
(I walked --in six layers and many pounds of sealskin -- on a still-frozen Arctic bay this past April. Much of this bay has already stopped freezing in the past 10 years.--All photos: my Austrian friend, Katharina Seiser.
Al Gore, in An Inconvenient Truth, has projected that if we emit only twice the amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases we do now, and if the temperature increases by only a couple of degrees, the almost three-kilometer thick Greenlandic inland ice will melt away, and global sea level will rise over twenty feet, causing world catastrophe.
The horizon for such a scenario is a few thousand -- or even a few hundred years -- depending on which researcher you ask.
UPDATE: See the February 21, 2009 New York Times editorial on newest stats about global warming. Frightening.
I’ve seen firsthand the frightening sight of the Poles melting right now. Last February, I cruised within a few degrees of 70 latitude south in Antarctica. And six weeks later, I flew to northern Greenland at the same latitude north, 250 kilometers above the Arctic circle. (As my friends wryly note, I’m now bi-polar.)
Witnessing the silent white/blue coldness of ice shelves, ice caps, glaciers and icebergs in both our polar regions is life-altering. How can you not be moved to go green in every way possible, when the white of the world seems to be melting before your eyes?
Transportation emissions are among the major reasons scientists cite for global warming. When this industry goes green --leading the way in reducing climate change – the warming will inevitably slow. The melting scenario in thousands of years could be slowed to hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of years.
Why has Greenland become a major symbol for global warming? The Greenland ice cap, fourteen times the size of England, covers most of this largest island in the world, and contains ten per cent of the world’s total reserves of fresh water. The ice is constantly changing and moving, and every year sheds thousands of icebergs into the sea from glaciers in the central and north-western regions. These bergs consist of heavily compacted snow that fell up to 15,000 years ago.
The ice fjord I visited near Ilulissat is a UNESCO World Heritage site. Sermeq Kujalleq near here, the fastest moving glacier in the world, produces the most ice—twenty million tons a day. But since 1840 it has shrunk forty kilometers, and in the past few years alone, over fifteen kilometers —the equivalent of about ten meters, or thirty feet a day.
In 2007, Arctic-Ocean ice was half of what it was four years before, and some climate researchers from the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder Colorado now believe that these warming Arctic waters could be completely ice free by 2012. (Scientists previously estimated this wouldn’t happen until 2040.) Global warming might trigger icebergs to break free from the leading edge of glaciers more frequently, opening the way for the glaciers to race even faster to the sea.
This past April I passed within a few hundred feet of icebergs big as battleships, fortresses and cathedrals, and thousands of chunks gently drifted past in the Arctic currents. Some of this ice will float more than 2,500 miles south before melting at latitudes of around 40 degrees, the latitude of New York.
(This is a glacier collapsing. It is both beautiful and horrible. The photo is taken from my boat.)
Openings in some icebergs seemed to tempt our little red fishing boat to sail through (we didn’t), and we crunched over ice the size of cars. Aqua water outlined the seven-eighths of ice below the surface, and small, clear bits -- frozen rain trapped maybe thousands of years ago and now freed -- float pure and sweet around us, like crystals in the sun.
Despite the warming trend, ice and snow surrounded me in Greenland. I gingerly walked on it, and dog-sledged for hours along steep, white, glistening fields behind a fan of fifteen Greenlandic dogs and an Inuit driver sharing my sledge. And from the little red Dash-7 Air Greenland plane I gazed down on thousands of bergs in the sea, white polka dots on blue velvet.

(Greenlandic dogs, which outnumber the 56k residents of Greenland, wait to work. Behind them, in the unfrozen bay, the collapse of a glacier -- the view from my lodging.)
Looking inland, the vast icecap stretched as far as I could see. Near Kangerlussuaq, the air hub where we made connections, I stepped onto this huge remnant from the last ice age.
I’m no expert on global warming, but I did talk to dozens of locals, mainly fishermen, who make their living at the Royal Greenland fisheries from these waters. Some of what they said:
-- The water temperature is two or three degrees warmer than in the recent past.
-- Cod have moved to the area, and shrimp have moved further north. Fisherman have not been able to ice fish recently, but they can now sail into fjords year round.
-- Sealers and whalers in Qaanaaq in north Greenland, say that the sea ice is three feet thinner today than earlier.
-- For the past ten years the Ilulissat harbor has not frozen, and it always did before.
