Chunk of Antarctic ice shelf collapses

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The ice is falling! The ice is falling!

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is an alarming trend. In Dec 06, the Ayles ice shelf (all 41 miles, size of 11,000 football fields) completely broke off. In Aug 02, you had the Ward Ice Shelf break off (largest shelf in the arctic). As mentioned in the article, also in 02, the Larson B shelf broke in *less than 30 days*. In Nov 01, the Pine Island Glacier broke off a chunk 42x17km. In 00, the Jakobshavn Isbrae's discharge DOUBLED, and not by coincidence, by 04 its calving retreat was almost 1/2 its mass. The NASA satellite footage shows that from 79 to 03, a span of only 24 years, that the cap shrunk between 1/3-1/2!

And yet idiots like GWM make fun of it, saying it's nothing to be worried about. Ask the Eskimos and Russians in Siberia (wose way of life revolves around the permafrost) whose whole way of life is being affected. No, instead sit in your comfy chair in CO, selfish, uncaring about others.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry, "whose" not "wose"

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GWM is not an idiot. He has a mental illness and thinks he is Henny Penny (or perhaps Chicken-Licken)and is trying to whip us into mass hysteria.
I am apologizing for him for he knows not what to do or say since jdub has almost disappeared.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are probably right about the mental illness; how else can you explain someone who ignores the evidence in his face? It's like looking out the window and seeing a tornado in the distance that's already destroyed several homes and land, but saying that you don't have to worry about it and going to the living room to watch TV (while ignoring the emergency broadcast message).

Posted by Spencer on March 26, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there really any serious debate about Global Warming? The only skeptics that I am aware of have been hired by industries that oppose any type of restrictions based on Global Warming. Are there any "independent" skeptics? I really don't know.

Posted by smith on March 26, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty:

GWM is not selfish, he is just more concerned about the Chinese and those in the upper-Midwest who *died* from a record winter.

Speaking of "selfish" though, exactly what are you doing to help the Russians and Eskimos in this time of shrinking Permafrost? Oh yeah, thats right, you probably drive a Prius.

Posted by Truth on March 26, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The Wilkins Ice Shelf has been intact for at least a few hundred years"

A few hundred years? You mean that at some point in time previously, the earth was warmer and then cooled off, allowing the ice shelf to form? What did humans do that caused the earth to cool so much, because we know that the earth's climate doesn't just change on its own. Maybe we can do what those humans did and cool the earth back off.

Posted by DahmersCookbook on March 26, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Global Warmng", The earth going through A natural cycle, or A opportunity for billions of dollars to be made via gullible drones.

Posted by jibbons on March 26, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe we should all go buy hybrids and switch from coal to solar,... twenty years ago.

What I understand about global climate change says that it takes years for the impact of feeding carbon into the atmosphere to affect global temperatures. Just wait until we catch up to the carbon from the chinese coal plants being built today.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, I was actually sticking up for GWM. I am sure that it is not actually a joke to him, but what can we do to reverse this process effectively?

Posted by tmk50 on March 26, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Send Al Gore and every government agency 50% of your paycheck, they will fix everything for us.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There he is....how funny!

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Speaking of "selfish" though, exactly what are you doing to help the Russians and Eskimos in this time of shrinking Permafrost? Oh yeah, thats right, you probably drive a Prius."

Smith, at least I TRY, unlike idiots who want to use that as an excuse not to do anything. I try to educate (run a site called timetoact.info), contribute to charities, drive a hybrid (can't afford a prius), recycle, minimize use of disposables and energy use, etc.

Posted by PJM on March 26, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer, I'm a sceptic and I haven't been hired by any industry.

Posted by Scott on March 26, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes there is skepticism about man-made global warming: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...

Scott

Posted by NeilT on March 26, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Chinese have 15 coal gasification plants.

We have one.

The Chinese have a plan.

We have partisan politics.

Our citizens have the freedom to be major speed bumps on the road to progress. These speed bumps consist of people like GWM, as well as the ones that prevent the U.S. from expanding infrastructure and local drilling.

GWM is no different than an environut. They both need to be a part of a plan for the general good of the country. Their mouths tend to get in the way of that.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Truth,

Yes, global warming and cooling is a natural cycle. However-

a. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned. Something natural can kill you as easy as something unnatural. It's called being prepared and planning ahead.

b. Man's activities have directly affected this natural cycle. The EPA has the core ice data for the last 400,000 years (closest period comparable to current conditions) which shows at least 3 major warming and cooling cycles. There is a direct correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. However, starting at the time of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels are almost TWICE the HIGHEST levels ever naturally reached- proof of man's activities. (see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scie...)

The earth will be fine- it has survived numerous warming/cooling cycles. However, the question is how man's activities during this cycle will affect his survival.

I believe in risk analysis and insurance; calculating the cost of both action and inaction, weighing the risks and benefits, etc. It will not cost mankind much to do something in the event of GW, and the actions will have huge benefits regardless of whether GW is "real"; however, the cost of inaction is unacceptable.

Posted by Spencer on March 26, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are the true skeptics about Global Warming the same crowd that does not believe in Evolution? If you speak with a scientist in the biological field you will find that there really isn't any debate about Evolution. Just curious if it is the same with Global Warming. I recall James Watt (Secretary of the Interior/Reagan) stating that we should use the Earth's resources because the second-coming is imminent. I have to wonder if this is the thinking behind the "don't worry about it" people.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my, what did I start? Heidi, of course you know there is no defense for my sarcasm. Let them say what they will. I have a shield of zog to protect me.

I think the Jews caused this warming trend. What say ye jdub?

Posted by mark79trans on March 26, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think many people debate the fact that the Earth warms and cools creating climate changes. In fact the archeological evidence suggests much different climates throughout Earth's history. I doubt the dinosaurs burned fossil fuels leading toward their demise, or the last ice age was triggered by some caveman driving his Hummer H2 to work. Personally, I find it rather ridiculous that anyone would expect to preserve the Earth's climate or the species of animals living on the planet. For those of you who don't know, Mt. Saint Helens put out more CO2, poisonous gas, and particulates then all the automobiles combined and caused a temperature change just from its own little self. ...there are far more violent and more impacting volcanoes then this one such as Mt Pinatubo, Philippines, 1991, which put out more then the industrial revolution combined. I doubt very seriously that burning fossil fuels for a couple centuries is going to having any lasting impact on a 5 billion year old planet. One thing is for certain...the planet will change as it has done throughout history.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spence,

"If you speak with a scientist in the biological field you will find that there really isn't any debate about Evolution."

