[Zipperfish]

Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier

from National Geogrpahic, March 20, 2008.

$1:

Washington D.C.'s famous cherry trees are primed to burst in a perfect pink peak about the end of this month. Thirty years ago, the trees usually waited to bloom until around April 5.

In central California, the first of the field skipper sachem, drab little butterflies, was fluttering about on March 12. Just 25 years ago, that creature predictably emerged there anywhere from mid-April to mid-May.

And sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On March 9, when allergist Donald Dvorin set up his monitor, maple pollen was already heavy in the air. Less than two decades ago, that pollen couldn't be measured until late April.

For biologists, these trends are a worrying sign of the ominous effects of global warming.

The fingerprints of human-caused climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year's authoritative report by the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state.

"The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said.

(con't at link)

[Zipperfish]

Don't bet against global warming

Seattle Post Intelligencer, March 20, 2008

$1:

I'll guess that 95 percent of the people who read this will -- like me -- not be experts on global warming and the alleged connection to human activity. However, you don't have to be an expert at anything to know how to make a smart bet based on past experiences, odds and patterns.

History has shown us time and time again that if the liberal science community gets close to a unanimous opinion on a subject, and the conservative business/religious community opposes it, the eventual outcome is fairly predictable.

Starting around 500 years ago, when the prominent thinkers of the day (Copernicus, Galileo) were ridiculed for claiming the Earth was round and the planets rotated around the sun, a pattern has followed: Conservatives have lost most of the major battles where they fought science and/or big progressive social advances. They opposed ending slavery, and lost. They believed women should not vote, and lost. Conservatives ridiculed Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, and eventually the majority of the people of the planet accepted it. More recently conservatives opposed civil rights, and had to watch as Americans came to embrace a more enlightened view on race relations and fairness.

Perhaps the closest contemporary example we have to the current global warming debate that pits science against big business was the decades-long fight over tobacco and its health effects. Starting in the 1950s and '60s, big tobacco companies spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying politicians while simultaneously trying to persuade the public that the harmful effects of cigarettes were overblown and exaggerated. They fought the science and research wherever they could. They did everything within their power to discredit the medical community and what eventually became unimpeachable evidence linking smoking to a wide range of negative health issues. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the whole industry reached a climax in the mid-'90s when the CEOs of all the major American tobacco corporations sat in front of Congress and stated they did not believe the substance was addictive.

We now know better.

You don't have to be an expert in anything to spot good odds. Global warming and the connection to human activity may not be 100 percent conclusive, and the science behind it is still has a few holes, but if I was going to bet, I would not side with Rush Limbaugh (who has also been 100 percent wrong on his Iraq war predictions) or the big oil companies that have spent heavily in a transparent attempt to downplay global warming and the dire situation we may face in the future.

No, I'd place my bet with the other side and go with the thousands of experts that study the Earth and its atmosphere and who almost unanimously believe we need to make some big changes fast to slow the onset and likely devastation that global warming may cause. Put another way, I'd say that if this was a game of blackjack, with big oil dealing (and history as a guide), they're about to draw on a 16, and the science community is holding a 20. My personal thought as a guy who knows a little about odds and patterns would be to double down on the science community.

[sasquatch2]

$1:

No, I'd place my bet with the other side and go with the thousands of experts that study the Earth and its atmosphere and who almost unanimously believe we need to make some big changes fast to slow the onset and likely devastation that global warming may cause.

Better odds by buying a lottery ticket.

The "liberal" "progressive" mindset was/is convinced of the superiority of the socialist model of government/society for most of the 20th century. Much literature and ivory tower academia endorsed this notion, and continues to do so but the fact remains that the great socialist, communist experiment which was the Soviet Union failed and failed misserably in practice.

$1:

.........the current global warming debate that pits science against big business

This is a misleading often reapeated theme. Examination indicates that it is infact a small cabel of activists, who by means fraudlent, are pushing a socoalist agenda in the name of science and the involvement of "big business" is a myth, that the activists, propagate.

$1:

The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the

has been discovered to be methodology of the activists not the "sceptic", "denier" opposition to this public relations agenda/stampede.

Much like the venerable "invisible thread" of focklore, time and again "the science" gets caught out in public bare-assed.

Fictious melting Polar Bears, melting Polar Ice Caps, "hockey sticks", manipulated temperature records (GISS) and now this "mysterious missing heat".

There is no mystery and no missing heat. There was simply no heat to go missing.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

ridenrain ridenrain:

If you demand all western countries shut down industry and give money to a hand picked group of other countries, that's political.

Who is demanding that?

That's a summary description of the Kyoto Treaty.

I don't think Kyoto says that. In fact, carbon credits are meant to be used to develop cleaner technologies, which should spur innovation and create profit.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As to Global Warming being political...

[deleted]

Wow, those sure were a lot of quotes taken out of context and without reference.

Try again.

[ridenrain]

romanP romanP:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

ridenrain ridenrain:

If you demand all western countries shut down industry and give money to a hand picked group of other countries, that's political.

Who is demanding that?

That's a summary description of the Kyoto Treaty.

I don't think Kyoto says that. In fact, carbon credits are meant to be used to develop cleaner technologies, which should spur innovation and create profit.

There's no guarantee or means to ensure where that money goes. The UN and NGO's have been handing money and food to Africa for decades with very little results. Why would you assume they'd use the money as intended when they can't even give the free food to the people who are starving?

[romanP]

ridenrain ridenrain:

romanP romanP:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

ridenrain ridenrain:

If you demand all western countries shut down industry and give money to a hand picked group of other countries, that's political.

Who is demanding that?

That's a summary description of the Kyoto Treaty.

I don't think Kyoto says that. In fact, carbon credits are meant to be used to develop cleaner technologies, which should spur innovation and create profit.

There's no guarantee or means to ensure where that money goes.

Regardless, that is the document's intent. It is not a fault of the document that the nations signing it are run by people who bow to corporate demands and have no imagination about how to fix environmental problems in ways that are helpful to everyone.

$1:

The UN and NGO's have been handing money and food to Africa for decades with very little results. Why would you assume they'd use the money as intended when they can't even give the free food to the people who are starving?

Poverty in Africa isn't going to be solved by just throwing money at it, because money is usually the problem in the first place. A lot of the most poverty-stricken countries in Africa owe more debt in interest alone to the World Bank than they will ever be able to pay off, and these aid payments are usually little more than loans to pay off a loan.

[romanP]

Arctic losing long-term ice cover
by Richard Black

$1:

The Arctic is losing its old, thick ice faster than in previous years, according to satellite data.

The loss has continued since the end of the Arctic summer, despite cold weather across the northern hemisphere.

The warm 2007 summer saw the smallest area of ice ever recorded in the region, and scientists say 2008 could follow a similar pattern.

Older floes are thicker and less saline than newly-formed ice, meaning they can survive warm spells better.

Ice more than two years old now makes up about 30% of all the ice in the Arctic, down from 60% two decades ago.

The shrinking of Arctic ice has global implications, as its white surface reflects solar energy back into space whereas the open ocean absorbs it.

It could be that increasing salination of the ocean is also responsible for melting Arctic ice, in combination with the atmosphere heating up.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

ridenrain ridenrain:

If you demand all western countries shut down industry and give money to a hand picked group of other countries, that's political.

Who is demanding that?

That's a summary description of the Kyoto Treaty.

Uh, no. That's merely one sides spin on Kyoto.

Okay then, smartass, other than NOTHING what does the Kyoto Treaty do to reduce GLOBAL and TOTAL CO2 emissions?

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

Arctic losing long-term ice cover
by Richard Black

$1:

The Arctic is losing its old, thick ice faster than in previous years, according to satellite data.

The loss has continued since the end of the Arctic summer, despite cold weather across the northern hemisphere.

The warm 2007 summer saw the smallest area of ice ever recorded in the region, and scientists say 2008 could follow a similar pattern.

Older floes are thicker and less saline than newly-formed ice, meaning they can survive warm spells better.

Ice more than two years old now makes up about 30% of all the ice in the Arctic, down from 60% two decades ago.

The shrinking of Arctic ice has global implications, as its white surface reflects solar energy back into space whereas the open ocean absorbs it.

It could be that increasing salination of the ocean is also responsible for melting Arctic ice, in combination with the atmosphere heating up.

The ocean will not be any more saline than it is now. Read up on that and you'll see why. <--- This has nada to do with the AGW issue, by the way.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

Arctic losing long-term ice cover
by Richard Black

$1:

The Arctic is losing its old, thick ice faster than in previous years, according to satellite data.

The loss has continued since the end of the Arctic summer, despite cold weather across the northern hemisphere.

The warm 2007 summer saw the smallest area of ice ever recorded in the region, and scientists say 2008 could follow a similar pattern.

Older floes are thicker and less saline than newly-formed ice, meaning they can survive warm spells better.

Ice more than two years old now makes up about 30% of all the ice in the Arctic, down from 60% two decades ago.

The shrinking of Arctic ice has global implications, as its white surface reflects solar energy back into space whereas the open ocean absorbs it.

It could be that increasing salination of the ocean is also responsible for melting Arctic ice, in combination with the atmosphere heating up.

The ocean will not be any more saline than it is now. Read up on that and you'll see why. <--- This has nada to do with the AGW issue, by the way.

What do you mean "will not be"? It's been getting saltier at least since the beginning of industrialisation.

[PluggyRug]

romanP romanP:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

Arctic losing long-term ice cover
by Richard Black

$1:

The Arctic is losing its old, thick ice faster than in previous years, according to satellite data.

The loss has continued since the end of the Arctic summer, despite cold weather across the northern hemisphere.

The warm 2007 summer saw the smallest area of ice ever recorded in the region, and scientists say 2008 could follow a similar pattern.

Older floes are thicker and less saline than newly-formed ice, meaning they can survive warm spells better.

Ice more than two years old now makes up about 30% of all the ice in the Arctic, down from 60% two decades ago.

The shrinking of Arctic ice has global implications, as its white surface reflects solar energy back into space whereas the open ocean absorbs it.

It could be that increasing salination of the ocean is also responsible for melting Arctic ice, in combination with the atmosphere heating up.

The ocean will not be any more saline than it is now. Read up on that and you'll see why. <--- This has nada to do with the AGW issue, by the way.

What do you mean "will not be"? It's been getting saltier at least since the beginning of industrialisation.

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

Arctic losing long-term ice cover
by Richard Black

$1:

The Arctic is losing its old, thick ice faster than in previous years, according to satellite data.

The loss has continued since the end of the Arctic summer, despite cold weather across the northern hemisphere.

The warm 2007 summer saw the smallest area of ice ever recorded in the region, and scientists say 2008 could follow a similar pattern.

Older floes are thicker and less saline than newly-formed ice, meaning they can survive warm spells better.

Ice more than two years old now makes up about 30% of all the ice in the Arctic, down from 60% two decades ago.

The shrinking of Arctic ice has global implications, as its white surface reflects solar energy back into space whereas the open ocean absorbs it.

It could be that increasing salination of the ocean is also responsible for melting Arctic ice, in combination with the atmosphere heating up.

The ocean will not be any more saline than it is now. Read up on that and you'll see why. <--- This has nada to do with the AGW issue, by the way.

What do you mean "will not be"? It's been getting saltier at least since the beginning of industrialisation.

The ocean cannot get more saline than it is and there is a natural process that prevents salinity from increasing. Dr. Michael Atkins (formerly of Scripps Woods Hole and now of Ocean Technology & Environmental Consulting) has written papers on this topic and has, with Dr. Robert Ballard (of the Titanic discovery) observed fields of crystalline salt forming on the sea floor exactly as predicted as the seas reach a saturation point (about 3.5 per cent to volume of water) concentration of salts. My point is that this is a well documented phenomena and one that visual observation has verified.

Now, to correspond with the correct AGW doomsday prediction, it is not an increase in salinity that is a danger but a decrease in salinity that is supposed to be a danger to the climate.

Or are you saying that the whole "OMG!!! The world will DIE!!!" argument about the thermohaline cycle shutting down is bullsh*t because salinity is actually increasing (which is impossible - it can vary within the range of 32 and 37 ppt. with an average of 35 ppt. but it does not in any circumstance increase on average past 37ppt.) instead of decreasing.

See, if salinity is increasing then the whole story about arctic and antarctic ice melting and decreasing oceanic salinity to GASP!!! dangerous levels is then BS.

So which doomsday story are you going with, hmmm?

Because it isn't both of them