***
Greenland is becoming a world center of climate research. Three Ilulissat warehouses will soon become Kangia Ice Fjord station, where scientists and researchers will study climate change on a regular basis. Condoleezza Rice, John McCain and Nancy Pelosi have already made the pilgrimage. They, like me, were probably shocked and moved by the sea of majestic floating ice, one of the most beautiful, yet bittersweet sights in the world.
This Polar Year -- which actually has been going on for two — more than a thousand researchers from sixty countries will report on polar climate change both in the Arctic and Antarctic. This should tell us more definitively about how much of the ice is melting, and the role of gases and emissions, in the future. For example, green transport such as hydrogen fuel cell cars and trucks would emit only water vapor and heat. If all vehicles were powered by hydrogen fuel cells, the melting in Greenland would slow dramatically, and perhaps cease.
I now have my personal, first-hand call to action from Pole-to-Pole warming: I’ve seen the iceberg-clogged Arctic waters, and, a couple of weeks after I returned from Antarctica and the southern polar region, the Wilkins ice shelf, 160 square miles wide, broke off near the western peninsula, near waters where I had been cruising.
Questions still exist as to the speed of declining ice, but it is declining faster than ever recorded. The questions are: how much, and how long? We do know already that if transportation goes green, one of the major sources of carbon emissions will be modified, and we can assume the Poles will slow their melt.
Having had the privilege of experiencing the awesome ends of the earth, the idea of protecting this environment in any and every way we can -- including green transportation -- excites me beyond words.


Salon.com
Comments
One of my students from last year is a Greenlander and this post reminds me of the picture she sent when she got home--happily bundled up and smiling in a snow bank with her hand on her sled dog. She had missed the snow so much in her sojourn in Oregon.
Being "bipolar" , as you say, has allowed you to see the ends of the Earth where the IPCC has found 100% certainty that climate change is occuring. The report, under political pressure, featured the only region which had an 85% certainty. There are none so blind that refuse to see.
Great post, Lea!!
I hope you read Rob's wonderful piece on global warming yesterday.
Wonderful story and those who aren't promoting change for this situation just don't care enough about future generations of this world.
(rated)
(Being a photographer, I must comment on the last pic with the dogs and bay in the background. It's a gorgeous shot and deserves to be seen in a larger scale. The default for image uploads is an automatic reduction to 285 pixels wide regardless of what the larger image might be. The maximum column width for images is 485 pixels, and that one especially deserves a closer look at the higher resolution. Others can see it here on the OS servers: http://open.salon.com/files/os-greenland_359_corr1234791282.jpg
And, of course, you can format your post to change the pixel width to fill the column frame width, if you choose--I know many do not and prefer to present images on a smaller scale.
Sorry, rambling...loved this post Lea.)
And then I had people from Switzerland who were aghast at our profligate use and waste of energy. In Swiss hotels, for example, lights go out automatically when a door closes, etc. Swiss homes are required to have a disaster shelter stocked with several weeks of food in cases of emergencies.
Rated.
And then there is what I saw for myself. A great glacier, falling apart. It is frightening and real. I have been advocating green ever since, and writing about it.
Barry, I so appreciate your help with the photos. I took many, but but not as good as these, from my friend Kat. I will try to do what you say, but if not, I will learn for next time. You are a dear friend.
Yet, fewer Americans think that global warming is caused by humans than did a year ago. That reminds me of the point in Gore's film about how a frog will boil to death rather than escape if the warming temperature is very slow. Sad.
Rated!
Thanks so much for this valuable and relavant post and giving us a peek into your incredible journey to the poles.
What a fabulous post – expressing my sentiments exactly. I love the science work going on, and the efforts to understand the earth’s climate – and our part in it – is obviously invaluable. Regardless of any of the findings with regard to our part in actual climate change, it would be foolish if the world didn’t aggressively address carbon emissions and sustainability. It just makes sense.
Amazing pictures! Thanks for sharing.
Put that way, it's not even close.
I borrowed these duds, of course. (Can't you tell by the fit?)
Monte
That means we have to push even harder for change, even incremental change.
I wanted to say to the commenters that declare this post the winner of the contest, "uh, hello? I'm right here. I can hear you."
But I do feel like the boy at the science fair who again makes the exploding volcano with baking soda next to a booth explaining stem cell research. No disrespect to the other entry...I didn't read the other post yet.
Brian, I know Canadians are especially conscious of global warming. Some of my Canadian friends are aghast at what the US hasn't been doing the past 8 years.