So the field of science, particularly biology, is based on fact and not theory? I admit that intelligent design is based on belief and not fact. Why can't we be nice to each other until one is proved wrong?

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"there are far more violent and more impacting volcanoes then this one such as Mt Pinatubo, Philippines, 1991, which put out more then the industrial revolution combined"

Sorry mark79trans, but the evidence doesn't support this (look at the data link provided). Probably one output vs continuous output. The simple fact remains that current CO2 levels are almost twice the highest ever recorded. Period.

"Are the true skeptics about Global Warming the same crowd that does not believe in Evolution?"

Actually Spencer, for scientific reasons I don't agree with evolution (and I'm not Christian, closest would be an agnostic theist) yet I believe in GW.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If you speak with a scientist in the biological field you will find that there really isn't any debate about Evolution."

Not true. Just about every biochemist I've read or studied disagrees with the evolutionary theory (estimated that more than 75% of all biochemists disagree). Also, 400 Ph.D.-level scientists, including a distinguished embryologist and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, signed a statement questioning the creative power of the natural selection/mutation mechanism (obtained by the New York Times.

Okay, better not get off track... :-)

Posted by MikeaLoeb on March 26, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm also a skeptic who doesn't work for a large industry. Ice falling doesn't prove that I'm causing global warming.

Posted by mark79trans on March 26, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty,

How long have we been recording? ...less then a century? Basically, immeasurable in this planets history. As far as the output of the volcanic eruption; you can find a source against it if you wish...there are plenty of studies that support it. NASA recorded a 1 degree Celsius drop in global temperature one year after the Mt Pinatubo eruption, a trend that went on for about two years. A few volcanic eruptions on the pacific rim in a short period of time could easily push the planet into an ice age.

...again, the ice caps have expanded and contracted throughout history.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can anyone tell me whether ice has fallen and reformed over the past several thousand years? If not, I do not believe you. If yes, what caused it to fall at that point in the earth's history? The planet is warming. What percent of it is caused by man? Which experts to you want to believe? Of course you want to believe yours. Can we stop the warming? Not likely, but I am open to the discussion. Just don't tell me the "ice is falling".

Posted by PJM on March 26, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer, I believe that things "evolve" over time, including the earth. So no, I don't debate that there's evolution. I also don't believe there's a god that created everything.

I just don't trust any data telling me what happened 2 million years ago. At best it's a guess.

If people want to wave their "The end is near" signs because some ice melted they can go ahead. I won't be joining them.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mark79trans-

"How long have we been recording? ...less then a century? Basically, immeasurable in this planets history" it's not the length of recording but the length of history being recorded. We have 400,000 years which is more than enough for a basis comparison; going back much further would bring in data not relevant since the conditions begin to significantly change.

GWM-

"Can anyone tell me whether ice has fallen and reformed over the past several thousand years?"

There is a LOT of evidence. For example, ancient maps (such as the Piri Re’is, Bauche, Oronteus Finaeus, and Hadji Ahmed) showing ACCURATELY the coastline of Antarctica AS IT LIES UNDERNEATH the ice- something we've only recently discovered using satellite technology. There have been numerous mammoth found that were flash frozen so fast in Siberia that they found buttercups (NOT indiginous there) in their mouth and grasses in their stomach, that was still EDIBLE- very scary given the speed of the freezing. The Sphinx has strata indicative of a flood, along with the evidence that the Sahara used to be a rainforest. Want more??

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fiesty, only your point.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Because I think we are on the same page, but as everyone knows, I am dense.

Posted by mytwosense on March 26, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Truth, welcome back!

By the way, folks, we can't know if this shelf is really melting until SASQUATCH tells us he does/doesn't see it happening outside his window...

Posted by davies on March 26, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That d*mn Bush and his cohorts are operating a secret underwater CIA interrogation post down there. The ice shelf is breaking off due to the change in the underlying ocean currents, caused by the CIA drawing in large amounts of water for waterboarding torture. Bush's fault as usual.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone has their theory, whether it be related to politics or inferior races. I personally think it is due to the overbreeding of the prairie dog.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heidi, bwahahaha!! Where is WOW?

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't seen her today. I thought you were the one that was supposed to keep track of her.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hear she re-evaluated her position on fondling and is presently at a nursing home.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think she is hanging out at Hobby Lobby, waiting for some action. She has stocked up on zip ties and Qwest potty bags!

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

zog, stay inside in your air conditioning. That will chill things down a bit.

Posted by Diff on March 26, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FODDER? this adds Fodder!?
This in beyond FODDER or being an indicator that global warming is coming.

This is the result of it's happening over the last 20+ years -
beyond proof but -effect!

How can anyone with an inkling of smarts deny it still?
(even GW has came around ... )

Sure there is room for debate about the cause: climate cycles or the result of human activity and what effect ( if any) we might have in trying to slow it down or reverse it.
but IT IS a reality!
What we better do is start now to find ways to deal with it!
Our children and grandchildren will be the ones left to face it.

Posted by davies on March 26, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Think of the penguins that watched their loved ones go down with the ice shelf - how frightening it must be for them.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Save the penguins and prairie dogs!

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Better hurry, the ice for the seals is fanishing.

Posted by Marshdale on March 26, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoever it was that made the tiny little volcano comment does not understand the carbon cycle. It may be true that Mt. St. Helens spewed a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is not necessarily the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere that is so important. It is the earths ability to reabsorb that CO2. This is the serious problem. You see, those of you who don't understand this are missing a major problem. Rain forests, Pine forests, and oceans are all generally referred to as carbon sinks. In otherwords the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere is reabsorbed by these carbon sinks. This is a problem because with forests in particular the carbon sinks are disappearing at an alarming rate, reducing the earths ability to absorb additional carbon put into the atmosphere by us humans. Also as the dramatic melting of the arctic regions and glaciers continue more and more ancient trapped CO2 is being released into the atmosphere. This positive feedback loop may be endless. We don't really know but it is not a good sign and we dont know how to stop it.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Diff, as you can see, most of the posters here don't care about anyone but themselves. They're making all these cracks, but if they're alive in 10 years, they won't be laughing at how they are affected.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marshdale, a logical argument at last! Yes, to the rain forests and any forest absorbing the CO2. I can get behind the salvation of the forests. I can see that as a factor. I believe forests help control the overall environment. I am not so sure about the CO2 locked in ice. I will have to study that further and consider the source. BUT, and a huge but, someone is saying something logical that most of us can get behind.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty, I cannot say you are wrong. But the doom sayers ten years ago said the same thing you are saying now. So, which ten years is it?

