spoofed. It reminds me of a five year old child throwing a tantrum for attention.


One small correction, sir: They feel they are making a difference and swaying people's opinions. These are feelers, not thinkers.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:45:56 PM , Rating: 5
I applaud you sir.


RE: Son of a...
By mkrech on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By mkrech on 10/16/2008 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 4
Wow... I am an idiot... DOH !!
I guess I should look before I type.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=p&car_id=...

No here it is right here. Feel free to buy it. And then use it to drive yourself off a cliff.


RE: Son of a...
By Spuke on 10/16/2008 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Your car is spotless dude.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 3:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
The front has the normal nicks from the road. And there's a scratch on the driver door. But yes I keep it clean. And the sad thing is, that's before I spent 4 hours waxing it. ;)

But yes it's amazing what actually taking care of your car can do. I treat the leather regularly. Vacuum it. Use Armorall on the dash and other plastic parts. I cleaned the engine bay all up with Armorall. I even treat the leather of the shifter boot.

The interior definitely is the best part of the car. Other than some chips in the paint on the plastic around the window switches, the wear marks on the floor mat where my feet go, and some wrinkles in the leather on the drivers seat from me sitting on it for 43,000 miles, it looks practically new. And I've gotten comments as such. Have a guy coming to look at it Saturday so I'm hoping to get it sold and get into the GTO I'm buying. And I'll take even better care of that car than this one. Will probably get waxed every 4 months instead of every 6. And will treat the leather + Armorall it on the same schedule.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By jhawke on 10/16/2008 7:50:08 PM , Rating: 1
Only a little punk b!tch left wing bedwetting pansyassed liberal would be so stupid as you, PUNK. GFY. Trash.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 7:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
You are quite entertaining. It makes me feel good inside that someone I don't know is so pathetic that they think I actually care what their opinion is of me. It also makes me feel good that when I finish this comment, I will forget all about you until I see another one of your dumb comments. But you. You clearly are irritated by me enough that you think about what I say when you are not reading them and decided to make a host of stupid names to try and get to me. Either that or you saw someone else do it and just joined the club because you can't come up with an idea on your own.

So please. Keep the comments coming. You'll just keep me smiling.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Son of a...
By Nfarce on 10/16/2008 11:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
And just think, 30 years ago all the hysteria and rage was over global cooling:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Follow the money and the pundits and political lobbyists accordingly.

Record early snow in Boise, ID!:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/530075.htm...


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 3
God Bless America. Except Idaho. F*CK IDAHO.

(I'm sure a few of you will know where that's from)


RE: Son of a...
By Sulphademus on 10/16/2008 1:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think its obvious whats going on here: Sarah Palin's plan to halt deglaciation is working! Take that hippies!


RE: Son of a...
By Nfarce on 10/17/2008 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
I see how this forum works with hot political topics. When you present facts, just get voted down by someone who doesn't agree with said facts. How childish.


RE: Son of a...
By MastermindX on 10/16/2008 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 5
Yes... Climate is cyclical. It doesn't mean global warming does not exists.

Temperature can go up during global cooling.
Temperature can go down during global warming.

It's like the stock market. It lost 20% in the last week... But over time, it returns an average of 7% a year.

The truth is, we produce more carbon dioxide than the environment can absorb back, producing a build up in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)

Now, does it have a really significant effect on global temperature? I'm no expert to even pretend to know the answer.

As I read in another article, another thing to take into account is that "pollution" is not always causing greenhouse effect. Some waste "thrown" in the atmosphere actually have a cooling effect.

Do I believe human activities have an effect on global temperature? Yes!
Do I believe it can be significant enough to warrant research in clean energy? Yes!
Do I believe we should do ALL we can to stop ALL carbon dioxide emissions? No.

And even if pollution had no effect on the weather, being able to breath cleaner air would be a good enough reason to do research on clean energies.


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/16/2008 2:10:54 PM , Rating: 4
If the real benefit of any of these actions is to "clean" the air (as if CO2 were a pollutant instead of plant food), then this justification should stand on its own, and not need the primary justification of "climate change" and the fear pumped by the politicians to support it. Since this isn't a very good justification for spending trillions of dollars, the fear is needed to achieve the political goals. Kind of like the WMD's in Iraq.


RE: Son of a...
By Spuke on 10/16/2008 3:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Temperature can go up during global cooling. Temperature can go down during global warming.
So no matter what anyone says, if someone else says something is, then it isn't and if that someone or some else says something isn't, then it is.


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:00:05 AM , Rating: 3
CO2 itself has a big problem on ecology.

The effect of it on coral reefs are well documented. CO2 itself is a proven green house gas.
It's proven that the sea can only absorb so much of it, and with dire consquence to shelled sea life that relies on carbonated shells.
It's also proven that tropical forest does not actually grow faster when more CO2 is available, actually they spill out more CO2.

On another topic, I think new scientist has an excellent article on environment and economy.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg2002...

This topic is often ignored by government and general population. The verdict is that earth resources are limited and it just cannot sustain economy growth at current pace indefinitely without dire environmental consequences. Yet all government in the world strife for economy growth as their main policy.


RE: Son of a...
By Rodney McNaggerton on 10/16/2008 4:51:04 PM , Rating: 4
We're not fighting anything. The problem I have with global warming is the way it is presented. Currently it is presented like this: WE know that we're killing the earth and we need to stop it now or else the planet is going to get warmer and millions of people are going to die. (notice the use of guilt) They way it should be presented, in my opinion, is this: If you look at lots of data on average temperatures, glacier shrinkage, rainfall, etc. you will notice that there seems to be a trend occurring. Now, we cannot prove that people are responsible for this trend, but if so why not burn a bit less gas? Why not use more energy efficient light bulbs? Why not pursue alternative, and renewable, sources of energy? What bad could possibly come from using a bit less energy and releasing a bit less CO2?


RE: Son of a...
By thepalinator on 10/16/2008 4:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
You make it all sound so nice and sweet. But then along comes the reality: things like Kyoto and Lieberman Warner cap-and-trade laws. Things that will cost trillions and trillions of dollars and make energy much more expensive and scarce for everyone in the world.

There is a lot of harm that comes from that.


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
Trillions and trillions of dollars is an overstatement.

Scientifically, even the most optimistic scenario of climate change would mean economic loss of multiple magnitude of trillion of dollars, the cost of solving that is indeed trillion of dollars. However, New Scientist has noted that the bail out package for the financial turmoil for US alone, is enough to pay for recovery package of environmental policy for 15 years out of 50 years total.


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/17/2008 2:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
It may be an under-estimate, I've seen estimates in the tens of trillions, and the benefit might be to avoid 0.2C of warming over a century. People are starving and dying of disease now. If we want to spend this kind of money, why don't we help those in definite need now, rather than those that may or may not be in need 100 years from now? Read some of Bjorn Lomborg's work.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 5:11:58 PM , Rating: 1
If we look at global warming like that then the theory of mankind causing it falls on its face. Hence why they have to use the fear tactic.

I've no problem with efficiency and clean, CHEAP energy(an area that solar and wind do not currently fall into). But government mandates to further a cause that is a lie I have no tolerance for. If the market demands more fuel efficient vehicles, then the manufacturers will supply them. People didn't rush out and buy more fuel efficient vehicles to stop global warming. Nor did fuel prices rise because of it. However, now manufacturers are forced to provide more fuel efficient cars by 2020 which will cost billions all because of the idea of man-made global warming. And it will remove manufacturers ability to sell larger vehicles that some people want and/or need.

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is an economics decision, not an environmental one.


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
I suggest you read the New Scientist article on environment and economics. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg2002...

What you or economist doesn't understand is, you cannot grow economy every year at this pace indefinitely. Resource and well-being of the planet can only sustain so much population and resources ouput, and no technological advances can increase that further. You either brake at our generation, or some of the later generations will suffer more because of the harm done at this stage.