Steph, thanks. Yes, the greenlanders seem happy with their sledges and dogs and snowscapes. A pristine life.
Greg, yes, Rob's piece seems, excuse me, the polar complement to mine.
Cat, I need a big cup of tea on this one.
From the Midwest, the Europeans are way ahead of us on heading off global warming. Just about everyone but China seems to be.
Joan K, yes if you live in it you can't deny it.
Cathy, thanks.
David, your wife can get there --if she hurrys! ::sigh::
Michael, thanks for both comments. The sealskin didn't fit but it was warm.
jimmymac, thank you, and yes, it is urgent. Very.
Carol, yes, that Monty Python fella and I have now gone Pole -to-Pole. Beats bi-coastal, I guess.
Bob, the people who said that mistook the sign at the right-hand top. Just an error. You and I are a delicious apple and a delicious orange: both making a good point about greening in our own, inimitable way. The main thing is to keep the dialogue going on greening. Anyway, you are one of my faves on this site for many reasons and I think you know that.
What is next? Do you have any trips being planned?
I'm going to relisten to NPR's piece today on marathons on Antarctica.
I have heard that Greenland may soon no longer be a single island, but an archipelago revealed for the first time in thousands of years.
Your pictures, observations, and analysis are really outstanding. Thank you.
Hawley, that's a great pun, except sad and true.
odetteroulette, the locals have some choice words for the naysayers, as you might well imagine. I couldn't translate from the Inuit language but it boiled down to "F... you, and may you float away on an iceberg!"
If only the great powers of the world would join forces and devote as much to this problem, to halt this most dangerous domino effect as they did to halt the spread of communism; then maybe we would have a chance.
The photos are breathtaking, and I thought you looked adorable in sealskin!
I am now going to email it to my husband, who I argue with about turning out the lights all the time.
somehow the smart ass in me always seems to come when i read these articles/stories.
Susanne, if every one of us turned off the lights (and even better, drove a green car (!), we would make a huge difference. The number of Americans who don't understand the importance of this is sad.
L.
There IS something YOU can do......
QUOTE: The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, 'Livestock's Long Shadow' concludes that global animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2 equivalents) - an astonishing 18% of the total - than all forms of transportation (13.5%).
Another study from the University of Chicago found that the average American diet requires the production of an extra ton and a half of carbon dioxide-equivalent - in the form of both carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases - compared to a strictly vegetarian diet.
Most recently a study by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan found that a kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
Reducing your meat intake is one of the most effective personal strategies for slowing global warming. Food for thought! END QUOTE.
Maybe you could replace one or two "meat" meals a week, or consider a modified form of Vegetarianism?
What you CANNOT do is say "there is nothing I can do".
Of course you can rubbish the studies to fit your agenda...
and
You can assume I put this here to suit my agenda...?
Instead of either, why not take a look at the evidence yourself? With the aid of your favourite search engine
GREAT post Lea... so VERY pertinant to our time
Warm Regards
Mal
The world's most beautiful and majestic animal, Polar Bears, are a great indication of what's happening to this increidble world. Losing ice almost on a daily basis, their hunting grounds are melting away, forcing them to swim longerdistances for food, often drowning in the process. Sad and truly heart-wrenching.
Unfortunately, those who love keeping their heads deep in the sand are the ame ones who rule the roost in politics and world economy and, unfotunately, no time for the important things in life while thy're chasing their wallets and purses down Wall Street (and to Washington for a bail-out) to give a damned about the future of our planet.
keep on truckin, Lea. Maybe someday the powers of the Earth will pull their heads out of the sand when, like a tick on the skin of the Earth, their asses get too hot from global warming.
RATED BIG TIME
xo
Cows are the biggest cause of CO2. Since farting is the biggest problem, maybe we should figure out how to end farts in cows and other animal life.
It's a "normal" cycle. How do they know?
How we know is that it's been going on for millions of years. So how did the last ice age end if humans didn't cause it? This one is not a rhetorical question, I would like for you to explain it.
You are right. Agenda trumps everything for many.
You're right about this one. Your agenda is loud and clear.
The one thing you are forgetting here is the people who started with the global warming are the same people who in 1975 I think it was told us of an impending ice age if we don't do something.
Everyone should see "An Inconvenient Truth". It's one of few movies that will change your life. I have never met a Republican (and I mean the "new", ignorant, uneducated, cowardly Republicans who sprung up in the last 8 years, not the ones who used to have legitimate points about fiscal responsibility and who used to care about this country - these Republicans have apparently gone underground) who has seen it. Truth is truly inconvenient to them.