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If nothing else, reducing our dependence on oil (helping eliminate one of the biggest CO2 contributors) helps us become more economically independent from the middle east and help avoid funding rehensible organizations. Mandating more fuel efficient cars would also save you $$ while at the same time helping with CO2 emissions. It's a win-win scenario, so what's the prob??

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

With that said, club the pine beetle!

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, fiesty, don't mean to offend. I do care about the environment and try to do my part. This is some interesting information I am reading, especially about the CO2 absorption.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty, i can also get behind burning anything causes pollution. I just can't get behind the statics of what the effect has on the environment in the long run. I will be happy to buy a more fuel efficient car and using more nuclear and wind energy. It is a win-win. Just don't tell me the "ice is falling", but I repeat myself.

Posted by pwern on March 26, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While 'fiesty' denegrates others for ignoring evidence, he himself conveniently ignores the fact that only 2% of the surface area in Antartica is losing ice - while the ice on the other 98% of the continent is actually increasing. Doesn't really fit with your thesis, there, does it, fiesty?

Global warming is a HOAX. It perfectly fits the agenda of environmentalist whackos and government-funded researchers who don't get any grants unless they're creating crises that spell doom for the planet and can only be solved by further empowering the bureacracy. Their remedies serve only to impose unneeded and unnecessary costs on the rest of us.

You people are going to feel soooooo stupid in 30 years when it becomes competely apparent that nothing has happened and you realize you were bamboozled into believing this nonsense. What's more comical is the fact that I'll be looking back and laughing hillariously at the obscene amount of money I made off selling all you idiots carbon credits.

Long live the Hummer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GWM- so called doom sayers didn't have the evidence we have now, and to a degree, they were right. Look at what has happened in just the last 10 years; it's clear we ARE experiencing the initial effects:

- Look at the breaking ice shelfs, and the news stories about Eskimos/Russians having to abandon their homes. We can SEE the NASA footage.
- Temperature is setting all time records. (The world's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1994, in a temperature record dating back a century and a half. [UN Weather Agency] 2006 was THE warmest on record for the US. [NOAA- 2] 2006 was the fifth warmest on record for the world. [NASA] Over the past 30 years, the earth has warmed by about 1.08°F. [NASA].)
- Storm intensity has increased accordingly. (20% of hurricanes in the 1970s reached Category 4 or 5.3 whereas 33% of hurricanes in the 1990s and 2000s reached Category 4 or 5. There has been an 100% increase in intensity & duration of hurricanes and tropical storms since the 1970s. There has been an 63% increase in hurricane intensity & duration linked to higher sea surface temperatures. 2005: Year with the most intense Atlantic-basin storm ever recorded: Hurricane Wilma. 2005: Year with most hurricanes in the Atlantic on record. 2006: Year with one of the strongest tropical cyclones to ever hit the South Pacific. Cyclone Monica made landfall in Queensland, Australia on April 19. 2004: Year with the first hurricane ever recorded in the South Atlantic. On March 26, Hurricane Catarina made landfall 500 miles south of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. $100 billion: Estimate of damage caused by hurricanes hitting the U.S. coasts in 2005 alone. [National Climatic Data Center])
- Raising sea levels. There has been a slow rising of the sea levels, but it has begun to dramatically increase.

We can't just ignore the evidence in front of us.

Posted by Squatch on March 26, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crazy how the life cycle of earth works Freeze,melt, freeze, melt.

Posted by Keno33 on March 26, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Man has little or no effect on the climate. You wackos and your agendas! The climate on earth has always changed and will change. Besides whos to say that the current climate is the best one??? Maybe a warmer climate with cities like NY underwater would make us all better off!

Posted by Bert2425 on March 26, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do believe the world is undergoing a warming affect. I mean with all the hot air being spewed by all the liberals wanting more money for the fight tot stop Global warming.
Gore is a fraud....

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"While 'fiesty' denegrates others for ignoring evidence, he himself conveniently ignores the fact that only 2% of the surface area in Antartica is losing ice "

First, I'm female. Second, this is a blatant fallacy. If, in the last 6 years, the largest shelves in Antarctica are breaking off and discharges are DOUBLING, than obviously that's a bit greater than 2%. Further, go to the NASA link I posted and watch the arctic ice decrease in 1/2.

Go back to school, you can't add. And it's a little obvious we won't feel stupid in "30 years when nothing happened" since stuff is ALREADY happening NOW.

Posted by pwern on March 26, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fiesty, if I had a dime for every time some hysterical liberal chastized me about the looming threat of some crisis that could only be solved by government intervention, I'd have enough money to buy you some much-needed common sense.

Stop wasting time screaming "The sky is falling" from your computer, take a deep breath, and a get a non-governmental job where you have to actually spend your day demonstrating your actual value in the marketplace rather than leaching off the tax dollars the private sector unwillingly has to feed you.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Man has little or no effect on the climate... Maybe a warmer climate with cities like NY underwater would make us all better off!"

Another blatant lie, as evidenced by the data. It'll definitely be a better climate for diseases- they FLOURISH in hot humid climates.

"Crazy how the life cycle of earth works Freeze,melt, freeze, melt."

Yep, it'll go on, and crazy how it doesn't care how many humans die of starvation, exposure, etc. How many people died the last few years during the summer from heat and winter from cold? I do believe reading news stories along the lines of "record numbers"...

Posted by Squatch on March 26, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

so what make you think you can stop it? it is going to happen EVEN if we all decided to ride bicyles for the rest of our lives. How many times has the earth froze then melted away only to happen again?