If you are always to put economics first, environment second, This system will fail at some point in time definitely and proven. If every person in time in future think in your way, mankind is doomed.


RE: Son of a...
By Meinolf on 10/16/2008 5:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Global Warming.


RE: Son of a...
By swizeus on 10/16/2008 7:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha.... then you REALIZE it....
Do you ALSO realize that what comes from that campaign is a NEW product ? that campaign is a worldwide advertisement so every producer in THIS world can tap into new market segment (dubbed Green Segment), even discovery Channel got a part (planet Green Section). A Global Conspiracy isn't it ?


RE: Son of a...
By wookie1 on 10/17/2008 2:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, AGW is a gravy train for anyone who signs on to support it.


RE: Son of a...
By on 10/16/2008 11:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet! Imma gonna put some snow chains on my sweet Chevy Cobalt, complete with fart can and whale tail, and cruise the new glaciers looking for baby harbor seals to club to death. Maybe I'll look for some polar bears to run over too. Screw those goddamn hippie tree-hugger animals anyway. They should get a frigging job instead of living off of government handouts.


RE: Son of a...
By FITCraparo on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Son of a...
By Justin Case on 10/17/2008 2:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you think that "global warming" means "every single place in the globe is getting warmer". It doesn't. I means the average global temperature increases. If 25% of the globe gets warmer by 4 degrees and 75% of the globe gets colder by 1 degree, the average global temperature has increased. And the average global temperature has been increasing.

When you say that "climate is cyclical" and "we shound't try to fight it", does that apply to ice ages? They're cyclical, too. Are you planning to freeze to death because they're "natural" and we mustn't mess with mother nature?

Global warming and the resulting climate change costs billions to the worldwide economy, in the medium and long term (stronger storms, receding coastlines, bigger temperature differentials between summer and winter, etc.). And this is ignoring the possibility of a "tipping point" scenario, whose consequences wouldn't just be expensive; they'd be catastrophic.

If we want to survive as a species, it's about time we learned to stabilize our climate. If the Sun gets hotter, we need to get rid of the excess heat. If the Sun gets colder, we need to keep the heat from escaping.

Some people seem to think that the Earth was built just for us, by some god, and therefore can't even conceive the possibility that it won't magically cope with everything that hits it (pollution, deforestation, increased solar radiation, asteroids, comets, whatever). The Rapa Nui also couldn't conceive the possibility that new trees would stop growing.


RE: Son of a...
By JediJeb on 10/17/2008 1:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you think that "global warming" means "every single place in the globe is getting warmer". It doesn't. I means the average global temperature increases. If 25% of the globe gets warmer by 4 degrees and 75% of the globe gets colder by 1 degree, the average global temperature has increased. And the average global temperature has been increasing.

Wasn't there a story here not long ago that showed from an official record that the average global temperature actually fell about 0.7C last year?


RE: Son of a...
By Justin Case on 10/17/2008 7:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you mean "here" inside the climatic reality distortion field, anything is possible. If you mean "here" on planet Earth, then no.

If the average global temperature over an entire year fell by 0.7 C, we'd probably be heading into an ice age. It rose about 1 C in the last 150 years. If it rises another two degrees, several major cities will be underwater.

Note that, within each year (or even within a single month), temperature can vary a lot. To analyze global temperature trends you need to "smooth" it out over 5 or 10 years (that also eliminates solar cycles as a factor - see below). Weather and climate are different things.

The average global temperature is likely to go down slightly (meaning about 0.07 C) over the next two or three years (there's a "peak" every 60 years or so, and the last one was in 2005 - hottest year ever), but the trend shows a clear increase.

Comparing just the peaks, the last one (~2000) was 0.45 C higher than the one before (~1940), which in turn was 0.05 higher than the previous one (~1880). Between 1910 and 2005 global temperature rose by 0.9 C. And not only is the temperature increasing, it's also increasing faster each decade.

This has nothing to do with "solar radiation cycles", which are of ~10.5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-dat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Tempe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_...

I'd post links to climate journals, science magazines, etc., but most of those require subscriptions. Basically everyone with a clue and / or a science degree agrees that this is going on. It's unlikely to have a single cause, but ultimately that's irrelevant. We can't reduce solar radiation, so the only way to stabilize things is to play with the stuff we can control (greenhouse gases and amount of energy released into the atmosphere).


RE: Son of a...
By AnnihilatorX on 10/17/2008 4:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
Just because a certain person wins the jackpot in a casino doesn't mean the casino is losing money. In fact there are more players in that casino losing their money than that single person got from his jackpot.


RE: Son of a...
By spepper on 10/17/2008 6:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
If you mean our lovely US government wasting billions, I couldn't agree more strongly-- don't hold your breath though-- they're not known for their wise use of our tax dollars


RE: Son of a...
By McDragon on 10/20/2008 6:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen several articles mention increasing ice mass on the North Pole and now this.
Being a Dane, I regularily speak to people from Greenland, and they tell a vastly different story. They can tell the difference from year to year and all say there has never been so little ice. And if the ice was growing, how come we're just now opening the Northwest passage?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

I'm no fanatic, and I believe Nuclear power is the way to save the planet...But I do believe GW is here.


I knew!!
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/16/2008 10:42:33 AM , Rating: 4
This one was from Masher as soon as I read the title.

Will we ever see an article like this from Jason Mick, or one talking about some isolated evidence of global warming by Masher?

No, I think we'll never see that. :)

Meanwhile, we'll keep on having the nice article warz with each of them supporting his own ideology. Kinda fun, reading both sides you can make a somewhat impartial image in your mind about the status of these matters.




RE: I knew!!
By Hieyeck on 10/16/2008 11:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
There is no war. I think you kinda missed Asher's point... Jason is going bananas with his tree hugging. Asher is just saying for every bit of evidence that says there's global warming, there's evidence to say there's global cooling.

All this data Jason's using to "prove" his point has only existed for a miniscule amount of time - Earth is oh... 4.5 BILLION years old - even if we had 450 years of data, that's about 0.00001% of Earth's entire existence. The last ice age was 20 THOUSAND years ago. even 450 years of data is a drop in that bucket.

Jason's the only one pushing agendas, Asher's just trying to act as a counterbalance - devil's advocate if you will. Asher isn't for or against GW. He's pointing out that the entire fight is moot: good ol' force of nature and all the momentum behind it is going to do whatever it wants - humanity be damned.


RE: I knew!!
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 11:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
To be accurate Jason pushes greener technology mostly. Not so much global warming gloom and doom. There is nothing wrong with doing things better. Why people resist change is beyond me.


RE: I knew!!
By porkpie on 10/16/2008 11:38:02 AM , Rating: 5
The problem is "green" tech isn't a better way of doing things. If it was, you wouldn't need government laws to push people to use it.

Maybe wind, solar, ethanol, and other things will one day be better than other sources, but until that happens, the crap needs to stay in the lab and mature, and not have tens of billions of tax dollars spent to subsidize it.


RE: I knew!!
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 12:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
I completely aggree with you. There is a lot of room for improvment on "green" technologies.


RE: I knew!!
By Justin Case on 10/17/2008 1:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Regulating the stock market, mortgages and loans is also a bad way of doing things. If it was, you wouldn't need government laws to push banks to do it. Let the banks do as they please, and the market will self-regulate.

Oh, wait.

Guess what, most industry (like most banks, etc.) these days cares only about short-term profits, frequently at the cost of the whole sector's long-term survivability (auto industry anyone?). In this case the "sector" happens to be the only planet we live on.

Believing the industry will "self-regulate" is like believing that you don't need police or jails or laws against murder and theft because "people will self-regulate". Must be nice over there in la-la land, but try visiting the real world some time.

