Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[zipperhead_cop]

Polar bears are definately being affected by global warming!  Watch this compelling video to see just how bad it has gotten for them. 
Nice to see some corporate support from the makers of Halls to highlight this critical issue. 

 

[Haletown]

meanwhile, over in Kyoto La-La Land  . .  Steffi gets fisked.  The comments are wonderful.  Wonder what Pablo Rodriguez knew and when. And why Steffi supported his Kyoto compliance bill.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007025.html#comments

Y2Kyoto: Dion's Dog Didn't Hunt

Calgary Sun;

    The paper copy of a power-point presentation assembled for incoming Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn specifically addresses whether Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels during the next four years and when Canada can pull out of the accord.

    One page raises the question, "Whether/when to acknowledge Canada will be very unlikely to meet target?"

    It goes on to state the government "Cannot formally 'de-ratify' (Kyoto) until 2009."

    The document, dated Feb. 3, 2006, was only days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet was sworn in after the Conservatives' election victory. Less than two mo

 

[GAP]

Ancient records help gauge climate change
Updated Mon. Sep. 17 2007 8:04 AM ET The Associated Press
Article Link

EINSIEDELN, Switzerland -- A librarian at this 10th century monastery leads a visitor beneath the vaulted ceilings of the archive past the skulls of two former abbots. He pushes aside medieval ledgers of indulgences and absolutions, pulls out one of 13 bound diaries inscribed from 1671 to 1704 and starts to read about the weather.

"Jan. 11 was so frightfully cold that all of the communion wine froze," says an entry from 1684 by Brother Josef Dietrich, governor and "weatherman" of the once-powerful Einsiedeln Monastery. "Since I've been an ordained priest, the sacrament has never frozen in the chalice."

"But on Jan. 13 it got even worse and one could say it has never been so cold in human memory," he adds.

Diaries of day-to-day weather details from the age before 19th-century standardized thermometers are proving of great value to scientists who study today's climate. Historical accounts were once largely ignored, as they were thought to be fraught with inaccuracy or were simply inaccessible or illegible. But the booming interest in climate change has transformed the study of ancient weather records from what was once a "wallflower science," says Christian Pfister, a climate historian at the University of Bern.

The accounts dispel any lingering doubts that the Earth is heating up more dramatically than ever before, he says. Last winter -- when spring blossoms popped up all over the Austrian Alps, Geneva's official chestnut tree sprouted leaves and flowers, and Swedes were still picking mushrooms well into December -- was Europe's warmest in 500 years, Pfister says. It came after the hottest autumn in a millennium and was followed by one of the balmiest Aprils on record.
More on link

 

[Strike]

Here's a nice little link on carbon levels throughout history.  Seems we hit the end of an ice age every 80 000 yrs with minor ice ages in between.  This took all of 3 seconds to find so I'm sure there are more out there.  If I had my scanner handy I could show a nice graph from my Environmental Sciences textbook.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale

Also, that period in time (1600's) that the article refers to is known as the little ice age in history books.  The Midieval period 500 yrs prior was very warm in comparison.  Musta been all those darn dragons causing the global warming then.  ;D

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

"There were these two days in 1684, that were like really cold, dude ..." more super-scientific proof that

dispels any lingering doubts that the Earth is heating up more dramatically than ever before,

Why do I get the feeling that plans are being made to burn Deniers at the stake?

 

[GAP]

"There were these two days in 1684, that were like really cold, dude ..." more super-scientific proof that
Why do I get the feeling that plans are being made to burn Deniers at the stake?

How do you think they ended the Mini-IceAge?......by burning Christians, witches, and just about anybody else they
could lay their hands on

Can we start with NDP, then move on to some more noiser ones?.....wait, we already are heating up, maybe we just take sacks and beat out the flames before they add to much heat to the atmosphere.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

"There were these two days in 1684, that were like really cold, dude ..." more super-scientific proof that
Why do I get the feeling that plans are being made to burn Deniers at the stake?

Better start stocking up on offsetting carbon credits then - judging from old records it takes an awful lot of kindling to reduce your average witch to ashes. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know if anyone else has commented on this article yet.  It is a Sept 11th article from David Suzuki about Biofuels - Critizing Them.

If it has already been discussed I apologize.  I am having to do a bit of catch up on this site having been tied up elsewhere for a while.

Biofuels not necessarily all that green

By DAVID SUZUKI, WITH FAISAL MOOLA 

Earlier this year, when I crossed our great country to talk to Canadians about environmental issues, some media pundits took issue with our vehicle of choice - a diesel bus. Even when I explained that diesel actually has a lower carbon footprint than gasoline, some of them immediately shot back with - then why isn't it biodiesel?