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pwern- I love how you just ignore the evidence and points raised, and descend to personal attacks. It let's me know I won the debate with you.

You sink to calling me a liberal- everyone accuses someone of the opposite party depending on the topic, I've been called a conservative on evolution debates and now a liberal on the GW debate. Wish you could make up your minds.

So, explain to me how I'm a "leech on tax dollars" when I work NIGHTS this week... Moron, you should really learn not to ASS-u-ME.

Posted by mark79trans on March 26, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty

"Yep, it'll go on, and crazy how it doesn't care how many humans die of starvation, exposure, etc. How many people died the last few years during the summer from heat and winter from cold? I do believe reading news stories along the lines of "record numbers"..."

Humans have much bigger problems then the threat of "Global Warming" ...the planet cannot sustain the projected population growth. The population will be culled one way or another.

Posted by pwern on March 26, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah right, fiesty. You're really a conservative. And I'm Abraham Lincoln.

By the way, you don't really need to point out your gender. Being female doesn't lend any legimacy to your argument - all it really tells us is that you can't drive very well. Not a concern for me unless you're following my vehicle on the same road, and something tells me your either ride a bike or take the bus.

Now calm down - and call your doctor. Time to up the meds.

Posted by ezekiel777 on March 26, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Start reading the Book of Revelation. Carbon credits won't stop what has been already established. Here comes the Anti-Christ!

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ezekiel Saw the Wheel...

Posted by nowhearthis on March 26, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Squatch, 26 times. The worry lays in the fact that we are seriously jacking up the temps to levels that we are not currently adapted to. Marginal areas such as our already on the edge will experience the most effect. We already don't have sufficient water and will have much less with increased warming, causing a big problem for society as we know it today. Personally, I'm not interested in living like a neanderthal.

Posted by jonerbam on March 26, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"But gays love Hummers."

Don't all guys(gay or straight)appreciate a good hummer?

Posted by jvb on March 26, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Zog got zapped by the site staff; GWM (Gay White male) got zapped by comments; may GWM recognize he is not fit company for himself and seek clinical help.

Posted by davies on March 26, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now finally fiesty has said something that I can partially agree with as well. As far as reducing our foreign oil dependence, our overall fossil fuel consumption and the emissions that result, I agree this would be a good thing to do to a significant extent, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE AGREE ON THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. We would just be polluting less and conserving resources.

As to "what's the prob": The 'prob' is that most of us cannot agree on exactly what consumption is wasteful. For many it's big cars, big trucks and McMansions. For others it all belongs on the backs of industry. This is where the 'prob' comes in. Most enviros want the US to agree to stricter emission controls on our industries because we are a wealthier nation and our per capita consumption is much higher. But our industries already operate cleaner than most comparable industries in undeveloped nations; on top of that, we are already steadily losing jobs in many sectors to these same undeveloped nations, due to their much lower labor costs. So how much more expense do we impose on our own industries, without simply screwing ourselves? In the meantime, plant a frickin' tree people.

Posted by davies on March 26, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, what's with the dumbass slam on New York City? Many people recognize (grudgingly or otherwise) NYC as the greatest city in the world. Truly great in terms of vitality, diversity, culture, and almost unmeasureable economic importance.

If the comment was supposed to be directed to safe living conditions, you're about 20 years behind the times, because NYC is also one of the safest large cities in the world. Dumbass!

Posted by rickg19611 on March 26, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my gawd! Everyone knows that ice has NEVER cracked before in history!

The Eskimo's are going to have to learn to live in temperatures that are above freezing! OH THE HUMANITY! WE'RE DOOMED!!!

We should do the eco-friendly thing and give Boulder to the Eskimo's to make up for their "losses" from warm weather.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"all it really tells us is that you can't drive very well"

ah, show your prejudice. I've never been pulled over, gotten a ticket of any type, etc. Can YOU say the same?

I'm done with you. You don't even try to contribute anything useful to the discussion. Take your closed mind and prejudice and leave.

Posted by jay on March 26, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought we debunked the right wing, Denier, chicken-little myth about not being able to do anything to curb the activities that contribute harm to our planet without nuking our economy...at least a couple of times...why is it resurfacing? Could it be that we're starting to see the same loop from the "right"?

Posted by Marshdale on March 26, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GWM; Not only does melting ice release trapped carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon from melting tundra is also a huge factor. The frozen tundra contains a huge amount of dead organics when melted no longer has the ability to hold the carbon from decaying organic material. Secondly a warm ocean will hold much less carbon than a cool ocean. There are many more factors. Those are just some of the basics. It's chemistry pure and simple.

Posted by enginerd on March 26, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty:
Regardless of whether or not man can do anything about this cycle of global warming, do you believe the global temperature on the day you were born was the absolute ideal temperature for the planet, and that any change is detrimental? Are you smart enough to know whether warmer is better or worse? I believe that some would benefit and others would be harmed by climate change, but I am not so arrogant as to pretend to know the overall net effect.

The earth is a little warmer today than a hundred years ago, a little cooler than a thousand years ago, a lot warmer than 10000 years ago, and much cooler than 10 million years ago. Those species which adapted survived, and those that didn't perished. We have little, if any, control over the climate. Screaming like a fiesty Chicken Little won't help.

Chill!

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hey, don't worry folks, with all of the high tech gear available, and with all of the improvements in store, we should be good to go.

Posted by DahmersCookbook on March 26, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But seriously, don't you want more of this weather... I'm doing my part (lights on at all hours, 93 octane purchasing, you only live once attitude), are you. If it turns CO into paridise, pollute away, because the earth will do it on its own with or without you.

Posted by me2 on March 26, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are interested in what can and probably will happen in a warmer world, look up the Salt Dump that causes the Gulf Stream to flow North. Then look up Mt. Erebus in Antarctica. See where the volcano is and what it contributes to the break up of the ice.

The Western side of the continent is breaking up, but snow falls heavily on the Eastern side.

For some further reading check out the frozen methane in the oceans of the World and see what will happen when that thaws.

As the Summers get warmer, more forest fires release CO2 and more CO2 holds more heat.

Fiesty, I do not know how you can do it. To keep posting interesting work only to be insulted, or sneered at by posters who seem to feel personally insulted by facts.

Love you, Sharon B.