Governments and laws exist for a reason. Just because you happened to support an incompetent government that did more to screw us up in eight years than all our (real and made-up) enemies combined, don't pretend now that the problem is with the concept of regulation. On the contrary, the problem is with the morons who think regulation is unnecessary (and the morons who put them there and continued to support them as the hole got deeper, because they'd rather screw everyone else than lose face by admitting they were wrong).


RE: I knew!!
By Hieyeck on 10/16/2008 11:46:27 AM , Rating: 5
Yes... to a point. There's practical green, and there's tree-hugger green. Practical green would be nuclear power and hydrogen cars. Tree-hugger green is solar panels with toxic chemicals used in its manufacturing and prohibitively expensive (or a long profit turnover) wind turbines. To the tree-huggers, it's only the end-result that matters, process be damned.

People forget it's his type that practically stalled nuclear development in the 70s. If they didn't, we might just be all: 1. on cleaner nuclear power - the theories to recycle and reduce nuclear waste existed decades ago, but thanks to the nuclear stall, they sat dormant until recently; 2. not dependent on foreign oil.

PS. Some Mickist FUD you might've missed:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12276
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12218
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12027


RE: I knew!!
By Hieyeck on 10/16/2008 11:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
Forgot to mention - using biofuels while kids are starving in Africa. Yea, really green stuff there.


RE: I knew!!
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
More dead people increases their food supply.

Yeah that was terrible...maybe I should see that shrink...


RE: I knew!!
By BikeDude on 10/16/2008 4:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
I read a small news blurb today, which said that food prices are quite high, but there "is enough food".

So...

1. Is it better to produce too much food, so we can keep prices down and throw away the stuff we don't eat?

2. Lower prices for food means farmers get less paid. The ones that are hurt the most by this is third world farmers who cannot afford the luxury of using oil-based fertilizers.

3. Food prices was recently on a historic low. Feel free to compare prices now with the prices 30 years ago. Still much lower.

4. Most ethanol is produced in Brazil. I doubt growing cheap food in South America will help the Africans much.

5. ...but the cheaper oil prices as a result of more people using bio-fuels will help everyone!

6. In the end, the ugly question "just how large a population can our planet sustain?" rears it head, followed by "is it better to have 100 million starve to death now, compared with billions some years from now when the real food shortage will hit us?"

7. If Americans are really concerned about the food prices, they should start eating less. There really is no need for anyone to weigh more than 100kg.

--
Rune


RE: I knew!!
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 8:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
Brazil produces a lot of ethanol this is true. However, because the government taxes the imported ethanol so much and subsidizes the American made ethanol so much, the American made stuff is "cheaper" to buy.


RE: I knew!!
By Ringold on 10/16/2008 9:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Is it better to produce too much food, so we can keep prices down and throw away the stuff we don't eat?


Lower prices doesn't necessarily mean food gets tossed in the ocean.

quote:
2. Lower prices for food means farmers get less paid. The ones that are hurt the most by this is third world farmers who cannot afford the luxury of using oil-based fertilizers.


I'll also tackle 3, regarding historic low prices. Prices were low for a reason. Prices surged for a reason. The reasons are the same. Governments, in America, Europe as well as developing countries, have erected trade barriers and put in place large subsidies that distort global markets and protect their farmers. This has meant that farmers who should've gone on to other things have stuck around pumping out too much food, depressing prices. Then we, the US, comes along and suddenly over the space of a few years divert about 1/3 of our domestic maize crop to ethanol, and put in place mandates for even more ethanol. Economists warned at the very start of the ethanol craze it'd drive up prices, asking how ethical that would be.. but when the farm lobby and liberals get together, the resulting force is unstoppable.

Prices did need to be a bit higher, but before prices came back down it was way too high.

quote:
4. Most ethanol is produced in Brazil. I doubt growing cheap food in South America will help the Africans much.


We have an import tariff on Brazilian ethanol, and thus almost none is imported.

quote:
5. ...but the cheaper oil prices as a result of more people using bio-fuels will help everyone!


Not if, as has been the case up till now, biofuels wreak havoc in other markets just to have a tiny impact on oil prices. Oil is coming down because of a global recession, not ethanol. Also, you appear concerned about Africa and poor countries, but that happens to be where a lot of oil is. Lower oil prices mean less revenue their governments have to invest in human capital and infrastructure. Double edged sword!

quote:
just how large a population can our planet sustain?"


As long as we aren't burning food for fuel, Brazil alone has vast tracts of land that could be brought under cultivation, and if everybody had the same productivity as American farmers.. we're no where near the limit we could sustain over time. The above question only rears its head with the same idiots that thought in the 70s that by 2000 the world would have already collapsed in to mass famine.


RE: I knew!!
By Justin Case on 10/17/2008 8:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Famine in Africa has nothing to do with the amount of food being produced globally, just as poverty in the streets of Calcutta has nothing to do with the amount of money circulating globally.

Besides, no idea what "green" (meaning ecological, I assume) has to do with famine. You're talking about producing food in one part of the world vs. the lack of food in a completely different place. How it that a "green" issue? It seems you're just picking nonsensical arguments to support your prejudiced and flawed understanding of what ecology is.


RE: I knew!!
By Justin Case on 10/17/2008 8:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Wind turbines are viable in some areas, but very few. Biodiesel as it exists in the US is a scam. Solar panels, on the other hand, have improved massively over the past few years, and are set to improve even more over the next decade.

For the short-term, lots of nuclear plus some solar is definitely the way to go, and most real ecologists (the ones with a science degree, not the rich drop-outs who think it's cool to be in Greenpeace) agree.

In the long term, solar will probably replace everything else (virtually all the energy on Earth comes from there anyway; we'll just be cutting out the middle man).

But if you think we don't have more nuclear because of the "tree-huggers", you're very naif. Sorry to shatter your worldview, but the "tree-hugger lobby" doesn't have nearly as much power as the people who would lose millions if nuclear was adopted in large scale: big oil.

If we didn't waste oil to generate electricity, we'd be (almost) self-sufficient for transportation (which is the area where the energy density of fossil fuels is really essential). But when you have a president that walks hand in hand with the biggest oil "pusher" in the world, what do you expect?


RE: I knew!!
By arazok on 10/16/2008 12:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that people like Jason push green technology regardless of it’s practicality. If it’s green, but twice the cost of what it replaces, the cost is ignored and it’s declared a great improvement.


RE: I knew!!
By Curelom on 10/16/2008 12:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
Am I pro global warming or anti global warming?

oh, wait ....

I think I'm for it. I think we need lots of global warming. ;-)


RE: I knew!!
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:49:49 PM , Rating: 3
Think about it. The hotter it gets, the less clothes women wear. Of course then fat chicks wear even less. But you gotta take the good with the bad. Besides, maybe they'll sweat off some pounds.


RE: I knew!!
By ShammGod126 on 10/17/2008 10:29:06 AM , Rating: 2
Nelly: Its gettin hot in here
So take off all your clothes

Women: I am gettin So hot, I wanna take my clothes off


RE: I knew!!
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/18/2008 12:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
In California, I guess in a hot day, you could say to a girl something in the likes of "Your clothes, give them to me, NOW".


RE: I knew!!
By foolsgambit11 on 10/16/2008 8:26:53 PM , Rating: 1
Always root for the underdog. It's the American way. The problem is that both sides are the underdog in this one, in different ways. Most scientists believe in GW, but nothing is being done - so your either the underdog by 'disproving' GW, or by fighting to implement change because of it. But either way, they are both agendas. One agenda is trying to push through change, the other agenda is trying to block that change. Your statement that bucking scientifically accepted theories (in order to prevent a policy shift with respect to 'green tech') isn't an agenda is simply misguided rhetoric. It may be an agenda you support, but it's an agenda.