In truth, we had actually wanted to showcase an alternative fuel like biodiesel, we just couldn't find a leasing agent who could get us an appropriate vehicle. But from the very beginning we were also nervous about highlighting something that might be more of a problem than a solution.

Turns out, we were probably right. According to a recent analysis published in the journal Science, attempting to save the planet by wholesale switching to biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel may unintentionally have the opposite effect.

Proponents of biofuels, which are often made from plants such as corn or sugar cane, often point to their many advantages over fossil fuels like gasoline. Biofuels are less toxic or non-toxic in comparison to fossil fuels. They are a renewable resource, whereas once fossil fuels are gone, they're gone. And biofuels can be grown just about anywhere you can grow crops, reducing the need for giant pipelines or oil tankers, and potentially helping to reduce conflicts in areas like the Middle East.

So far so good. But things start to get complicated when you look more closely. Much has already been debated about the energy requirements to produce some biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol. Ethanol made from corn only contains marginally more energy than what is needed to produce it. In fact, we use about a litre's worth of fossil fuels to grow, harvest, process, and transport a litre of corn-based ethanol. Many people argue that making corn-based ethanol is more of an agricultural subsidy for farmers than it is a sound environmental policy.

Things get even dodgier for biofuels when you look at the land area that would be needed to grow fuel crops. We use a lot of fossil fuels. Switching to biofuels would not reduce the demand for fuel, just change the way we get it. And that would require a lot of land. In fact, substituting just 10 per cent of fossil fuels to biofuels for all our vehicles would require about 40 per cent of the entire cropland in Europe and North America. That is simply not sustainable.

Of course, reducing the amount of fuel we use, no matter what the type, is very important. But the authors of the recent article in Science say that if our primary motive in switching to biofuels is to reduce global warming, then we have to look at all our options for the land that would be needed to grow fuel crops.

The authors conclude: "If the prime object of policy on biofuels is mitigation of carbon dioxide-driven global warming, policy-makers may be better advised in the short term (30 years or so) to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use, to conserve the existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for food."

In other words, biofuels alone are not the quick-fix answer to global warming. In fact, strong legislated policies to improve the efficiency of our cars, homes and industries is a much more effective strategy. In the longer term, biofuels may certainly play an important role. Some technologies, like cellulosic ethanol, which is made from woody debris, are very promising and they need to be supported by government and industry now, so they can be available on a larger scale in the coming years. Biofuels have many advantages, but we have to look at all our options and make sure we make the best choices to ensure a more sustainable future.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki/2007/09/11/4487821-ca.html


In my mind this raises the question of how many other "solutions" David hasn't bothered to crunch the numbers on.  None of this is exactly new.  These arguments were raised as far back as the 1970s: popularly by people like Jerry Pournelle in his book "One Step Farther Out" (IIRC - It could have been One Step Beyond) as well as by many other engineers and peer-reviewed scientists.

Basic laws of physics haven't changed, nor have those of economics.  Richard Bransom's "Biofuel" aircraft will suck up fossil fuels to make biofuels, generate more CO2 as a result, and deny Carbon in the usable and sequesterable form of food to the world's population.

 

[armyvern]

I think you're safe Kirkhill; I don't recall seeing it on-site prior to your post. I will leave the whip securely on my hip. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't be too hasty in putting that whip away  >

 

[a_majoor]

Don't be too hasty in putting that whip away  >

Whoa there, wrong thread!  >

There have been some other articles about the dangers of conversion to bio fuels in Army.ca (I an a big offender, since it can't be said too many times that it takes 5 units of energy to produce 4 units of energy from ethanol), although seeing David Suzuki coming on side....

Kirkhill, I would lend you "A Step Farther Out" except my copy finally gave up the ghost and split along the spine. You can apparently order "A Step Farther Out" and the sequal "Another Step Farther Out" on Chaos Manor, so I am saving my pennies. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view471.html#Tuesday

 

[Kirkhill]

I knew I could count on you to come up with the right Pournelle reference Arthur.  Mange Tak.

As to the other - do we have a thread on vinyl?

 

[armyvern]

Vinyl's a little too chintzy for this girl. I'll stick with my leather.  8)

 

[a_majoor]

Vinyl's a little too chintzy for this girl. I'll stick with my leather.  8)

But vinyl has a warm sound quality lacking in CD and MP3 recordings.  ;D

 

[armyvern]

But vinyl has a warm sound quality lacking in CD and MP3 recordings.  ;D

Oh yeah, that's where Kirkhill's mind was at all right ...  8)

 

[a_majoor]

Here's a refreshing approach to how to deal with climate change (as well as other assorted real and potential dangers).

http://www.meatriarchy.com/?p=690

A refreshing approach to Global Warming

This article at New Republic called A Manifesto for a New Environmentalism argues that environmentalists are approaching Global Warming in the wrong way and we should take an entirely different approach:

Not, as environmental leaders insist, by limiting human power but rather by unleashing it. In terms of birthing a new energy economy, regulation is important–it’s just not the most important thing. The highest objective of anyone concerned about global warming must be to bring down the real price of clean energy below the price of dirty energy as quickly as possible–most importantly, in places like China. And, for that to happen, we’ll need a new paradigm centered on technological innovation and economic opportunity, not on nature preservation and ecological limits.