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heck, we don't need clean air, right? Increasing asthma rates are better for everyone, right? Everyone can afford $4-8/gal gas, right? We don't need or care about <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1..., or <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines..., or <a href="http://www.nwf.org/polarbearsandgloba... bears</a>, or other animals, right?

Posted by fiesty on March 26, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, new forums don't take links. Maybe some of this will be a reality check for you:

Fish dying- www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176054,00.html
Penguins disappearing- www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1216-04.htm
Polar bears drowning- www.nwf.org/polarbearsandglobalwarming

Sharon- I don't know. It boggles the mind that folks can SEE the changes starting, and STILL refuse to want to do anything about it. But I can still try to educate with facts, hoping there is at least ONE open mind.

Posted by DahmersCookbook on March 26, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The media is A salesmen, and you still suck your thumb.

Posted by JSeifert on March 26, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets see water will raise and flood DC, NY, LA, NO, every other coastal town I say melt baby melt.

Posted by JYP3500 on March 26, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love how liberals flap their arms & scream “the sky is falling” every time Global Warming is discussed.

Just ask any Global Warming pundit two simple questions, and depending upon their answers, you can completely dismiss their opinion:
1) who do they work for? (if they are they taxpayer funded; govt worker, non-profit, etc… then they just want more of my tax dollars for boondoggles)
2) what do they drive? (do they drive a gas guzzler, and ride alone, like 90% of the people I see everyday on I-25)

End of argument.

Posted by ItsJustme on March 26, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Numbers - 38 square miles fell off one ice shelf. There are 5,297,321 square miles of ice in Antarctica. That is a loss of, hummm, 38/5297321 = .0000071 or .00071% No need to head for higher ground just yet.

Posted by joggle on March 26, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To global warming skeptics: If you only believe in what you see (as opposed to complicated climate models generated by super computers or crazy theories by the world's scientists), then keep an eye on the following for the next 10-20 years:

1) How much thawing of permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Russia occurs.
2) How much the ice sheet of Greenland and Antartica retreats (as well as the elimination of much of the last of the world's glaciers).
3) How many coral reefs worldwide die or show signs of strong distress (due to temperature changes in the ocean and to increased levels of CO2 dissolved in the ocean).

I believe in all likelihood all 3 will be clearly, undeniably visible within 20 years and the early signs are already present. You can choose to believe it's all just a coincidence or beyond our control, but I, for one, will choose to not feel impotent; rather I will do whatever I can to prevent this from occurring, or at the very least to lessen the principle causes as much as possible.

Posted by nowhearthis on March 26, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd have to agree, the inundation of NYC would be a welcome byproduct of climate change. Although, they hold their noses so high up in the air, they'd probably still be able to breathe.

Posted by NotChasB on March 26, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joggle

Sure some of these things are happening throughout the world but it is do to the normal climate cycles the earth has been going thru since it's creation. What it is not due to is man made CO2. This warming started in the late 19th century. Also there is nothing you or I can due to change this natural occurrence or even if it were man made, buying squiggly $5 light bulbs is not going to change anything. Nature will take it's course and nature will take care of itself. We can't even control a tornado or a tsunami and Al Gore thinks we can fix something of this magnitude that really doesn't need fixing. Only his wild imagination and his talent for exaggerration and lying is what needs fix'n.

So don't go selling every thing you own or giving it away to the poor and start caring a sign that says "The End is Near" and what ever you do don't jump of of a 10 story building.

Posted by Alpine on March 26, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aren't all of you worried where all of these yankees are going to move to?? I am sure the front range would be just fine with them!

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jvb, I love you man, NOT. What are you talking about at 12:29? Sorry, I had to go out and do some important things. What are you talking about man? I will discuss it with you. Do you just want to spew venom?

Posted by JSeifert on March 26, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You forget New Yorkers do not drive they will drown. And most of the east coast do not know there is a midwest the way they talk about the Presidental race. So I say let Mexico have them they vacation there enough.

Posted by joggle on March 26, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems funny to me how people who think that the current rapid global warming is completely natural believe this based on evidence that global increases and decreases in temperature have occurred in the past. They then ignore the same evidence that points out that such rapid changes in global temperature are unprecedented and have only occurred over much longer periods of time. There's also no evidence that global CO2 levels have ever been as high as they currently are, much less as high as the will be 20 years from now. They also seem to believe that even the most sophisticated climate models are, essentially, worthless based on predictions made by a few scientists using much more crude instruments and with much less available information 30-40 years ago.

Scientists with access to the additional decades of satellite information, land, air and sea measurements and much, much more powerful computers (utilizing much more complicated and detailed models) have very much come into agreement that the increase in global CO2 levels and the subsequent rapid increase in global temperature is indeed due to human activity (see this article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/3... for example). They don't believe this is likely the case--they believe this to be the case unequivocally. I would need an unbelievably strong reason to find disagreement with their conclusion and I have yet found any reason to find disagreement, much less a strong one. Any one you can think of can be googled and shot down in minutes. If you doubt this, try me.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GWM, I saw that and was wondering what you were going to say. Someone has been spying on you and jdub.

Posted by Squatch on March 26, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joggle

"evidence" I love how people use the word to suit thier agenda no matter what the issue. The same evidence can be twisted to say the complete opposite if you try hard enough.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle, I am in no position to say you or your link is wrong. What makes you so sure your are right other than your beliefs? I can be persuaded with facts, just not theory and conjecture.

Posted by Squatch on March 26, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder what CO2 levels the Mammoth were getting? TREX most likely predicted the comet that caused their mass extinction but none of the other dinosaurs listened.

Just kidding all have a nice day.

Posted by GWM on March 26, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heidi, sorry, it has been a long day. I am pinewood derbying tonight. which post are you referring to? and I am leaving now. Have a great evening!

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The one by jvb. I am out of here too. Good luck tonight!

Posted by smith on March 26, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pwern at 11:56

thank you for summing it up concise and true.

Posted by Devil_Dog on March 26, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It takes quite a bit of arrogance to think you have this much effect on the Earth. But it doesn't hurt to kick the idiots in the middle east to the curb, so lets get off the oil. Lets produce nuclear power plants (now that we all know their safe), even better lets develop a hydrogen engine that is viable. Let's save the forests after all trees should be renewable not just destroyed for the sake of greed. but most of all lets kick Al Gore and his lunatics off the planet!