And it's not true that for every bit of evidence that supports GW there's evidence against it. The evidence is impartial, really. The most-accepted interpretations of that evidence seem to support GW. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and bias. A healthy skeptic examines the evidence critically. A biased judge cherry-picks the evidence they want to hear. For instance, the final results for this year's polar ice melt are available, but masher still hasn't put out a new article reporting those numbers. While still a better year than last, the final numbers were significantly below those reported in the article he linked to in this article - the numbers he declared were those for the end of the melting season. The total difference was over 30% less than he reported. (See how statistics can be cleverly manipulated? 30% is a big percentage. It's the difference between the 13% greater coverage he reported in August and the 9% greater coverage that was the final number for September. So his numbers were 4% too high, a 30% difference.)

Of course, what we really need is somebody acting impartially - you know, like, um, scientists, who would look at the evidence, and balance the conflicting interpretations to come to some conclusion about the effect of human activity on global climate. Unfortunately, whenever we try to structure a group like that, one side of the debate engages in ad hominem attacks against the members of that group. Additionally, once the report is issued (by say, some kind of theoretical intergovernmental panel on climate change. Hmm. That's a good name. They should call themselves that.) the decision of what are acceptable sacrifices that would result in real tangible improvements is left open to further debate.

There is an especially tricky concern in balancing liberty and safety. The (generally) accepted rule has been that as long as you don't hurt others, you're within your rights of freedom. But when the causality of one's actions are once or twice removed, it is difficult to see where the line should be drawn. My coffee or clothing choices may hurt others indirectly, but am I really responsible for the indirect consequences of my actions? The issue is even more clouded when we are talking about the combined choices of a billion, nay, 6 billion people. What I'm saying is that, even accepting anthropogenic global warming, the path forward is not clear.

Your argument that the length of recorded history is too small to make judgments about climate trends clashes with your acceptance of this single data point (a much smaller time period) as evidence of global cooling. I'll just throw that out there, without supporting that we have enough evidence to make decisions about global warming, because I leave that decision to scientists. (Ad verecundiam, I know. But c'mon, it's the basis of representational democracy. Put competent people in a position of trust. It's seems to be the best we mere mortals can do.)

And I'll finish by saying that Asher is not 'just saying for every bit of evidence that says there's global warming, there's evidence to say there's global cooling' in this article. Unless you count anecdotal evidence. In this article, and the linked article he used as a source for it, there are no real figures. It's "the worst summer" one guy has seen "in 20 years". In one location in Alaska, there was still snow on top of the ice field - in July. What about now? In another location (the landslide he mentions) there is no snow now, but there was snow longer than usual (obviously not a glacier, since it's usually snow-free part of the year). Let's see some numbers. How much bigger are the Alaskan glaciers this year than last? What is the normal annual change in glacier coverage? These questions would help us understand exactly what is going on better than isolated data points (points are meaningless in isolation when you're trying to determine a trend).

Answer those questions, and that would be a data point that was lower than the upward trend in temperatures (along with the sea ice data point). But even so, it takes more than one winter-summer combo to be evidence of global cooling. Like the original article says, talk to me when we've had ten summers like this (hey, I'll take four or five), and we'll start talking about evidence for global cooling.


RE: I knew!!
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/17/2008 3:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
I fairly know the arguments of them both, but that wasn't what my point was about :D


That may be so but...
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 9:56:39 AM , Rating: 5
It's hot as hell where I live for this time of year.

While I don't really believe in "global warming" I do think that the environment is unpredictable and there are so many factors that go into it that it will be hundreds of years before we really understand why mother nature does what it does. That said I think we are just in an unpredictable stage.

Still - even though I don't believe in global warming I still believe that living cleaner and using less resources is only a good thing. I for one like to get a nice breath of fresh air when I step outside. Not a lung full of smog or whatever waste happens to be floating by.




RE: That may be so but...
By martinrichards23 on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: That may be so but...
By kellehair on 10/16/2008 10:38:24 AM , Rating: 5
Really?

re·li·gion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


RE: That may be so but...
By probedb on 10/16/2008 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
re·li·gion –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe , esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances , and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


So you're saying recycling is now a ritual observance of the the new religion that is global warming?

Also we're talking about a planet, that definition quite clearly says universe.


RE: That may be so but...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 10:56:11 AM , Rating: 5
I believe Crichton nailed it when he called AGW the new religion of liberal urbanites. Look at the widespread references to Gaia, "Mother Earth", and the belief the planet is a living organism. Also note the widespread rejection of any suggestions to mitigate GW through technology -- the only solution adherents are willing to consider involves us admitting to our guilt over our sinful lifestyle, and making a sacrifice by giving up some part of it.

No different than going to the priest, saying "forgive me father for I have sinned", then taking your penance.


RE: That may be so but...
By nah on 10/16/2008 11:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No different than going to the priest, saying "forgive me father for I have sinned", then taking your penance.


The analysis is excellent--


RE: That may be so but...
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 11:08:30 AM , Rating: 5
I think the topic scares some people (well a lot of people) and that's why for some it turns into a religous experience. Really that's the main reason for any religon - fear, acceptance and good old fashion brain washing.


RE: That may be so but...
By nah on 10/16/2008 12:51:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Really that's the main reason for any religon - fear, acceptance and good old fashion brain washing.


I disagree--people can make choices based on what they think is correct--it may be incorrect--but it isn't necessarily based on fear or acceptance


RE: That may be so but...
By Spuke on 10/16/2008 5:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but it isn't necessarily based on fear or acceptance
I agree but I think in this case it's just fear.


RE: That may be so but...
By Jim28 on 10/19/2008 12:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agree,

But unfortunately in this day and age, fear is constantly cultivated for various reasons in order to advance all sorts of agendas.


RE: That may be so but...
By Strunf on 10/16/2008 6:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Living in Europe I have never read any article calling earth Gaia, mother earth or anything else than earth... but then again the US is known for its sects so I'm not even surprised by what you say.


RE: That may be so but...
By mmntech on 10/16/2008 10:56:29 AM , Rating: 5
Lol. So true. Consider when David Suzuki wanted all politicians who deny global warming jailed. Yes, he was serious about that since he made the remark on two separate occasions. That's not too much of a stretch from say the Catholic church excommunicating politicians for voting in favour of gay marriage.

As a person with half a brain, I have to be sceptical each time somebody tells me the world is going to end. I don't care if they're a "Nobel Prize winning scientist" or some bum on the street with a sandwich board and a tin foil hat. The truth is that each year these "scientists" make predictions of climate catastrophe for the year ahead, and each year these predictions fail to become a reality. The facts are simple. We are not living in the hottest time in human history and any temperature changes have shown to be negligible. Such small changes can be chocked up to natural variance and are hardly crisis worthy. It's not that I'm saying we shouldn't stop polluting, I just take objection when these people demand I pay (in the form of carbon taxes) them money to protect me from the sky falling.

If there's only one good thing about this economic downturn, it's that it has cooled (pun intended) the AGW movement.


RE: That may be so but...
By arazok on 10/16/2008 10:51:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Its not a religion.


Yes it is.


Objective Truth
By sgw2n5 on 10/16/2008 1:23:50 PM , Rating: 3
-AGW is a scare tactic used to gain semblance of control through fear. It is easy to control people's behavior if you can make them afraid of something that isn't real (global warming, hell, god, etc.)

-The climate is indeed fluctuating, always has. Humanity obviously contributes to climate change, but affects an extremely minuscule change.

-Why do we keep having these articles when AGW can neither be proven nor dis proven until hundreds of thousands of years down the road when the size of the data set becomes relevant? Page views?




RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 1:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
You know I've always loved the term "god fearing". So he's supposed to be all great and everything but we're supposed to fear him? Hence why I no longer consider myself Christian.


RE: Objective Truth
By Curelom on 10/16/2008 1:48:16 PM , Rating: 1
wth,
You stopped being a Christian because of the term "god fearing"?
Not all Christian churches preach a fearing manner, in fact many don't but preach a gospel of love. Perhaps you should check out a few others.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 1:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
It was one of many ideas leading to my decision yes. Also kind of hard to be Christian when you don't believe in Jesus. Churches tend to frown on that.