I have suggested in my own post on this topic that, if global warming is cyclical, and the increasingly strong hurricanes, wildfires, and dying off of reefs was predictable, why didn't conservative leaning scientists predict it, as global warming believers did? Years before Katrina, Gore was predicting devastating storms would wreak human and economic disaster in this country.
In fact, why worry about Osama Bin Laden and world-wide terrorism, when we have home-grown Republicans who are doing everything they can to weaken and destabilize this country with their insistence that everything is just fine?
Thanks again Lea, and the pictures are fabulous!
again, thank you. love love love and gratitude.
I believe a lot of the religious right, thus many republicans, do this with their religion. I've been told by quite a few, "you might as well assume that Jesus is right, because what if you're wrong. you're going to be left all alone after the rapture."
Why can't they do the same about global warming since they can with something even more intangible as the possiblity that a person's body is going to be lifted into heaven at some future time?
Brian, we're on the same page.
Sally and Marcelleqb, thank you!
Bob, I saw the magnificent series Planet Earth and I can't think of a sadder thing than the plight of that polar bear that we followed throughout, who at the end of a heroic effort just lay down and gave up. Many tears and then fears for all of us.
bbd, yes I was shocked and pleased to see it there today. Many thanks again for enlarging the photo.
Catnlion and McGarrett, let's say you aren't wrong -- we just don't know. What's wrong with going green and living wisely? What's the argument against that? The fishermen in Greenland have no agenda except earning a living, and they are frightened by the speed of change. Why not give green a try? There never have been so many of us on earth before, and it can't be helping our atmosphere.
dcvdickens, such a thoughtful, wise comment. So very appreciated.
theo, you'll get more of the backstory if you read my 4-part Antarctica piece. Like you, lots of us have health issues and I am dealing with mine by living as fully as possible in the moment. Who knows? (And if I had waited, I wouldn't have been able to afford it.)
JustJuli, I think if we feel we are doing even a bit, like not using plastic bags and turning out lights, we feel a bit better. I've been a greenie for several years now, because I've seen the rest of the world way ahead of us and tried to emulate. Still, so much more to do.
"Bob, I saw the magnificent series Planet Earth and I can't think of a sadder thing than the plight of that polar bear that we followed"
I watched that bear dig out a hollow space to die in. Had to quickly grab the remote and fast forward to the next scene. Heart breaking for any animal, but for some reason, doubley so for me and Polar Bears.
m.a.h. and lpsrocks, thanks for the kind words. This one means alot to me.
Bob, you were right to switch the remote. Utterly, sobbingly heartbreaking.
BobbyG, will read if I can bear to. I get so frustrated the more I learn.
______
'...the power and seduction of fossil fuels will be hard to leave behind. If humans were to look to biomass (all living things, but in this case particularly plants) as a replacement, we would need to increase our consumption of all primary production on land by 50 percent. We're already using 20 percent more than the planet can sustainably provide, so this is not an option...
In 1961 there was still room to maneuver. In that seemingly distant age, there were just 3 billion people, and they were using only half of the total resources that our global ecosystem could sustainably provide. A short twenty-five years later, in 1986, we had reached a watershed, for that year our population topped 5 billion, and such was our thirst for resources that we were using all of Earth's sustainable production.
In effect, 1986 marks the year that humans reached Earth's carrying capacity, and ever since we have been running the environmental equivalent of a budget deficit, which is sustained only by plundering our capital base. The plundering takes the form of overexploiting fisheries, overgrazing pasture until it becomes desert, destroying forests, and polluting our oceans and atmosphere, which in turn leads to the large number of environmental issues we face. In the end, though, the environmental budget is the only one that really counts...
...By 2001 humanity's deficit had ballooned to 20 percent, and our population to over 6 billion. By 2050, when the population is expected to level out at around 9 billion, the burden of human existence will be such that we will be using -- if they can still be found -- nearly two planets' worth of resources." [pp. 78-79]'
We can choose to continue to drill, mine, cut down, and grind up the planet in pursuit of short-term business-as-usual, unevenly distributed consumerist comforts, but the day of tragically harsh mass reckoning draws ever closer. The lessons to be drawn from Jared Diamond's "Collapse" are compelling in this regard. There is no shortage whatsoever of constructive and remediative work to be done in support of a sustainable and broadly prosperous future for all of humanity. But, let's not kid ourselves that an unregulated "invisible hand free market" alone will suffice to insure its emergence. Recent economic history alone refutes that assertion.