Posted by joggle on March 26, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GWM: There are many reasons--I'll try to list the most important ones:

1) We know the mean global temperature with a great deal of accuracy and have been able to track it with current observations for over 80 years (even longer than that, of course, but with fewer observations before that). We have observed a fairly constant increase in global temperatures during this time (except for seasonal dips due to there being more vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere).
2) We have an even longer record of mean global temperatures at our disposal thanks to ice core samplings that stretch back hundreds of thousands of years. We also have a record of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere via the same ice cores. There has not ever been such a sharp, profound increase in global temperature based on these observations (nor in CO2 levels).
3) Global sea temperatures have also increased for the last several decades (although to a lesser extent than the atmosphere) and also have higher concentrations of CO2 than years ago--leading to higher acidity which is harmful to coral reefs.
4) There is photographic evidence of many more glaciers back in the 19th century than now (just look at old photographs of the Rocky Mountains in summer and compare that to what you see today). They are melting at such a rate that kids growing up 60 years from now may only see glaciers in photographs.
5) We have a very good understanding of how much CO2 is output by factories, power plants, cars, airplanes, clear-cutting, coal seam fires, etc. and also know how much CO2 is output by other natural sources such as volcanoes (including underwater ones), natural decay, etc. Based on these observations and models it is clear that the natural level of output of CO2 has been very steady for the last 200 years whereas the output by humans have increased substantially. They also have very good models to compare the amount of CO2 output by human activity vs. natural activity in aggregate.
6) The antarctic and arctic are losing ice at an incredible rate, with the passage of ships through the arctic sea now possible for the first time in recorded history.

From the above (and other reasons), I've concluded we are living in a time of unprecedented, rapid change that no humans have likely ever observed. It is having disastrous effects on many species and I can only hope it doesn't work up the food pyramid to us. In addition, we are, without doubt, outputting more CO2 than ever in ways that simply aren't sustainable even if we wanted to output CO2 at current levels for another 100 years. So regardless of whether you believe the cause of the current rapid global warming is due to human activity or not we need to begin switching to alternatives for the long-term health of the world's economy and to mitigate further harm to the environment.

Posted by joggle on March 26, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Devil_Dog: Was it arrogance that created the ozone hole over the antarctic? Or was it arrogance that subsequently caused the passage of legislation worldwide that subsequently reduced the size of the hole until it closes completely from time to time now? It's not arrogance to be educated and informed, it's the prudent and responsible thing to do.

Do you think that since people are small and the world is big that we simply can't cause global changes? What if we set off all of our nukes? You don't think that would have any global consequences either? I've got news for you then--the atmosphere is not so terribly large compared to the size of the world itself and can be measurably affected by a single erupting volcano. And if you think the worldwide activity by people over the course of decades don't have at least as much impact as a single volcano eruption then you're wrong.

Posted by oatis on March 26, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In a list of unsurpassed polarity ( these blogs always reveal how distant so many of us are apart, and how deeply suspicion and hatred run between members of our community---when the safety of anonymity allows vent for their real feelings) I hestiate to add any comment, save this:

Humans, and their works are "natural", of course. We are as linked to the fabric of the planet as the rocks, the plants, the animals and the water.

That means: the Holocaust was... "Natural." Along with all the other perfectly "natural" things..like slavery, or famine, or yes, even hip hop.

Humans are in a headlong rush to destroy their host planet---befor they even understand how beautiful it is. The distinction between "human-caused" or "naturally-occuring" global warming is less than irrelevant, it is meaningless. It is here, it is fact, and if we love our children we will fight for the rest of our lives in trying to stop it.

Or heck: we can do IMPORTANT stuff--like argue about who caused it.

Posted by davies on March 26, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sigh. You people. You "we have to DO something NOW" people. You just don't get it. Number 1, when you say "we have to do something", what you really mean is "the government has to do something". I mean really, you are personally free to conserve as much fuel as you like. But that doesn't satisy you; you need the government to impose your wishes and opinions on others.

Number 2, you just won't admit that there is a need for a balanced response to this problem. If you could only take the time to recognize and acknowledge that there is a down side to imposing stricter controls on energy usage and emissions, then you would finally start to get some traction with people who are still making up their minds. But you don't, hence the polarized debate.

Some of us have expressed some ambivalence about this issue, but it seems to be as just as lost on the 'sky is falling' crowd as it is with the 'bah humbug' bunch. I read GWM's comments and thought he was making a genuine effort to acknowledge both sides, but he was just wasting his time. I even almost agreed with some of the things he had to say, but rumor has it that the 'G' in GWM stands for 'gay', and I ain't throwing in with no homosapien.

Posted by GWM on March 27, 2008 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

davies, I have not completely evolved. Please don't give up on me. I hope to be a homosapien some day.

Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, I'm on your side, davies and GWM(of course).

Posted by fiesty on March 27, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle- don't bother. GWM says he can be persuaded with facts, but that's false. We've presented the evidence, and it speaks for itself- “liberals” don’t have to say or prove anything! When presented with a fact that cannot be disproven, the skeptics want to come up with excuses (and that’s EXACTLY what they are) as to why those facts can be ignored. The skeptics like their little theory that nothing’s wrong, so *of course* they will ignore or discount any evidence or facts contrary to that theory. Sorry, but that’s not how science (and life!) works.

