Man Based Global Warming....

Something else of concern is that as the permafrost melts, it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

 

permafrost melting and methane release has long been a concern. its estimated that the methane release for Siberia alone would more than double the level of carbon alone.

as far as albedo, that is probably a large contributing factor towards the melting of the ice now. its simply momentum generated like a swinging pendulum. only thing is the arc is increasing... granted, a 5 year trend is pretty insignificant considering the current ice took centuries to develop.

but would be interested in knowing how last years level compares with other historically low periods of ice if data is available. for most of our recorded history, the cap has never had clear water in the percentage is has now.

i remember reading about subs running under the ice and only being able to surface when the ice was something like less than 10-15 feet thick meaning that they had to do a lot of looking to find areas to surface in etc. that was only 40 years ago...its seems strange now that we have so much open water now.

i see shows on polar bears who can normally swim up to 100 miles, drowning because the distance between ice flows has grown so much. Barrow, Alaska used to be iced in for all but 6-8 weeks a year, now available for more than 5 months by sea...

so ok. so maybe we aren't causing it. maybe its just coincidence and we had deluded ourselves into thinking we actually have made an impact on the global climate but in reality its all part of some greater thing that is so large and we are simply so close we dont know whether its a light at the end of a tunnel or the headlights of a freight train bearing down on us.

 

We're already spending lots of money in Alaska to move entire villages further inland. This will be the century to be a civil engineer because we are going to be busy making the Netherlands out of much of our coastlines. Or a tax collector...

 

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Key-Scientific-Developments-Since-IPCC-4th-Assessment.pdf

A must read whether you're a believer or not.

 

Just curious, is this the same report that claimed there would be more, and more intense hurricanes from 2006 to now? You know, the ones that never happened? Aside from Katrina and Rita(which hasn't been the first time a cat 3 hit the area), there hasn't been another landfall of a cat 3 or greater hurricane since. In fact if you look at hurricane statistics, There hasn't been any more storms recently, than there has been since the 1850's when hurricane record keeping began. What I found interesting is there appears to have been a lot of hurricanes that hit land in 1985.

 

Not to argue the merits of the study since I haven't read it,, but whether or no a tropical storm hits land is irrelevant.

icarus

 

The point is, the "experts" all claimed there would be an increase in the number of storms, and their intensity, and just the opposite occurred. There have actually been fewer hurricanes the past few seasons, which goes against what is in the report. If they plan to send out this "official" report, at least get the information straight.

 

You can not base conclusions on the outcome of a single speculation. Increases in hurricane intensity where and still are a speculation.

You should look at the data and conclusions which are a separate section from the speculation.

I've always said. Part of the problem with contrarians is lack of basic science and critical thinking skills.

 

Actually a huge part of the problem is too many theories, too many speculations, too many "Experts", not enough concise reports. Reports that the ice sheets in greenland are melting faster than expected, followed by other reports that they are not melting as much as earlier reported. It is stuff like that that will turn a lot of people off of the climate problem.

For example, the report on the ice cap melting. All it states is a known decrease of the ice over the past few years, notice it did not speculate on the cause. Some "expert" can take that report, spin it with theories and say See!! Man caused this!!

While others can say, the disappearance of the ice cap, while in the past has been known to be reduced at times, is melting at an accelerated rate. This could be due to changing weather patterns in the arctic, where less snow cover is produced, so less sunlight is reflected causing an increase of ice melt. Part of this is due to the increase of CO2, and part of it is due to natural variations of the weather patterns.

The former to me is a turn off, the latter is a more agreeable statement, one which shows cause and effect. It is more believable and would be a better solution to informing the general public that we need to curb our ways and be more efficient.

 

What you are describing is precisely the goal of the denialists FUD. If you were to circumscribe to peer-reviewed publication and Science literature it would not be a problem.

The confusion comes from opinion and blogs that you may feel drawn to because they are "the other side". But science does not have two sides. There are theories and the data to be gathered and analyzed. When you are not an expert you defer to the published and accepted interpretation.

 

Americans don't like to do this. We're all entitled to our opinions and entitled to share them with the world (the Iraqis don't appreciate our taking away basically-free medical care- the Baathists were socialists of course). Just like we don't like to ask for directions (don't you love GPS) or read directions (did you read your Prius manual from front-to-back? I did but I haven't with all of my cars!).

This is especially true with subjects like global warming which are mixed up with our lifestyle, and hence, our politics.

Well said, however. The non-believers prefer to pick-and-choose little problem areas instead of looking at the preponderence of the evidence.

 

I'm baaaaaaack.

It's such a shame when 'rational discussion' is interrupted by facts, isn't it? (That's sarcasm, for the slow ones).

I didm't 'threaten to leave', I agreed to let the thread die. Others found it necessary to continue, so I feel entitled (a good liberal word) to correct the wayward on occasion.

P.S. I never said liberals were incompetent. In fact, they are highly skilled at propaganda, misinformation, coercion, lyting and a host of other statist virtues.

I see you don't have an avatar, Icarus. I took the liberty (a good conservative word) of fashioning one for you:

 

U,

Spoken like a true talk radio addict: " lyting and a host of other statist virtues."