RE: Objective Truth
By Curelom on 10/16/2008 2:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that would be a deal breaker.


RE: Objective Truth
By sgw2n5 on 10/16/2008 2:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine how different the world would be if ~2000 years ago Jerusalem would have had an asylum. We would probably have flying cars and nuclear fusion by now if it weren't for all of those centuries when science was seen as perverse and heretical, and science is still seen that way by many people (especially in America and the Middle east).

FIT-
Jesus was real, he was just a pacifist jewish guy who convinced people he was the son of a deity.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 2:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FIT- Jesus was real, he was just a pacifist jewish guy who convinced people he was the son of a deity.


I said I didn't believe in him. Not that he didn't exist. He did exist. That much we know from Roman documents.


RE: Objective Truth
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 2:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
Eh? Not unless they've found some new primary source documents since I took college history. The first independent historical records to him show up 60 years after his death, after the Jesus myth was already widespread.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 3:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

And your point is sort of a reason I do not believe. It's asking me to believe in things written 1,900-6,000 years ago by people who if they saw me holding a flashlight would accuse me of sorcery.

Am I nearly 100% certain (since there is not way I can be 100% sure) that a man named Jesus or that history has called Jesus existed? Yes. Do I think he was the son of God? No. Not saying he wasn't, but just that I have a hard time believing he was.

Even stories like King Arthur are rooted in truths. Did he fight dragons and stuff? No. Did he exist? Yes. Actually the last King Arthur movie they made that I saw was rooted in what we've come to learn more recently about him.


RE: Objective Truth
By Curelom on 10/16/2008 3:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
Are you saying Jesus is responsible for the dark ages?
The dark ages were due to an apostate church that no longer followed his doctrine.

You're also claiming he would have been thrown in an asylum if they had one?

I think you need to read your history a little better.

I'd respond more, but this is already WAY off topic.

Jesus is the son of God and does live even today.


RE: Objective Truth
By sgw2n5 on 10/16/2008 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
You keep right on believing that, good for you.

Since he is alive and well today, where might I find him? Do you have his cell#?

...i think i already know how your going to answer this.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 4:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
Don't make fun of him for his beliefs. He has a right to them. They aren't stupid or ignorant. That's why they're called beliefs. And it's why we live in a free country.

I have no problem with anyone's beliefs as long as they do not involve harming me and they do not try to force them on me. Now radical Islam I have a problem with since it calls for my death.

He has tried to do neither.


RE: Objective Truth
By sgw2n5 on 10/16/2008 6:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't call his beliefs stupid or ignorant, and yes, of course he has a right to believe whatever he wants. I have no problem with religion as long as religious ideals aren't legislated or otherwise forced upon me. Conversely, as an American, I also have a right to question or poke fun at anyone I want... and he has the right to ignore me. :D


RE: Objective Truth
By Gzus666 on 10/17/2008 10:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well with all due respect, many people believe in: global warming, holes in the ozone, evolution isn't real, the earth is flat, the earth is 5,000 years old, dinosaurs and people roamed the earth together, magic, ghosts, and the list could go on for days.

Does this automatically let them off the hook of any scrutiny because it is their belief? I think not, religion is the ultimate in ignorance, especially when you delve into it with a logical thought process and objective reasoning. Hell, look at the writings in the bible for just non-stop illogical crap. In the beginning stuff is riddled with fallacies that we have proven through science. God had to rest? Really? Jesus had to die for people's sins? Yea that makes perfect sense. Clearly an omnipotent being needs sacrifice to make things better. These things are just as stupid as the previously mentioned beliefs, lets not kid ourselves.

It is a children's story someone chose to take too far. I tend not to pick on the Hindus and Buddhists, but only cause they rarely bother anyone with their beliefs, so they don't come up. They are silly, but at least they don't bother people with their BS.

Do I think they are all entitled to believe in these things? But of course. Do I think they are free from being questioned? Of course not. I don't see why they are automatically given free reign just cause they are in a cult (religion).


RE: Objective Truth
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 4:13:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Jesus is the son of God and does live even today.


After you said that I felt really sorry for you.. Odd...


RE: Objective Truth
By Hawkido on 10/17/2008 7:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
Fear is a mistranslation, the original word contains much more meaning... A more appropriate word would be respecting.

As with anyone you respect, you also fear their shame of you.

I doubt the word selection of the poorly translated King James bible *SEE FOOTNOTE* has much at all to do with you leaving the faith, as much as your desire to not be restrained from your natural ways. There is nothing wrong with not being a Christian, Freedom of speech and freedom of choice were not American inventions. Free Will is a divine creation.

* The King James Bible was translated from Greek, Paleo-Hebrew, and Aramaic into Old English. At a time when Aramaic and Paleo-Hebrew had been dead for 1000 years or more, now even Old English is dead and Greek remains as the only living language of all the languages involved in the King James bible translation, and even Modern Greek is a far cry from Anchient Greek. Remember the Roseta Stone hadn't been found yet, and the scholars of the age also feared *not respected* King James and "translated" certain things in a manner in which he would more appreciate *and by appreciate I mean not chop off their heads*.


RE: Objective Truth
By foolsgambit11 on 10/16/2008 8:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. You're not a God-fearing Christian. And you live in South Carolina? I didn't know they let your kind in.

Kidding. South Carolina is a diverse state. Charleston has a large liberal community, for instance. It's a nice place. And many there have a very clear-headed view of conservation as an issue that should concern everyone, not just tree-hugging hippies. I used to listen to a South Carolina NPR station when I was stationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia.

And I totally understand your feelings about the contradictions in the traditions and doctrines of Christianity.

Now, let our antagonism resume.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 10:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the liberals in this state are either poor and just want government handouts or are college students.


Hmmmmmm.
By Nightowl358 on 10/16/2008 9:54:09 AM , Rating: 1
Yet, Al Gore and the tree hugging hippies of the world still continue to push that fallacy known as Global Warming.




RE: Hmmmmmm.
By probedb on 10/16/2008 11:00:05 AM , Rating: 2
But what does it matter if what we do as a result of it is a good thing?

Recycling, environmentally friendly products, cars that get better MPG, less reliance on fossil fuels etc.

If we don't do a lot of this then we *will* run out of natural resources and we'll be royally f****d.

Whether global warming is real or not is irrelevant as far as those things are concerned.


RE: Hmmmmmm.
By Curelom on 10/16/2008 12:22:59 PM , Rating: 3
Whether global warming is real or not is completly relevant. You don't have to sacrifice truth. The ends do NOT justify the means. Recycling, less pollution, all good things, but do it under truthful principles rather than the ruse of global warming.


RE: Hmmmmmm.
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 12:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
So what if we develop algae that can produce all the fuel we'll ever need forever. As we've already done (it just needs to be scaled up).

Then do we need even more fuel efficient cars? Environmentalists will tell you yes because carbon is this evil thing now. It doesn't matter that our bodies contain large amounts of carbon. Or that the environment sends more carbon into the atmosphere then we can ever hope to. We have to stop producing it.

I'm all for recycling though because otherwise we're just wasting perfectly good stuff.


RE: Hmmmmmm.
By Curelom on 10/16/2008 1:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, when I mean less pollution, I'm not talking CO2. I'm talking REAL pollution.

*cough*

Oh, wait, I just polluted.

*cough*

There I go again.

I don't get the commerical where the tree goes up and hugs the house because it is using less CO2. Trees breath CO2


RE: Hmmmmmm.
By Omega215D on 10/16/2008 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe the tree was attempting to strangle the house that emitted less CO2 but couldn't because it was malnourished.