In other words more optimism and less pessimism. Whether Global Warming is happening and whether or not it is the catastrophic occurrence that acolytes of Al Gore would have us believe the reason that there are sceptics like me is that too many so called environmentalists seem to be reveling in apocalyptic scenarios rather than coming up with solutions that motivate people to action.

In that respect they are like certain old time fire and brimstone religious preachers: scary as hell but in the end not that effective.

In this respect the authors and I are on the same page:

In promoting the inconvenient truth that humans must limit their consumption and sacrifice their way of life to prevent the world from ending, environmentalists are not only promoting a solution that won’t work, they’ve discouraged Americans from seeing the big solutions at all. For Americans to be future-oriented, generous, and expansive in their thinking, they must feel secure, wealthy, and strong.

But here’s the interesting part for me:

How might history have been different had environmentalists and their political allies 20 years ago proposed that the nations of the world make a massive, shared investment in clean energy, better and more efficient housing development, and more comfortable and efficient transportation systems? The tables would have been turned. Global- warming skeptics would have had to take a position against the growth of new markets and industries. Proponents of this investment agenda could have tarred their opponents as being anti-business, anti-growth, anti-investment, anti-jobs, and stuck in the past.

This might be true but the authors seem a bit naive here. When you talk of environmentalists and their “allies” you have to come to grips with the fact that environmentalists has always allied itself with anti-business, anti-capitalist groups. The sad thing is that most of them don’t seem to realize they are being used. One of the characteristics of the hard left is its penchant for latching onto issues that on the surface seem to be motivated by the urge to do-good but in reality are useful tools for them to spread dissent and disruption in order to achieve their ultimate goal: destruction of capitalism. The environmentalist movement has to quite frankly grow up and stop fighting with the very people that can help them.

Oh an before you start pointing out that capitalism has been the main source of pollution and that socialists are all sweetness and light go here.

 

[Flip]

As usual someone over at the sun has heard me thinking again.....

Article Link Here!

Great causes lose out to climate fight
By PAUL BERTON
The scientific community, most governments, the media and much of the public have identified climate change as a potential disaster that requires drastic measures.

Whether or not Canada's measures are drastic enough remains open to debate, but the government cannot simply focus on climate change to the exclusion of all other environmental concerns.

If a CBC report this week is correct, Environment Canada is doing just that -- freezing or cutting funding to other environmental programs due to a budget crunch.

More on Link

OK, ok after the fourth try I got that article link thingy to work.... :-[

Anyway - as columns go, I liked it.  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Just follow the money.......

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm

NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science
Michael Asher (Blog) - September 26, 2007 11:04 AM

New issues swirl around controversial NASA branch

NASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.  Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by  Hansen.  Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare  factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.

Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" -- attempting to predict future events based on computer simulations. In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.

Most research papers are rather dry reading, written to be as unemotional as possible. Not so with Hansen's reports, whose works scream alarmism even in their titles: "Climate Catastrophe," "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb," and "The Threat to the Planet." Hansen was most recently in the news when an amateur blogger discovered an error in his climate data, a mistake Hansen later discounted as unimportant to the "big picture" of compelling public action on climate change.

But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?

In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim.  While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews.  Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.

Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute'  funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.

Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.

But the issues don't stop here.  Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry.  Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.

After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official"  temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees.  Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend.  A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.

George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"

Hansen's office did not return a request from DailyTech for an interview for this article.

 

[Kirkhill]

And as time goes by it seems that Hansen was right the first time......Although he is a lot richer than he used to be.

From: http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm -  Glaciers all over the world are expanding.  Some are surging.  An Example

Look at what's happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State. (Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)

This is a photo of my friend Jim Terrell taken on
Mt. Baker, Washington. Jim is more than six feet
tall. See the black line about six feet above his head?
That's where the snow from the winter of 1998/99
stopped melting. Above that, is snow that never
melted from the winter of 1999/2000. Why isn't
the media reporting this sort of thing?

There's a lot more on the site.

 

[a_majoor]

A man was seated next to a little girl on an airplane when the man turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've found that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the man, 'What would you like to talk about?'

"Oh, I don't know," said the man. "How about nuclear power?"

"OK," she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass, the same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces lumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"

The man thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know Shit?"