FACT: Current CO2 levels, "coincidentally" starting at the time of the industrial revolution, are more than *twice* the *highest* levels ever *naturally* produced in the last 400,000 years. [1]

FACT: In the past 24 years, the arctic ice has shrunk by more than 1/3. [2]

FACT: In the past 7 years, there has been an unprecedented number of major ice shelf breaks. [3]

FACT: Several of the major components of the mass balance of the continental ice sheet have shown significant acceleration and have DOUBLED their ice discharge. [4]

FACT: Over the past 30 years, the earth has warmed by about 1.08°F. However, the rate of acceleration has increased. (Estimates are that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5° to 10.4° degrees F (1.4° to 5.8° degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.)[5]

FACT: Due to the increased temperature and shrinking of the arctic ice, certain animal populations are decreasing to the point some are facing extinction. Fish, penguins, and polar bears are prime examples. This only began in the past 6 years. [6]

FACT: In the past 150 years, the world's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1994. 2006 was the warmest on record for the world, with 2007 expected to exceed. [7]

FACT: Storm intensity has begun to dramatically increase- there has been a 63% increase in hurricane intensity and duration linked to higher sea surface temperatures. [8]

FACT: The number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled globally over the past three decades. (Scientists have now concluded that global warming is causing the increased intensity of storms in general, and hurricanes in particular.) [9]

FACT: In just the past 3 years, there have been record storms and hurricanes. For example, 2005 was the year with the most intense Atlantic-basin storm ever recorded (Hurricane Wilma, 2005 was the year with most hurricanes in the Atlantic on record, 2006 was the year with one of the strongest tropical cyclones to ever hit the South Pacific (cyclone Monica made landfall in Queensland, Australia), and 2004 was the year with the first hurricane ever recorded in the South Atlantic (Hurricane Catarina made landfall 500 miles south of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). [10]

Posted by fiesty on March 27, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

[1] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scie...
http://www.mongabay.com/images/extern...
[2] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n...
[3] Wilkins, 08; Ayles, 06; Ward, 02; Larson, 02; Pine Island, 01
[4] http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/look...
[5] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n...
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_...
[6] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines...
http://www.nwf.org/polarbearsandgloba...
[7] http://today.reuters.com/news/article...
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2...
[8] Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688
[9] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content... Emanuel (Nature, Aug. 4, 2005)
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/cvweb/cv...)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2 Feb 07 Report
[10] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/News...

Posted by GWM on March 27, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty, you sure are. ;-) Hey, you are providing facts for the obvious. I believe you. I do not doubt you. And if I can plant more trees to absorb CO2, drive a little less (to save money as well) to turn lights off more often, to .... Anything that will help.

The facts that *I* am talking about is how much man is responsible for facts 1-10 above. Sorry, I did not go to each of your links. I know you well enough that you are providing documentation to your ten facts. What is the documentation (or is it opinion and theroy) than man caused it. The other facts that I am talking about, is where any or all of what is happening today also happens in a normal cyclical fashion over tens of thousands of years. Since there is more human activity than ever before, I can also believe that CO2 levels are going to be higher than ever. Again, the missing fact is how much they affect what is happening today and if a couple or multiple volcanic eruptions in the next 100 years will lower the temperature AGAIN.

I am just stirring the pot when I say I don't want to hear the "ice is falling". I want to be a good caretaker of my planet. My daughters could not understand when we went camping and at the end of our stay, they had to pick up the last person's trash. I have taught them to leave a place better than you found it.

Opinion and emotion are ruling much of the global warming debate. Mine as well as Algore's.

Posted by GWM on March 27, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's even say tens of hundreds of years.

Posted by joggle on March 27, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want more information, check the article at wikipedia for a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_w...

At the bottom of the article you will see links to other, more informative sources of information. Fortunately, we live in the age of the Internet so if you are so inclined it is very, very easy to get informed on any issue you care about.

Posted by fiesty on March 27, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GWM- good response. I'm glad you're not arguing those basic facts. To address your question about man's responsibility, it's obvious that man is not responsible for global warming/cooling since the earth goes through natural cycles. What man IS responsible for, given fact #1, is that his actions have radically affected the current cycle. Given the seriousness of natural warming/cooling cycles (many species go extinct from starvation, exposure, etc), how bad will the current cycle be due to man's actions? Especially since we are ALREADY beginning to see those effects?

I am not a "sky is falling" type; running around hysterical isn't going to accomplish anything. You're right about the "Opinion and emotion are ruling much of the global warming debate"; this is occurring on BOTH sides of the debate, when the FACTS are what should be relevant.

The earth will not end. However, at the same time, we can't ignore what's happening and be unconcerned (like many posters on this board). We should do what we can, and BE PREPARED. There is alot of evidence (such as the Piri Re'is map and the frozen buttercup mammoth) that climate change can occur QUICKLY, catch man off-guard, and regress society.

Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty, the problem with humans is that many have good intentions, but when they see others aren't doing their part, they tend to give up, thinking it would be all in vain.

Posted by Devil_Dog on March 27, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle
You're so arrogant you think I'm speaking about you, Was Carley Simon speaking to you also? Man is arrogant if he thinks the Earth cares if he is here or not. The Earth will continue with or without any interference one way or the other from mankind, it may or may not be inhabited by man in the future and it may or may not be because of anything man did, but the Earth will go on none-the -less. And if you think Al gore truly gives a crap about you or this planet, you're not only arrogant you're extremely gullible. Now if you would like to speak to any thing else I said that's a different story.

Posted by fiesty on March 27, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heidi- I'm with you on that one. I get so frustrated and down when I deal with people like the scoffers on this board, because they don't care, are selfish, and close-minded. Sometimes I want to give up trying to educate, or trying to make a difference in what I do because I see so many who don't care driving their hummers.

But then the feisty side of me comes out. :-)

Posted by StukNKansas on March 27, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bottom line, nothing will be done until we have a new administration that doesn't base their decisions on Oil Companies' advice or in the best interests of all other Energy Companies. We have a President and Admin. that could really care less about middle-class america, and is only worried about saving face this last year so it won't look like the worst in history.
If some of you "right wing lovers" would open your minds and see that even though Al Gore predicted a "worst case scenario" in his movie (which earned him a Noble Peace Prize. I bet if Rush or that Nazi- chick Coulter won this, you would blindly follow them), there was a message in there. The message was that we have a moral obligation to take care of the planet that God (yes, I said GOD)gave us. I won't argue that there is natural changes going on, but we are just dumping fuel on the fire. We are intensifying these changes and making them worse.
God blessed me with a wonderful two year old daughter, and worst fear is that she will not have a world to look forward to. When she asks me why this happened all I'll be able to say is well Honey, the people that run this country are more worried about making money and fighting each other, than doing what God would want us to do.

Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fiesty, you're one of those that won't give up! Yes, you have provided a lot of information to ponder, and it wouldn't do anyone any harm to at least listen to it or read it. You have made some pretty valid points.