RE: Hmmmmmm.
By foolsgambit11 on 10/16/2008 8:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think because people conflate the release of greenhouse gasses and the release of other pollutants. Bad for the environment = bad for the environment, they think. And when much of our power comes from coal, there is some truth to that (despite reduced pollution levels). So if they use less CO2, that's the same as polluting less, which is good for the environment, represented by a friendly Ent, hugging his former flock, which has been cut up to make a house.


RE: Hmmmmmm.
By mdogs444 on 10/16/2008 1:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we don't do a lot of this then we *will* run out of natural resources and we'll be royally f****d.


Err no. I suggest you read up on the abundance of natural resources that we have. Not to mention, that as technology improves, so does efficiency. You really need to pull your head out of the sand Mr. Gore.


In other news...Death of an Alaskan village
By nah on 10/16/2008 10:41:14 AM , Rating: 3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7669143.stm

quote:
Alaska is at the vanguard of climate change. The state's northern parts have seen an average temperature rise of three degrees celsius in recent decades Now the permafrost - the frozen ground that previously kept the Ninglik stable, as well as providing a solid base for the village's scattered houses - is melting.


quote:
Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has set up special "immediate action" committees to deal with both the causes and consequences of global warming. She appointed environmental lawyer Larry Hartig as her commissioner for the environment. He accepts there is a massive challenge ahead. "Climate change is an immediate and serious problem for people all around this state," he says. "It's hitting us in a variety of ways right now. It's particularly hitting rural Alaska, with flooding and erosion. "It's also changing patterns of our fish and game around the state, which is impacting people's ability to get the subsistence foods they've relied on for hundreds of years." The University of Alaska Institute for Social and Economic Reform carried out a study into the costs of climate change, based on predictive climate models. It estimated the bills could run into billions of dollars.




RE: In other news...Death of an Alaskan village
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 11:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
Any analysis that says Alaska wouldn't benefit greatly from a temperature rise of 3-4 degrees is ludicrous on its face. That will mean less area covered by ice, a substantially longer growing season, much higher productivity for both farmed crops and wild plant growth, and many other positives.

The real danger is cold. If the state returns to the mean temperatures of 250 years ago, most of the state will be wholly uninhabitable.


RE: In other news...Death of an Alaskan village
By nah on 10/16/2008 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has set up special "immediate action" committees to deal with both the causes and consequences of global warming.


So this is completely meaningless--


RE: In other news...Death of an Alaskan village
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 11:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see the connection you're making. Climate change means change after all, and it's important to plan for that change. Furthermore, while the net effects of warming will be good for Alaska, there are undoubtably some negatives -- a tiny Inuit village on the edge of an ice floe, for instance, is going to have to adapt to change.

If you look at Alaska's Climate Change policy, you'll see they wisely focus on preplanning, adaption, and mitigation, rather than rashly attempting to stop the gears of nature:

http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/


RE: In other news...Death of an Alaskan village
By manoj252 on 10/16/2008 1:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think of the claims that melting the permafrost will release more methane (trapped in the ice right now) which will trigger higher temperatures and set off a vicious cycle?


By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 1:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
The clathrate gun hypothesis? It's prima facie plausible, though little real evidence exists to either support or deny it.

Regardless, since a great deal of current research suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is extremely low, then if the methane "gun" exists, it's going to fire from natural causes rather than anthropogenic...and we better prepare for mitigation and adaption, rather than wasting resources in a futile King-Canute style attempt to halt it.


RE: In other news...Death of an Alaskan village
By nah on 10/16/2008 1:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
rather than rashly attempting to stop the gears of nature:


I'm curious--what do you mean by this ?


By mdogs444 on 10/16/2008 1:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
He means they are drawing up plans on how to cope and adapt with climate change, rather than trying to come up with nonsensical ways to stop natural climate change.


Lies, lies, lies
By ddarko on 10/16/2008 1:46:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As DailyTech reported earlier, Arctic sea ice this year has also increased substantially from its low in 2007.


As usual, keep on repeating the lies in the hope that lying enough and loudly enough, even when the actual science disproves you, will make you right.

Here's what US National Snow and Ice Data Center really said about Arctic sea ice:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-...

"The figures put the size of the Arctic sea ice at the end of the northern summer about one third lower than the average recorded over the last three decades.

"This year further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past 30 years," analysts at the ice data centre say in their latest report. Hopes the Arctic can recover are now slim. As the sea ice fails to return, there are concerns the melt will become one of the "tipping points" pushing the planet towards faster climate change. Scientists fear the vast Arctic sea ice, which covers the North Pole, could disappear in summer within a few decades.

"We might see an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2030, within some of our life times," the centre's Mark Serreze told the Herald recently. "There are some scientists out there who think that even might be optimistic".

The loss of the Arctic sea ice in summer would be unprecedented in human history, says Dr Don Perovich, of the US Army's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. "As near as we can tell, looking at the historical record, there's been ice in the Arctic in the summer for at least 16 million years."




RE: Lies, lies, lies
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 1
Asher doesn't look at whole pictures. He looks at a small sample that furthers his agenda. Havn't you figured that out yet?


RE: Lies, lies, lies
By whiskerwill on 10/16/2008 2:00:03 PM , Rating: 3
The "whole picture"? You mean that the Arctic has been melting ever since the last Ice Age ended?

Wait, that picture doesn't further your own agenda, now does it?


RE: Lies, lies, lies
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 1:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
The original DT article was correct; even the British press eventually reported that Arctic ice melt had slowed considerably:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/e...

Your link doesn't contradict the story if one reads closely. If you note, your story says ice melt "peaked at a level close to last year". The Sydney Morning Herald chose to focus on the doom and gloom aspect, rather than pointing out that level was a considerable rebound from the year before.

Furthermore, if one looks at the most recent AMSR satellite data (from yesterday, in fact) one sees that Arctic sea ice is now up nearly 30% from 2007, and growing at one of the fastest rates on record:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_S...


RE: Lies, lies, lies
By ddarko on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Lies, lies, lies
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 2:55:14 PM , Rating: 5
> "You "interpret" the fact...as demonstrating the the warming doesn't occur"

I said no such thing. While I doubt any rational statement will penetrate your spittle-specked diatribe, had you read my analysis which followed that article, you would have seen these words from me:
quote:
Recent short-term gains in Arctic ice coverage indicate nothing about the eventual state of the Arctic...

We know the Arctic will eventually be open water. The only question is how it will affect us...
In fact, in that article and many others, I've repeatedly and clearly stated the Arctic has been-- up until the past year-- on a long-term warming trend for the past several centuries.

There were no "lies" in the article, nothing but a bald statement of fact. You chose to interpret those facts incorrectly, in a partisan, tendentious manner. I can't help that...but I can set the record straight.


RE: Lies, lies, lies
By ipay on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Lies, lies, lies
By thepalinator on 10/16/2008 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 3
Frankly, you just seem pissed he didn't phrase the facts in a way that would scare people. Both stories are saying the same thing. You're the one trying to read between the lines.


RE: Lies, lies, lies
By foolsgambit11 on 10/16/2008 9:03:01 PM , Rating: 1
It depends on what you mean by 'is'. I mean, what you mean by 'contradict'. Was your original article correct? Well, the sea ice melting season had not ended (contrary to what you claimed), and we lost nearly 25% of the sea ice you reported remained. You reported 6 million km^2 of ice remained. September's average total coverage was 4.67 km^2. So in that way, your article was contradicted.

In the sense that ice coverage was greater this year than last, you were correct. But in the extent of the difference, and in the absolute numbers, you were wrong, because you were not using the universally agreed upon metric of the September average. I don't dispute that you should have posted your first article, only that you (or somebody else, Jason, maybe) should have posted something updating all on the current, final numbers.


RE: Lies, lies, lies
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 9:45:23 PM , Rating: 3
> "Well, the sea ice melting season had not ended (contrary to what you claimed)"

From the perspective of monthly values, the season was over. By the time September data is available, the icepack has already been growing for more than two full weeks. There is no "universally agreed upon" metric to report September values only.