It seems that the new buzz word amongst wing nuts is "statist"! (or some variation thereof.

I guess they can't seem to turn "liberal" into a dirty word.

I believe that you at least inferred if didn't say directly that you didn't trust liberal to run government because they are incompetent.

Icarus

BTW What the heck is a "statist" anyway?. How does that differ from wingnut's "patriotic nationalism"?

 

In the sense I use it, statism refers to the vesting, especially, of economic control in a centralized government which dictates policy and consequently fetters the free market.

A statist is one who agrees with statism and thinks the government, or state, does a better job of running the economy than free enterprise.

In a broader sense, the statist generally thinks that government should control everything. The citizen of the state turns over all control and capital and lets bereaucrats decide how best to distribute damn near everything. Once the state tells you which doctor to see or if you may even see a doctor or have a surgery, they own you lock, stock and bodyl.

 

U,

Thank you for your answer,, it was clear and concise without vitriol!

I do not believe that if one believes in liberal values,, it follows that one fits your definition of being a "statist"

I do believe however the term is (has) evolved to become another attempt by the right wing to demonize ideas that they don't agree with. (I will concede that the left (has) does similar tactics,, which also irritate me)

That said,, it is clear that the war if ideas has been won of late by liberalism and there is a concerted effort by the right t "stay on message" using buzz words like "statist" "socialist" "liberal" designed to hide the fact that the right is out of ideas. As has been so well stated,, "no" is not an idea.

Icarus

PS. See I civil I can be!

 

Actually a lot of liberals are not particularly statist, ie the farmers cooperatives of the 30s in the US, the consumer cooperatives of Scandinavia, or the health cooperatives Senator Cantwell was pushing.

 

Statism is not a new concept or word. It's been around a while. I think it has come into recent vogue because the best-selling non-fiction book presently on the market uses the word to describe the present slide toward total government control. (You may not know this since the Mainstream Media have assiduously avoided any mention of it - even the New York Times {on whose list the book has resided at #1 for something like 12 of the last 13 weeks] has not deigned to review it

Liberty and Tyranny

Mark Levin is the author and sales are approaching the 1,000,000 mark.

The subtitle is "A Conservative Manifesto'. If you are ever brave enough to read a divergent viewpoint that delineates the principles of your enemies, you will find it here.

Now, to add some more meaning to the word statism:

Statism — Ayn Rand Lexicon

Just one definition found above:
A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.
Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships.

 

Now, back to the thread's original topic. Or, if you prefer, back to first principles.

The whole of AGW is based on the notion that man's contribution of CO2 is causing a run-away global warming that will be drastically deliterious to the planet and we must curtail the emissions from burning fossil fuels.

First, this assumes that the greenhouse gasses (principally CO2 in the AGWer's mind) forming the 'Greenhouse Effect" can heat the earth.

This is not happening. The following is from a modeller who worked for the Australian government and USED TO BE an AGW adherent. One who left the 'consensus' about a year ago.

David Evans | July 18, 2008


Article from: The Australian

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

I'll just post this much - he goes on.

 

In the USA there is this little document call the Constitution! Followed by a series of amendments call the "Bill of Rights", which spells out pretty clearly the role of government in people's lives. (various executive administrations attempts to thwart said rights not withstanding,,, See also GWB, Nixon and indeed FDR)

The built in system of checks a balances between the three branches of the federal government have worked pretty well for over 200 years! I don't think liberalism has ever been a threat to it, nor has genuine conservatism. What has been a threat at various times throughout our history has been extremism!

You cannot convince me that these wing nuts who go around killing doctors in the name of "the unborn" or the "Minute men" who break into US citizens homes and kill innocents under the mantle of "protecting us from aliens", or people like Rick Parry who actively speak about seceding from the union are less of a threat than the desire for universal health care, or the fight to protect workers rights or the desire to protect the environment!

Be careful for what you wish for,,,,,

Icarus

 

The Constitutional government worked really well until F.D.R. introduced his programs to 'save' the economy and the country. His policies, contrary to the opinion of millions of the uninformed, actually lengthened the great depression and began our slide into statism.

I wish for a return to Constitutional government - not that I think it will happen. If it did, it would return this pnce-great sountry to the principles that allowed it to flourish above all others and become a beacon of freedom that drew millions to its shores.

And BINGO! The Constitution IS very clear about the role of the government vis-a-vis its intrusion into prople's live, but certainly not in the ways you and other statists think.

It might be instructive for you to actually read the Constitution and amendments, Icarus. It specifically states What our government MAY do and asserts that EVERYTHING else is left up to the individual states and individual men. It specifically enumerates what the government should be responsible for and left the rest for you and me to decide.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that permits the government to dictate salaries of CEOs, take over private companies, overturn the rule of law (say, bankruptcy law - which Obama has done), run a national health care system, spend tax revenues for welfare or any other social program etc., etc. HELLO -- NOTHING

Anyone who advocates these things blatantly ignores the Constitution. So, please, don't lecture me about something of which you evidently know little.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

P.E.R.I.O.D.



THIS is what the government is delegated to do, unless modified by amendment. THIS and, of course, the establishment of rules for elections, appointments etc., in previuos sections of the Constitution.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.