_____
Absent concerted global effort, humanity is on course for decimation. I suppose, In The Really Big Picture, it matters not. It's simply our choice.
thanks.
paula
Lisa, Paula, Pablo, M B thanks so very much for your comments.
To answer your question "Why not give green a try?", I would argue that we actually are giving green a try. As societies become wealthier, they start to take better care of the environment. This is why the US, Europe, and Japan lead the way in environmentalism, including individual people like you making choices about which products to buy based on the environmental impact.
So, a logical approach might be to make sure we stay wealthy and that the rest of the world has a better chance to get wealthy.
A good question to ask is "what generally is the best method to have people and societies get wealthy?" As we look around the world at Asia, Africa, and the former Soviet areas, the ones that pursue individual liberty, capitalism, and democracy get wealthy and then start to make the shift to conservation and energy efficiency. Not by government mandate but because the consumer demands it. The countries that try to get out of poverty through socialism and authoritarianism tend to remain corrupt and tend to tolerate the worst environmental abuses. China is an interesting example here because it is not yet wealthy enough to make the transition and also has an authoritarian system that results in corruption paying off quicker than meeting consumer needs.
After all that, then, why should we be suspicious of the climate change/global warming agenda? Because all the solutions are ones that lead to increased government intervention into the lives of individual citizens and the markets. This is likely to threaten our wealth and thereby cause us to regress in our desire to preserve the environment. People struggling simply don't care as much.
So, I welcome you and other people at OS to make consumption decisions based on your desire to reduce CO2. Buy the hybrids, ride bikes, do whatever. But, don't use coercion to do it. Coercion will achieve the exact opposite result from what you want.
http://open.salon.com/blog/garybaumgarten/2009/02/21/climate_change_trumps_human_rights
Does this make sense to you?
I think it means that we will get neither human rights nor cooperation on environmental issues because authoritarian systems do not produce wealth that leads to environmentalism.
Interesting take, McGarret50. Buy none of us "know." So meanwhile, I'll take your point and continue going green, and we'll see what happens.
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/00143.html
According to Alun Anderson of New Scientist" (as seen in a post entitled "The Sunlight-Powered Future" in response to the question "what makes you optimistic, and why?" at Edge.org),
______
"I'm optimistic about…a pair of very big numbers. The first is 4.5 x 10ˆ20. That is the current world annual energy use, measured in joules. It is a truly huge number and not usually a cause for optimism as 70 per cent of that energy comes from burning fossil fuels.
Thankfully, the second number is even bigger: 3,000,000 x 10ˆ20 joules. That is the amount of clean, green energy that pours down on the Earth totally free of charge every year. The Sun is providing 7,000 times as much energy as we are using, which leaves plenty for developing China, India and everyone else. How can we not be optimistic? We don't have a long-term energy problem. Our only worries are whether we can find smart ways to use that sunlight efficiently and whether we can move quickly enough from the energy systems we are entrenched in now to the ones we should be using. Given the perils of climate change and dependence on foreign energy, the motivation is there..."
______
Full post at the link.
Congrats on the cover.
There is no uniformed decision on the science. Now it seems that the people are saying they were threatened to tow the global warming line.
The people who started the global warming scare are the same people who in 1975 that if we didn't do anything we were going to have another ice age. So which science is right?
What we know now is that if the sun spot activity doesn't change the current cooling trend is going to continue.
So what do we have? Strong armed science, cooling trends, Antarctica ice packs that are growing,
We have had cooling and warming cycles forever. This is nothing new. People still haven't answered what ended the last ice age.
"The people who started the global warming scare are the same people who in 1975 that if we didn't do anything we were going to have another ice age."
______
Would you care to name some names?
Didn't think so.
Are you a scientist?
Didn't think so.
I hate to mention this, but your optimism about GREEN and Warming is no more based on scientific fact that Mr. Gore’s understanding of earth science, or science in general. Yes, you are seeing some changes in the artic climates, but associating this with CO2 levels in the atmosphere and positing a causal relationship is not supported by empirical data. I’m as concerned as the next guy about losing my beachfront property in California, but I’ve looked at the data and your theory comes up short in many aspects. Gore's data is an assortment of antedotal evidence, not supportive of a coherent theory of global warming or systemic climate change.
Global Warming is not a myth, but a physical science phenomena that is completely unknown regarding it’s short term impact. What we do know, is that over millions of years, the earth has experienced cycles of temperature change that are theorized to have occurred for a variety of reasons. No one knows why this REALLY happened. We have theories that can not be tested which propose certain causal agents, but they are not amenable to the scientific method of hypotheses and test. Relative to the multiple millions of years of earth’s existence, a 50 year splice of direct temperature collection has got to seem cause alarm for the anyone with a sense of teh big picture.
Most people believe that GREEN is the way to go when it makes sense. Many of us believe that Mr. Gore’s carbon obsession is based on issues not related to science, but politics. Mr. Gore is in to Global Warming because his ego has never recovered from the 2000 Election. Mr. Gore is actually doing a lot of damage to our species by taking our eyes off of balls that we can actually hit. Global warming is happening, but the extent and implications are a crap shot. I applaud your zeal in making a difference with the environment, but I hope you know it’s smoke and mirrors.
You or I do not know why warming is happening. Adaptation defines intelligence. If we are intelligent we must at least TRY to adapt and not worry who is right or wrong.
Those of us who have seen the melting polar areas and who have talked to the local people just want the insurance of doing all we can. I could care less who is "right."
For example when you are talking about polar ice caps there is ice in the water and ice on land masses. Ice is melting in the water, but the land mass ice is increasing. The water levels are raising (in some parts of the world) about 1 to 3 millimeters per year. Which you also have to account for the fact the earth produces new water each year. If all the ice in the water melted it would raise the water level less than one foot since the ice in the water is already displacing about the same volume of water. That is far cry from the 15-150 feet Gore predicted in several decades. And science is still not sure if this is a natural cycle or man made. The ice on the polar cap land mass is increasing not melting.
Should we lower greenhouse gas? Yes. Should we conserve? Yes. Should we develop clean power and alternative renewable energy sources? Yes. Should we enforce it worldwide, yes.
But, is that what is being proposed? No, Most of the environmental treaties proposed exempt China and India and other third world manufacturing centers which are becoming the manufacturing centers for the major global corporations. So in effect they become exempt for 25 years while manufactures in this country become less competitive. If global warming is real then "everyone" has to abide by the same rules.
As for Gore I don't think he believes in global warming except that it made him rich. Gore who left the White House with about 2 million in assets is not worth 100 million. He is heavily invested in companies that will reap millions and billions from his proposed ideas. No vested interest here.
What you do says more about what you really believe.
Gore is blaming the average American for driving a car and feels they should pay carbon credits, while he flies in a private jet that produces the green house gas equivalent of 100 cars for every hour of operation. Jets are one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas. So while you are battling through airport security and crammed on a plane and forced to pay carbon credits, Mr Gore is flying in luxury in his own private jet producing 100 times the average car in greenhouse gas.
What about that evil family car? Most people do not realize that the average car today produces 1/10th the pollution of cars 30 years ago. But, 30 years ago science was telling us to prepare for nuclear winter and the second ice age not global warming. What, science was wrong?
Gore and Tipper have over 35,000 square feet of living space for two people. That is over 10-15 times the average American family of four's living space. Really Mr Gore you have the stones to say my lifestyle is killing the planet?
When Al and his Hollywood buddies takes global warming seriously I will to.
in matters such as glaciation. Motion, flow, and change are a definitive part of the life of Earth's 160,000 various glaciers. It's a fascinating field of study. I envy you your visit to Greenland to see some remarkable ice fields up close.
I understand what people are trying to express when they say it's better to err on the side of caution and 'live green' than to live as if mankind's carbon emissions have no influence on global climate. The statement presupposes several things - mainly, that C02 drives climate. It also blurs various motivations. Not all environmentalism turns on the lynchpin of AGW theory.
In any case, "living green" (respectfully, sustainably, ungreedily) and having convictions in the man-made Global Warming theory are two mutually exclusive points.
I am a vegan. I recycle, and live thriftily, and I do this because it's my observation that we abuse many of Earth's resources, and take even more for granted.
Despite this adherence to 'green' standards I am accustomed to being derided for my skepticism of the AGW political ideology, and lumped into a categorization that includes all sort of unsavoury types!
Passion for preserving our world's wilder regions should not preclude being able to look critically at popular theories presented as indisputable fact.
But, as Lea so rightly pointed out, whatever the reasons for the changes, we know some of the consequences and we have to figure out how to deal with them. For example, about 53% of the world's popoulation is concentrated in coastal and waterway areas that are already being adversely affected. Climate change is causing (yes, causing) changes to areas of arable land, jeopardizing food production, and to fresh water supplies. The latter are already at risk in many areas from other human activities.
As far as world oil, if we do as well conserving supplies in the next 35 years as we've done in the past 35 years--since we were warned pretty clearly about the status of available oil--I'd bet on the shorter range for supply there. We can't wait to find alternatives until it's gone.
I'm no scientist, but I am an educated person, btw. Just trying to think through data, arguments, and consequences of ignoring a lot of obvious events and changes.
Gregory Fegel’s recent summary of this research states, “The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the “big picture” of long-term climate change. ..While concern over the dubious treat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored. “
Being educated entails an understanding of what you know and what you don’t. I was trained as a scientist, btw, and I have worked with an assortment of snake oil sales-persons and corporate pucks in high tech over the years. I’ve learned that man is a selfish, destructive creature who will typically say or do anything to elevate himself, ie. Bernie Madoff or GOV Blago…
Nope not a scientist, just read a lot. What are your scientific qualifications?
So as far as not naming names I do happen to have a few for you. Sorry that you had to post that I wouldn't answer, I do when I have time. But my goal is to drive 600 miles per day so sometimes I don't get a chance.
Let me know what you think.
The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century.
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."
Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."
The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool."
Newsweek ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the
New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age."
The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
The seminal paper of Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton "Variations in the earths orbit: pacemaker of the ice ages" qualified its predictions with "forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate"
The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead , continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade." However discussion of cyclic glacial periods does not feature in this report. Instead it is the role of man that is central to the report's analysis. "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century". The report can not conclude whether carbon dioxide in warming, or agricultural and industrial pollution in cooling, are factors in the recent climatic changes, noting; "Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates through the system."
April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."
A petition, initiated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and endorsed by more than 15,000 scientists, urged President Clinton not to sign the Climate Protocol negotiated in Kyoto, Japan.
The 15,000-plus signers, about two-thirds of whom hold advanced academic degrees, question the uncertain science underlying the Protocol, noting it does not agree with atmospheric data. (While computer models predict a strong warming trend, observations from weather satellites and weather balloons show a cooling trend over the past 20 years.) Many of the signers are experts in the pertinent scientific fields of atmospheric physics, meteorology, oceanography, geology, biology, agriculture, and in relevant engineering specialties.
As of yet they can't tell you what the weather is going to be next week. Also if they go back to a know date the models won't project the known weather forward of the target date.
Computer models are only as good, and unbiased, as the programmer.
GIGO!
People are using global warming to say that I can't idle my truck for more than 5 minutes.
Last night it was in the teens. You go out in subfreezing weather and sleep in your car and see how well you sleep.
So the next time your driving down the road and you see an 80,000 pound truck doing 57 MPH, you think to yourself did that driver get a good nights sleep and is in control of that rig or did he freeze his ass off and is dead tired.
If your tired at work and drop a cup of coffee you may get some minor burns. If I take an 80,000 pound truck into a car with a mother, father, and kids...............someone is going to die. Odds are it's not going to be me, it will be your family in your car.
Global warming BS is making it dangerous not to mention expensive.
Your comments about the 80K lb trucks and climate change ring true for anybody who has ever worked for a living. Beautiful example of the REAL WORLD. Gore is a first rate scam artist. I hope our new President can see the light before it’s too late.
It's funny now they call CO2 a pollutant. When I was in high school science classe we had another name for it.
PLANT FOOD
"Nope not a scientist, just read a lot. What are your scientific qualifications?"
____
Well, a lot more than simply having "read a lot."
Try, 'published writer/analyst within a forensic environmental radiation discipline' for starters. Advanced statistician/data modeler by training and long experience across multiple technical domains.
www.bgladd.com/papers
(You could have readily ascertained that, so No Sale.)
Sorry, you can read and the regurgitate the hand-picked all-the-Greenies-are-lying stuff that fulfills your "confirmation bias" as you wish.
Enjoy.
You might be wrong. I might be wrong. Try to imagine my bet.
Cheers
When I first tried you URL it came back as under construction. I just tried the one you listed here.
Impressive!
I mean that in all seriousness. I have to load early in the AM and run for about 10 hours. I promise that I'll take a read some of your papers tomorrow while I'm waiting to unload.
Your favorite or most widely quoted that you would suggest I start with would be what?
Second message by design.
One of us is wrong about the cause and what we can do about it. While I think it's you, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of what we have. Look at the Super Fund sites. Who the hell would do that?
The biggest problem is the global warming people are hurting me physically and my business. They are trying to force me to sleep outside where it's illegal for you to leave your pet. They also want me to spend money that if I'm right makes no sense to spend.
With that said, if I could come up with the money to replace my truck, which I have to do April 1, I would take the new 2010 Freightliner. The air that comes out of the exhaust will be cleaner than the air that goes in the intake. Since I have to make a change I would have no problem using something green.
The problem is 6.5% of the truck capacity came off the road in 2008, and that is only in larger firms. The government does not count companies of 5 or less trucks so any of those who closed are not in the 6.5% number. The trucking industry sucks right now. I'm getting 80 cents per mile right now for what I was getting 1.40 per mile for this past summer.
So with needing to spend $140,000 on a truck how can I justify it? And to be forced to spend it because of an unproven theory is not responsible. Great credit interest rates on trucks is 16%. Okay credit is 25% down and 30% APR.
Let's assume your wrong. That doesn't make green a waste. I'm just not going to risk my family until you can prove that you are right.
But if someone can find a way in the billions of stimulus to fund a fuel conserving, CO2 and NOX reducing truck let me know. I can right now take my MPG from 6.5 to 9.0 and get gases to meet 2014 EPA standards.
While I don't agree with you, I would still do it tomorrow if I could afford it.
China is a good example of how the global concerns are playing the whole global warming con. They want to exempt China, Mexico and India for 25 years. Since the largest corporations have been shifting their manufacturing with the help of tax breaks to China and Mexico, they in effect do not have to spend the money to improve pollution standards.
If we are going to have any treaty everyone has to sign it including China, Mexico, and India. Then it will be a level playing field.
I believe that average global temperatures (not that there really is such a thing, but anyway...) began to rise in the mid-1800's and continue to do so today. I believe that the rise is much less than the popular media would have us believe. It is probably something along the lines of the 1 degree Fahrenheit that Catnlion mentioned. I'm not convinced that sea levels are rising, but if they are, I would believe that 1-3 millimeters per year is in the ballpark.
Beyond that, I don't believe much. Because the current warming trend began in the mid-1800's, I don't believe it has been caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Cars didn't exist then.
Al Gore's own data (ice cores etc.) about the prehistoric cyclic relationship between carbon and temperature shows that carbon build-up actually occurred after temperatures increased. Sometimes long after, as in hundreds or thousands of years. That, plus the confounding effects (scientifically speaking) of the vast CO2 buffering system provided by the oceans, and the fact that CO2 is a perfectly normal and in fact critically necessary component of the earth's atmosphere, cause me to believe that carbon is not the villain in global warming. Or, at least, it is far from having been proven to be the villain. Bottom line, I believe the whole "carbon credit" thing is just a scam designed to make money for somebody. Else. Probably Al and his buddies. Take a look here: http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
Here's an interesting website you might want to check out: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Yes, granted, the authors' biases are obvious. But Al Gore's stuff is fairy-tale fodder too, so if you're willing to listen to Al, you ought to be willing to take a look at these guys.
Several commenters have asked, basically, "Whether the global warming/carbon cycle/fossil fuel stuff is true or not, what do we have to lose by going 'green' anyway just in case?"
Well, honestly, I do think that's a losing strategy. For one thing, telling ourselves that getting rid of fossil fuels is the answer, when it really isn't, will cause us to spend fewer resources trying to find out what the real answer is, making us less likely to find it. Also, if we spent lots of resources (money is just one example) to implement the wrong solution, we may cripple our ability to implement the right solution in case we do find it. Just look at the state of the world economy right now. Lay on a few more taxes or destroy a few more industries by implementing over-zealous environmental "protections," and there is the very real possibility that millions more people will join the ranks of the impoverished. And poor people will do whatever they have to do to eat, stay warm, raise their children, keep a roof over their heads ... you get the idea. Having a green lifestyle is a much lower priority than living.
But what bothers me the most about climate change propaganda is the fact that those people who are paying for us to receive that message -- via television, radio, newspapers, internet; whatever media works -- are aiming to profit from our belief in it. Who do you think will make money in a carbon-credit economy? I'm pretty sure it won't be me. And don't kid yourself, it IS about money. It always is. Anybody who says differently is selling something.
by the way i like read some news about fashion ?such as replica handbags what about you ,if you interested in fashion too ,we can exchange our experience .