One can certainly argue that, even though the conclusions were correct, the story was still premature. It was, however, far less premature than stories appearing months earlier, which rashly (and falsely) predicted the Arctic would be entirely ice free this year.

DT even ran one of those stories...and interestingly enough, I notice you didn't invoke the same criticisms for it:

http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+to+Melt+No...


Who cares if it's real or not?!
By TheSchnoz on 10/16/2008 4:08:46 PM , Rating: 1
Frankly I could give a rat’s ass if global warming exists or not. Let's face it though. The same things that are said to prevent global warming offer many more contributions. Getting off of fossil fuels relieves are dependency on foreign oil and reduces smog and air pollution, recycling goods will lower the amount of waste in our environment and toxins that seep into our water, using solar panels on your roof will lower energy costs as well as reduce emissions and waste, etc. etc. So next time you hear a blow hard complain about global warming you can say I disagree with your theory as why we should take action, but I do agree with the actions that need to be taken. What could anyone possibly find wrong with lower energy costs, less waste, and reduced dependency on foreign oil?




By thepalinator on 10/16/2008 5:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
Lower energy costs? I'd like to have some of what you're smoking. Every single act the enviros propose is about making energy MORE expensive, not less. What do you think "carbon trading" is all about? Kyoto alone (which everyone admits does much too little to actually affect world temps) is estimated to cost the world several trillion dollars. And the future plans go way, way, beyond that.


RE: Who cares if it's real or not?!
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 5:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Getting off of fossil fuels relieves are dependency on foreign oil


Can do that by drilling here.

quote:
reduces smog and air pollution


Smog issues have been solved in a majority of places since the start of using modern emissions equipment.

quote:
using solar panels on your roof will lower energy costs as well as reduce emissions and waste


Where have you been living? Solar increases energy costs because of its expense. Nor does it work 100% of the time. And for large scale installations, it wastes thousands of acres of land for a relatively small amount of electricity. Nuclear is a far better option for clean, cheap, dependable power.


RE: Who cares if it's real or not?!
By OoklaTheMok on 10/16/2008 7:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that you are contradictory?

Getting off fossil fuels, means using less over time until you use none. It does not mean drilling here.

If smog issues are solved, how come we still have smog? How come we have asthmatics who can't go outside on red days? Why do we still have red days? Maybe you just don't go outside.

As for solar panels... you have a myopic and ideological viewpoint and I doubt that anything could change your mind. You would probably still gripe about solar energy even if solar panels were being given away for free.

As for nuclear... I noticed that you failed to include safe in your list of the benefits of nuclear power. I personally am not against nuclear power in concept. I am against using outdated technologies that result in abundant amounts of untreatable waste, and do not address sustainability and safety.


RE: Who cares if it's real or not?!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 8:16:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Getting off fossil fuels, means using less over time until you use none. It does not mean drilling here.


He said and I quoted getting off our dependency of foreign oil. Not getting off fossil fuels. Drilling here will do that.

quote:
If smog issues are solved, how come we still have smog? How come we have asthmatics who can't go outside on red days? Why do we still have red days? Maybe you just don't go outside.


Here in the US, very few areas still have smog issues. Mainly those whose geographic locations prevent the escape of emissions. In those areas, they require tighter emissions controls and its understandable. But overall, emissions equipment has drastically improved the air quality in our cities. All the more reason to move away from those areas though. Especially if you are someone with asthma.

quote:
You would probably still gripe about solar energy even if solar panels were being given away for free.


If by free you meant "free". As in paid for by our tax dollars. Then yes I would. If people want to put solar panels on their house that THEY pay for. Fine. But using it in power plants is just a waste of a large amount of land and money for a very small amount of power that isn't even available all the time. And even if it was 100% efficient it still would only be around 50% reliable due to nighttime and cloudy days. So you either need huge amounts of essentially battery backup or those old coal fired plants or nuclear plants to provide electricity.

quote:
As for nuclear... I noticed that you failed to include safe in your list of the benefits of nuclear power. I personally am not against nuclear power in concept. I am against using outdated technologies that result in abundant amounts of untreatable waste, and do not address sustainability and safety.


I didn't need to mention it because I didn't need to. Because it is safe. If it wasn't would the French be using it for over 90% of their power generation? And funny how they don't seem to have problems with waste? Because they reprocess their fuel. As we should be doing but don't because of the environmental agenda. As far as sustainability. Typical plant life is 50 years. I don't know the reasons they can't operate longer. Compare this to solar cells which have a lifespan of 25-30 years and will produce far less electricity during that lifespan. So then they need to be replaced with materials that are finite. With fuel reprocessing and modern reactors, our ability to use nuclear power is for all purposes indefinite. By the time our fuel would run out we'll likely have mastered fusion.


By FITCamaro on 10/17/2008 8:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't mention it because I didn't need to.*

DOH!


And...
By DtTall on 10/16/2008 10:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
And gas prices have fallen since peak levels.

The way I see it, anything that forces us into the future in terms of technology is a good thing.

I don't care if Al Gore is right or if oil will go back up. The part I care about is that because of those 2 things great strides have been made where none - or very little - would have been made otherwise. As sad as it is, we need some level of over-reaction to get people to invest in the future.




RE: And...
By wookie1 on 10/16/2008 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you. Now go tell that to the poorer folks here and in other countries that suffer and starve from the higher costs. This is a very elitist stance to have. Glad that you have plenty of excess money though.


RE: And...
By onelittleindian on 10/16/2008 2:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
That's the part that really gets me. The US can afford higher energy costs. But when you tell the poor in Asia and Africa they can't have electricity because its too "dirty", you condemn them to a life of misery.


RE: And...
By mdogs444 on 10/16/2008 4:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US can afford higher energy costs.

You assume that people in the United States agree with your analysis that we can afford higher energy costs. However, factual data, such as demand destruction, counters your thoughts. The people of the United States, whether they can or cannot physically afford it from their pockets, will NOT pay for that willingly - so there is no reason to assume that they can afford it.


Geologic Time
By Flunk on 10/16/2008 10:30:17 AM , Rating: 4
As I seem to be constantly repeating to anyone who says anything about global warming. 250 years is not statistically significant on a geologic time frame. In fact, even 10,000 years is pushing it.

I think we all need to relax on this "global warming" kick. It's just as stupid as that "global cooling" idea that was popular in the 70s. Just because there are a few (and geologically speaking a few could be thousands) or warmer or cooler years doesn't mean the climate is fundamentally changing. Fluctuations are normal and natural, and we really don't have enough data to predict them let alone change anything. Overreacting helps no one.




RE: Geologic Time
By kattanna on 10/16/2008 11:19:20 AM , Rating: 3
but that doesn't help me make catchy fear inducing headlines to help me sell copies or raise funds for my cause so im gonna ignore those "inconvenient truths"


Sunspots
By rudolphna on 10/16/2008 11:11:04 AM , Rating: 3
this is probably related to that article DT did a few weeks ago about the suns output dropping. The maunder minimum, or hte little ice age, a few centuries ago, will likely happen again. This is probably just the start of that, so we are in for a bad winter. (or, if you are a skiier, like me, a Fantastic winter)




RE: Sunspots
By Dove2Three on 10/16/2008 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
It's going to be a cold one here for sure. Where I live (N. Oregon) hit a low temp of 20 one night last week, a new record, and about 20 degrees below normal.


RE: Sunspots
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 1:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's not insanely cold here in charleston yet but we've had some very nice days and cool mornings. Definitely cooler than last year.


Bad time to visit
By djc208 on 10/16/2008 9:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want in the middle of the global warming debate that will surely follow but I will say that nothing will quite shock you toward "going green" like seeing the amount of ice many of these glaciers have been losing each year.

When I went there two years ago you could see how far they had receeded in just the previous year. We may or may not be the cause of global warming, but after seeing that I don't want to help it any more than I have to.