Posted by fiesty on March 27, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Heidi. StukNKansas is right- our administration/government won't DO anything. GW was finally forced to admit that GW was real, this after vehemently declaring it wasn't and with climate scientists (for example, the one at boulder) being suppressed.

We need to come up with real change. For example, let's do what China has with car emissions. Did you know that one of our cars doesn't meet THEIR standards? Shocking. Let's legislate minimum emissions standards for all new vehicles. Let's mandate a program to gradually phase all cars over to alternatives, and charge an additional TAX on non-compliant vehicles when they register. People will get rid of their older cars if it hits them in the wallet. Provide an initiative to help folks trade in non-compliant vehicles with compliant ones. Start mass-producing some of the cars they have in Europe- such as the Midi that runs on air and has ZERO emissions.

What about carpooling? Start funding these initiatives. When I was stationed in CA, businesses had to have X% of their employees carpooling, or they were FINED. That's awesome!

What about coal plants? Why don't we start taking full advantage of solar, wind, and hydro? Let's mandate that all energy companies will have the majority of their power supplied by renewable sources. Provide an incentive for homeowners to mount their own PVC panels, so they can feed back into the grid.

Give the EPA more oomph. They currently suck at their job, because they have no teeth. Let's legislate tougher standards on air and water quality.

These are just a few ideas. We have the technology, and it's cost efficient. Let's use it! The sad fact is that human nature is resistant to change. The only way you will get them to do it is to force them, or hit them where it hurts- wallet.

Posted by joggle on March 27, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Devil_Dog: "You're so arrogant you think I'm speaking about you"

However, in your first post you said, "It takes quite a bit of arrogance to think you have this much effect on the Earth."

I obviously fall in that category, so now it's arrogance to be rational as well?! OK, whatever.

"The Earth will continue with or without any interference one way or the other from mankind"

Yes, but I care whether mankind continues on the Earth and I want to do whatever I can for the benefit of our species. Granted, that's not a lot, but it's certainly in my interests to do so regardless of whether 'the Earth' cares or not.

You keep spouting off philosophical type statements but haven't tied them to any FACTS. Care to try?

Posted by Devil_Dog on March 27, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joggle

Try reading my entire post (the first one) and stop thinking that everything is about you. I agree we should do something about how we impact our environment (again see first post), after all no one should be so stupid as to take a dump in their own dinning room. I have merely suggested that man is not only arrogant enough to think he can do whatever he wants because he is the dominant creature on this planet but he is also arrogant enough to believe that the planet cannot or will not do something that he cannot control that may result in his demise. And is even more arrogant in his belief that he can completely control the Earth's environment to suite himself.

Posted by Devil_Dog on March 27, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty

Not to argue but have you been to China? I have and not one of their cars meets any polution standard not ours not theirs not anyone's. Don't beleive their propaganda it's all about saving face on the world stage.

Posted by joggle on March 27, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fiesty: China isn't the best example. They use some of the worst quality fuel in the world and also have some of the lowest fuel standards. They use fuel that is very high in sulfur which leads to acid rain and smog. They also don't enforce their standards at all, so the fuel they use is even worse than their already low standards. The fuel quality is so low that diesel trucks' catalytic converters must be custom built for the Chinese market. See this article for more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/wor...

Posted by joggle on March 27, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Devil_Dog: There are things that mankind can do and things we can't. Some of those things probably involve a certain degree of arrogance, but are still achievable (such as building enormous dams like the 3 Gorges Dam in China, linking the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic via the Panama Canal, etc). Obviously people can't control the weather or climate but they can certainly influence it. Just look at the micro climates that cities create. They have a higher mean temperature than surrounding communities due to the 'heat island' effect. This, in turn, causes more convection and instability in the lower atmosphere which causes storms to form nearby which would have otherwise formed elsewhere (apparently storms often form SE of Atlanta for this reason in summer IIRC).

Mankind certainly caused the hole in the ozone layer to form and also was responsible for closing it again. Whether that is arrogance is up to you, but even if it is that doesn't mean it cannot be achieved.

BTW, I don't expect people to necessarily 'fix' global warming. Heck, you can't find anyone who thinks that we can stop global warming under any conditions--many feel that after a certain tipping point natural processes will accelerate global warming beyond a rate of which mankind could possibly stop. What I do expect is for a reduction in CO2 emissions. This can POSSIBLY work--to the extent of at least slowing global warming. We will surely stop emitting CO2 at the rates we are now simply because we will run out of relatively cheap oil and natural gas. So, if nothing else, this is a good excuse to get on the ball and switch to non-carbon fuels while we can afford to conduct the necessary research rather than wait until our economies grind to a halt due to exorbitant fuel prices.

Posted by Devil_Dog on March 27, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just what I suggested in my first post.

Posted by joggle on March 27, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My point, Devil_Dog, is even Al Gore and "his lunatics" don't believe that people can stop global warming under any circumstances. They feel that if substantial reductions in CO2 emissions occur soon then global warming will slow down and perhaps even level off. Otherwise, the "tipping point" will be reached at which there is no turning back, at least not in our lifetimes or even that of our great, great grandchildren. It's possible that the tipping point will be reached regardless of what we do, but I don't think it's arrogant to at least try to prevent it. I will agree that it is arrogant to think that we can control the weather (like the Chinese are attempting to do with the 2008 Olympics, see this article: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infot...) and should only attempt drastic actions like lowering CO2 when it's in our own best interests to do so.

Posted by Devil_Dog on March 27, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is not wrong to try to do what you can but another ice age is inevitable, as is it's opposite, as the climate of our planet is cyclical, just like the seasons. I believe in doing what we can to preserve and beautify our lives and thusly our surroundings, our planet. But maybe we should be investigating how we will survive the eventual changes not how we can stop them, because stop them we cannot.

Posted by fiesty on March 27, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry guys, had to bail out earlier since my husband's father had a heart attack. He's on his way now, and I taking the first day off in months. What a birthday.

"another ice age is inevitable... maybe we should be investigating how we will survive the eventual changes not how we can stop them, because stop them we cannot."

DD- this is the first statement you have made which I can agree with. An ice age is inevitable, and it's going to be worse than normal with what we've done. We should be calm, and make some preparations. Look at what they did in Scandinavia- they created the first disaster vault to hold seeds. Smart.