RE: Bad time to visit
By whiskerwill on 10/16/2008 10:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
Arctic ice melting is pretty much a good thing no matter how you look at it. It won't raise sea level, and it means a lot more productivity up there (not much grows under 20 feet of ice).


RE: Bad time to visit
By Omega215D on 10/16/2008 1:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ice sheets come and go and are not always in the same place. Greenland is a popular example to use because it in fact used to be great for farming until the Little Ice Age. Also due to the types of plants that were around it was likely that during the age of dinosaurs the climate was pretty damn warm so the ice sheet might not have been as big. Then due to natural activity the earth went through a cooling phase known as the Ice Age freezing a good portion of the earth.

The way I see it some global warming is quite good in terms of more countries having the ability to grow crops again.


Calm Before The Storm
By SpaceJumper on 10/16/2008 3:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
The solar storm will be coming in about 2011 or 2012. The solar activity is now at its lowest. The earth may be cooling down before the energy blast from the sun in 2011 or 2012.




RE: Calm Before The Storm
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 3:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
And your reasons for believing this? Yes solar activity will increase.


Global warming Suxs
By jahwarrior on 10/16/2008 5:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Damn global warming killed my dog and slept with my girfriend!




RE: Global warming Suxs
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 10:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nope that was me running out of the house with your green sheets wrapped around me.


Blame?
By athlonotaku on 10/16/2008 12:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
"High snowfall and cold weather to blame."

All of sudden we're blaming nature to taking its course?

Gosh darn it nature! Why'd you have to get all cold and snowy? You nature, are a bastard!




You do find the sunspots, don't you?
By Grabo on 10/16/2008 5:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
It grew slightly, very temporarily? Are you writing this to gladden us all, or is it yet another 'the weather is Fine, Mankind can't affect it worth a Damn, It's been all storms and heat and stuff in the past(when there were no sensitive human civilisations), Polar bears are on the rise'?

Anyway; The Arctic ice sheet is shrinking, overall, and pretty quickly too - this is beyond dispute.
The Antarctic is too, or at least JPL seems to think so:

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shrunk in both area and mass. Data from JPL's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005."
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cf...

Furthermore, you seem to think that most things that the 'alarmist-dangerous-technology-haters'cry about (sea level rise, increase temperatures, etc) will have no greater negative effect. Where you get those ideas I have no idea, but I dare say most people (and scientists) wouldn't agree with you.

Even if rising sea levels are due to the colour of Mars second moon, there are (of course) adverse effects to be expected:

"Climate warming is expected to result in rising sea level. Should this occur, coastal cities, ports, and wetlands would be threatened with more frequent flooding, increased beach erosion, and saltwater encroachment into coastal streams and aquifers."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_0...

I'll just watch my post get automodded down some now ..




The Evil One...
By mmatis on 10/16/2008 6:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
masher is a blasphemer and a heretic who is not worthy to lick the feet of the One True Mick! Flog him furiously with a wet noodle until he recants his evil ways!
}:-]




Climate is cyclical
By Orbs on 10/16/2008 7:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't mean man isn't making a non-trivial negative impact.

Either way, this is good news in the short term. If the ice grows too much, it will be as problematic as the ozone hole (interestingly and ironically, one is likely mitigate the other).




Global Warming is a Myth
By Titanius on 10/16/2008 11:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHA! HAHAHAHA! I told you guys, global warming is a myth, this summer as been the coldest I've seen since a little bit, glaciers are growing (not disappearing like those dumbass scientists claim) and it won't be long until the people responsible for brainwashing people that Global Warming is real and you should pay money to save the Earth and combat this new evil foe. The thing is, climate changes...constantly. No one can control it, global warming happens, then there is global cooling, and the cycle continues...the Earth is self-healing and recycles itself with every new cycle.

It is time to finally make the people, responsible for infecting our heads with all this, all pay for their fraudulent crimes. And don't try and tell me that they haven't made money off of this ideology.




By Andy35W on 10/17/2008 2:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting story, thanks for posting.

The artic ice has rebounded quickly this year as well, temperatures are cold up there, perhaps encouraged by PDO and El Nina effects, so it will be interesting if the glaciers in Alaska continue to gain weight and length in the next year or to. They seem quite a good indicator from the information given due to them tipping either way quite easily.

Note that Antarctic ice area this year was a lot less than last year, more than enough to offset the arctic gain from 2007 ..don't forget to mention that ;)




Thank hay-zeus!
By soloburrito on 10/17/2008 9:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
sarah palin's prayers have finally been answered. she will pray America back to prosperity. McCain/Palin '08!




By Rob94hawk on 10/17/2008 9:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming killed the dinosaurs. It's our fault. Nothing but far left liberal scare tactics.




By General Disturbance on 10/17/2008 1:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew...

I'm not an expert though, unlike Michael Asher ;)




Human Arrogance
By Talon75 on 10/18/2008 12:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
I always find it immensely funny how arrogant the human race is to even THINK that we can effect our whether patterns more than nature itself.... Natural occurrences screw with carbon emissions far more than we could ever hope to do any time soon.

I would say that it should be a case of agreeing that we really don't know squat about what's going on with the climate. There is so much conflicting data. Every time you turn around, somebody is coming out with some new "this is what's REALLY happening" stuff. It's ridiculous.

Of course I am not saying that we shouldn't clean up our act and try to be more resource/environmentally conscience, but finger pointing scare tactics really get old after awhile.




By overlandpark4me on 10/21/2008 9:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt I will see this story and the one about Greenland on the NBC crap hole news. What would they tell their sheep?
When I was a kid they were worried about an ice age. "What will we do to heat up the earth", were the comments. "Another volcano could kill off certain species of plants", lol.
You know when these losers knew they lost their argument on "Global Warming"? It's when they started called it global climate change. That's a laugh riot. If it cools too much, which it is doing, it's GCC. If it heats up, it's GCC. This is the biggest boondoggle in history, and Algore is making millions laughing his ass off all the way to the bank.....




By overlandpark4me on 10/21/2008 9:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt I will see this story and the one about Greenland on the NBC crap hole news. What would they tell their sheep?
When I was a kid they were worried about an ice age. "What will we do to heat up the earth", were the comments. "Another volcano could kill off certain species of plants", lol.
You know when these losers knew they lost their argument on "Global Warming"? It's when they started called it global climate change. That's a laugh riot. If it cools too much, which it is doing, it's GCC. If it heats up, it's GCC. This is the biggest boondoggle in history, and Algore is making millions laughing his ass off all the way to the bank.....




By ddarko on 10/17/2008 12:41:30 AM , Rating: 1
Oh look, how inconvenient, the fringe radical environmental terrorist group known as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released a new report today that says "there continues to be widespread and, in some cases, dramatic evidence of an overall warming of the Arctic system." Here's a MSNBC news report about it and below that, a direct link to the report:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27221180/

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Such a shame when professional career government scientists throw cold water on the global warming conspiracy theories.




Michael Asher: perennial liar
By ipay on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
By onelittleindian on 10/16/2008 3:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
Friend, why spread such silliness? There are thousands of well-known scientists who dispute AGW. People like famed physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen, Dr. Reid Bryson, the most cited meteorologist in the world, climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, and countless others. A lot of them are even IPCC reviewers themselves.


RE: Michael Asher: perennial liar
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 3:20:01 PM , Rating: 4
Had you bothered to read your own link, you would have seen that USGS release is simply quoting from a book written by Bruce Molnia-- the very same scientist my article quotes.

It is Molnia himself who says glaciers grew this year...a statement which doesn't contradict his book, which chronicles the changes over the past 150 years.


RE: Michael Asher: perennial liar
By randomly on 10/17/2008 11:37:14 AM , Rating: 3
Do you ever feel like Sisyphus?


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Related Articles
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
September 3, 2008, 2:44 PM
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki