Careful, Arthur. Those who would call us "liberals" will remind us that climate change is a hoax and that this is just pure speculation - intended to strike fear into those concerned about their future, their children's, and our planet
This is indeed bad news. Nowhere to be found on the cover of my local "news" sources.
Just watched the evening news here too and N O T A W O R D!!
Well... I guess... maybe... that indeed means that... could it be? Yes, that must prove it IS a hoax. Oh phew, what a relief! Shame about the headache and the hole in the wall, but I can just plaster my head and give the wall an aspirine!
Careful again Arthur - someone might take you seriously! Really, I did see this reported, but since it's a slowly evolving thing, I don't think it's "hard hitting" enough to make bigger headlines - however incredibly unfortunate that might be.
Posted by Basil Greber on June 27, 2008 at 5:47 PM
May very well be true, but the human impact on global warming is still uncertain.
Ok, joking time is over. This is freightening. I fear that my kids or grand kids (should I have any) won't know what a polar bear is, or what those beautiful white baby seals look like. I think this will be a huge loss to the world and to humanity. Sure, it won't impact our everyday life much - but I think that we, as human beings, need our environment and need to be inspired by the wild and remote places and the creatures living there for our "psychological well being". Yeah, maybe I'm a weirdo. So be it.
I'm actually sick and tired (do I sound old? I'm 24) of all the babbling going on. Everybody's complaining about the high gas prices. I think it's about time. As far as I know, the car industry here in Switzerland signs an agreement with the state every year, promising that they'll bring down average gas consumption of new cars - it's gone up every year so far.
I'm equally sick and tired of the good old "dissent" tactics being applied for the third time now to undermine credibility of scientific work. First, there was supposedly dissent about tobacco and cancer. Then there supposedly was (and is) dissent about the theory of evolution among biologists. And now, there's yet again supposedly dissent about the human impact on the climate when in fact (almost) all scientific studies (excluding those sponsored by Exxon Mobile and Shell) speak a very clear language.
And I'm even more upset that the states around the north pole are jumping up and down in joy, waiting for the stupid ice to clear, so they can finally exploit the oil and ore resources below the ice cap. Why don't people realize that there's no way around reducing our oil consumption? It's a limited resource. It ends (or costs $100 a gallon) one day.
Ghastly! It troubles me that it seems to be so very difficult to convince people what this means for themselves and our planet. I wish I could be more hopeful, but it's my pessimistic nature declaring the fear that it is already too late to save our fellow creatures or ourselves (meant in the global sense). If anyone can reassure me, please do try...
David, you're right I fear: this development, however extremely fast it is actually going on the relevant timescale, is slow enough for us to get used to it. The general reaction to this news, if people hear it at all, will probably be that it's a shame... too bad... not good... eh, what will we have for dinner tonight? We have gotten used to this time during which the community of life is collapsing with an estimated 200 species a day (probably higher due to all the unknown species on the globe), during which huge regulating systems are changing within just a few years, etc. We have become used to enormous changes and just shrug. We even manage not to worry too much, because all these huge changes have not touched our life's too much yet. Or... at least many of us do not perceive that it has yet. We can comfort ourself by thinking that if nothing really drastic (SEEMS TO HAVE) happened yet, it will probably not happen anymore anyway. Awareness about the larger picture about all this is what me most desperately need and is what I try to dedicate all my work to.. The "babbling" and "good old dissent tactics to undermine scientific work" have to cease!
Catherine, some people may get a wee bit tired of me repeating this in quite a few threads, but I think that some reassurance based on really good arguments can be found in these books by Daniel Quinn: "Ishmael", "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", "Beyond Civilization" and "If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways".
At the very least I think he has the only answer that would really work. No hope in technological advancements or making people and this system that works to its own destruction (and that of people and millions and millions of other species) better by inventing ever more laws, but by changing the system drastically. If you want to be reassured, please read!
It's the 'slow' evolution that makes me so cynical about global warming. People adapt to gas prices doubling within the space of a couple years; a 1% rise in temperatures means nothing to them. I'm afraid it would take a truly catastrophic event, one that directly and immediately affects our health and safety, to get people to wake up and stop the political bickering. If the temperature in NYC hit 130 degrees for two straight weeks, for example, i bet you'd see some serious action then!
. . . some people may get a wee bit tired of me repeating this in quite a few threads . . .
Arthur, I've been sold on this for years. I don't get tired of seeing it repeated. I get tired of the NEED to see it repeated. Sigh.
And here's my thing. Global warming is a fact. The whole point of argument is whether or not humans are the primary cause. But you know? To me that's moot. All the things we've talked about doing to combat global warming are simply things that good stewards of our earth should do, global warming or not.
But then, I was canvassing the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Duluth and Fargo/Moorhead (USA) areas on environmental issues back in 1989.
WE have had nothing but Global cooling where i live .
Shoveled more snow last winter than the last two combined . 130 % of normal .
Isn't called climate change and not Global warming now ??
I do feel that the earth is changing , like it always has and will , but i do not buy that we are responsible for the changes . Sorry , way tooo much junk science being sold as fact . Also ,there is a very good book out there , ''Blue Earth in Green shackles ''. Good read !!
Ah yes, the communism argument... Very cute Rob. What a load of bollocks that is. I've read other books sporting that argument and it either made me laugh out loud, or made me want to bang my head against the wall in unbelieve at the stupidity of the argument.
In the capitalistic system, all of us are building pyramids for the top ultra rich. Of everything we, the middle class and the poor masses down below, earn and buy, a part is for us of course, but a percentage of it always goes up to the top of the pyramid, making the ultra rich even richer. Communism was interesting in that it said that the poor and middle class should not work to build pyramids for the ultra rich anymore, but for themselves. It was an attempt to create a more egalitarian system, but all the same people had to still work their *rses off and of course, as we know, the system was highly corruptable. Those doing the corrupting of course weren't true communists. Neither am I, let me assure you just in case. Now, you tell me where the communism is in the environmental movement, ok? It's a nice idea for a sort of James Bond parody, but as a true hypothesis I find it a laugh. And you accuse people of believing junk science?
No mate, the environmental movement isn't all good. There are corrupt people working in it just as well as in any other movement. There is junk science used in the environmental movement, but lo and behold, it happens at least as much in the movement that wants to keep monopolising biomass by taking it away from wild systems and converting it all into human flesh and human food and making gicantic heaps of money in the process.
After years of studying and keeping an open mind for both camps (a frame of mind that I don't find in your comment), I say that MOST LIKELY we are HELPING the climate to change faster than ever recorded before. Yes, of course climate changes all the time, but never this fast and the evidence supporting our part in the fast change is quite overwhelming, even if you filter out everything that may be junk science.
And whether we call it climate change or global warming doesn't matter all that much huh? If it's not warming all over the world, then you seem like the kind of guy to me who says that the enviros worried about what they call global warming are wrong and thus the whole thing about the climate must be wrong. Typical... Climate change is the most precise term up till now I believe, but whatever you call it, there is gigantic change and, again, not all of it can be explained by 'natural' causes at the moment.
Part II (this is posted as a separate part so that it can be removed if it would, unjustly, insult people too much. Do take note, it is NOT intended to insult, it is intended to explain and facilitate openmindedness.)
Finally, I can't resist being either insulted or made to laugh by your quote "If you don't believe in God, you will believe anything!!". Cheeses, isn't that an easy way to be able to shove aside anything you hear but don't like? I'm an atheist and my believes are not limited by the conviction that Humans and Nature are separate and opposing entities, that we are destined to suffer on this earth (suffering mostly caused by the way totalitarian agriculture gave rise to money, an economic system based on unlimited growth on a limited planet and the consequence of that pyramid of an ultra rich peak and the hard working labouring and suffering masses below) and that we are here to steward the earth while to do that well, we would need the wisdom and power of the gods that the modern religions claim exist. I believe that humans are just another species in the community of life, and unique and sacred exactly like all other species are unique and sacred.
As a final thought, if ever proof would come that climate change is not caused by us and even that a certain god would exist, I would be the first to fall on my knees to thank that god that we are at least not to blame for the climate disaster. I believe in what reason tells me and if that would be it, I'd have no trouble to adapt. What I read in your comment, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you have made up your mind about this and will not be swayed by any evidence that disagrees with your convictions. Shouldn't it then be: "If you believe in God, you won't believe anything!!"?
Posted by Paul DeCesare on July 10, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Interesting how God and politics seem to be so attached to this subject, as if man can control the overall picture.
The Hot News article states a lot a "may" and "if" and "good chance" which doesn't prove much, but notice the opening line that causes panic:
It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
Sounds emotionally convincing, but is absolute nonsense. That's not a scientific claim. Were they there to observe the poles over the last several thousand years? Not at all. It's time we separate the pontification from the facts we observe.
While panic ensues, there has been one thing evident: climate flucuates. Nobody has 4000 years of observable data to compare against what we see recently, to know if this is a crisis, a bad spike, or just part of the normal fluctuation. This is why the scientists are so split on the whole thing. There isn't enough evidence in this short spit of time to support this recent crisis that man is freaking out over. Anybody remember 30 years ago when the same freak mode kicked in because of how cold the poles were getting, and how we were heading for an ice age? That got forgotten pretty quickly.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence for warming. I'm saying there isn't evidence that this is an end-all-be-all slide into massive earth destruction (not my opinion, do some research on the non-panic side to make sure you have all facts).
More importantly, regardless of issues we can't control, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of this earth with the areas we CAN control. The finger-pointing at liberals and conservatives and government and Bush and God (absurdly enough) and anyone else we can find has gotten old long ago. Maybe it's time we turn the finger around the other direction (author included) and see where we can give and not take.
In fact I am very scared about our future. It looks pretty dismal.
Posted by Steve France on July 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM
If I said the earth has always had a set time line of life..and that there is no such thing as Global Warming, im sure that would raise more than a few eyebrows. But then again, I believe in the word of God, and that he is sovereign and its destiny is set by Him.
2 Peter 3:10
BUT THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL COME AS A THIEF IN THE NIGHT; IN THE WHICH THE HEAVENS SHALL PASS AWAY WITH A GREAT NOISE, AND THE ELEMENTS SHALL MELT WITH FERVENT HEAT, THE EARTH ALSO AND THE WORKS THAT ARE THEREIN SHALL BE BURNED UP.
Mk 13:31
HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY: BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.
Rev 21:1-AND I SAW A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH: FOR THE FIRST HEAVEN AND THE FIRST EARTH WERE PASSED AWAY; AND THERE WAS NO (longer any) MORE SEA.
We love our planet... and God put us in it to look after and have dominion over it. But man destroys everything... from looking after the environment, to not loving thy neighbour. Its called selfishness, and its root is pride.
But we were only to have dominion over it for a set time. If you study the bible it talks of 3 days.. we are now in the 3rd day. Time is running out quickly people.
Hope this doesnt get removed. There is a lot of 'spirtualism' spoken on the npn site i.e full of mother nature etc.. statements.
I hope im allowed to express my faith just as much as the next man who expresses his, but talks in metorphoric language regarding nature and its spiritualness, rather than acknowledging the one true God, Christ Jesus in the bible.
QUOTE:
Rules of Conduct
NPN is strictly dedicated to the art and technique of nature photography and all conversation should pertain directly to it. While on-topic spirited debate is welcome, please keep all conversation congenial, professional and non-combative. Discussion of religion, politics/political activism or any other controversial subject that has little or nothing to do with ther art and technique of nature photography is subject to deletion without notice. If you have any issues or concerns with any aspect of forum activity, please contact the forum moderator(s) using their email contacts at the top of the forum page. You may also contact NPN administration directly at editor@naturephotographers.net.
Posted by Scott Fricke on August 16, 2008 at 11:42 PM
First, I'm not totally convinced of either sides arguments and have an open mind to listen to all arguments. And truthfully am not educated enough on all the issues to form a concrete opinion, in fact I am not convinced there is anyone on Earth that understands the complexities of global weather enough to formulate an accurate prediction of future weather. The only thing factual is records of past weather.
Second, I think one thing that hurts the global warming camp are things like the title of this thread "Arctic could be ice-free this summer". The linked article does not say this! It says the North Pole (a specific point in the Arctic) may be free of ice. It does not state the entire Arctic will be free of ice. It's statements like these that further the argument of "pseudo-science" and sensationalism.
> "If you believe in God, you won't believe anything!!"?
I believe (pun intended) that Arthur meant
"If you believe in God, you won't believe anything else!!?"
If you believe in God, you do believe in something.
Posted by Scott Fricke on October 1, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I always wonder why you never get updates on "predictions" like these to see what really happened. I saw an article in USA Today a week or so ago, turns out the Arctic was in fact not ice-free this summer, in fact at the time of the article it had 1.74 MILLION SQUARE MILES of ice, over 150,000 SQUARE MILES (about the area of Montana) more than last year. Unfortunately last year was the least amount of ice on record.
"Ice free" is usually used in northern climes such as I'm in to mean passable to navigation. Not necessarily with the ice completely gone. I've always read it to mean the former.
And to help emphasize the point that it did happen, we had a family stop here in Kodiak who had just completed the passage east to west. In a modified Maine lobster boat.
Posted by Steve Foss on October 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
we had a family stop here in Kodiak who had just completed the passage east to west. In a modified Maine lobster boat.
Wow! Hank, how was it modified and what are its length/beam/HP specs, if you know? And what's east to west? West from Baffin Bay to Kodiak?
I'm no Alaskan, though I'd do it in a heartbeat if my spouse would relocate (not in a million years), but in my reading, ice-free means to Arctic folk what Hank said.
I checked the online version of the Kodiak paper and their archives don't go back far enough. I'll check the recycle stack by the door and dig out the specifics. As I recall most of the mods were increasing living space and more fuel capacity. The harbormaster is a good friend, and if all else fails I'll check and see what he knows. There was a lengthy interview with the folks on our public radio station. I can't even begin to do a meaningful download, but I'm betting its somewhere in their archives if you have a fast connection.
Aha! Here the story is! The boat is a 46-foot former Maine lobster boat. There's also a link to their website. Kinda gets my traveler's blood flowing too, Steve!
Posted by Steve Foss on October 4, 2008 at 8:59 AM
My God, the whole Northwest Passage. I'm ready to go right now. What an NPN outing THAT would be! Maybe we could even pry Barry Lopez away from whatever he's working on and get him to come along and reprise his acclaimed book Arctic Dreams.
Careful, Arthur. Those who would call us "liberals" will remind us that climate change is a hoax and that this is just pure speculation - intended to strike fear into those concerned about their future, their children's, and our planet
This is indeed bad news. Nowhere to be found on the cover of my local "news" sources.
Quote
Well summer is over !!
Is it ice free ???
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 15, 2008 at 3:11 AM
Hey Rob,
'ice free' typically refers to navigable .. and yes, it sure was this summer. Bummer, wouldn't you say?
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Arthur Lund on October 25, 2008 at 9:16 PM
I was wandering thru the bookstore and found the following book:
CLIMATE CONFUSION:
How Global warming hysteria leads to Bad Science,
Pandering Politicians, and misquided policies that hurt the poor.
I bought it. I read it, and I recommend it to you.
The explanation on how they have measured temperature over the last 100 years alone
is worth the cost of the book. If only the news media would read this book before writing
their stories, there wouldn't be so many horror stories to worry everybody.
For what it's worth, this same author (Ray Spencer) also published articles stating he favors intelligent design over evolution. Certainly worth a read, and anyone should judge for themselves, but he is pretty far out of line with mainstream science.
Guy
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Hey Folks,
On the other hand, Nature Geophysics have just released a peer-reviewed piece that concludes global climate change is, at least to some degree, anthropogenic.
If you don't want to fork over the cash, or aren't a subscriber to the journal, CNN covered the piece here.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM
The arctic has been ice-free before. They are excavating huge finds of extinct reptiles (dinosaurs) on the north slope. All things change. the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 13, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Hey Larry,
And at one time there was no life on earth at all, eh? Weren't you just decrying the idea of 'ratcheting backwards' in another thread? :) On one hand, 'all things change', on the other we're sliding down a slippery slope of moral deterioration, no? Seems like all things change there, too, doesn't it?
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Hey Carl,
I just wanted to point out that all things change.
You compared science to morality in your rebuttal.
In science we speak of entropy... a situation of going from order to disorder or the natural order of a physical system to seek equilibrium. In morality it is called licentiousness--a marked disregard for rules of correctness. Carl, your attempt is flawed because that's apples and oranges............
Is it not possible that we human, in our hubris, think we can control mega issues (entropy)? Let one asteroid of significant size hit the earth and it matters not about polar bears, or photos, or philosopher king's policy, or public opinion.
I submit, that the sun is the engine that determines a lion's share of heat / cold on our planet. I submit that the Maunder Minimum exhibits the extreme effect of sun's activity. I submit that even the scientific community cannot agree on causes and effects with the so-called global warming.
Speaking of the Maunder Minimum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum), this phenomenon, which has occurred only once since sunspot activity has been observed, was a record 70+ years with no sunspots. It corresponded with the "mini-ice age" of the 1700s.
So, is there more to the equation than greenhouse gases? Very likely.
So much of opinion is pride--we need caution. Everyone likes to spout off--be an expert.
Yes, we need thought, but not knee jerks.
I'm all for reducing waste in all forms. That requires time, education, research, implementation.
Will that save the polar bears? I hope so, but the truth is, with human population growth, probably not. A more likely scenario is a prolonged sunspot minimum which is out of our control. That is my take and I suffer the same limitations as everyone else.
Hope that clarifies my statement about "all things change"--whether or not there is life or whether or not there are humans.
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Hey Larry
"Entropy: . a situation of going from order to disorder or the natural order of a physical system to seek equilibrium." . so perhaps then one could make the case that what we call 'disorder' is perhaps, actually a higher order, no?
But what does entropy have to do with anything here. You've just pointed out that the climate has warmed before; a return to a previous state is hardly entropic.
So these 'rules of correctness'; who made/makes them? Perhaps what you're calling licentiousness is actually a step towards a higher morality. You've still never told me where is this point to which you'd suggest we 'ratchet back to', regarding morality. You're right though, all things do change, even morality - and a perfectly reasonable case can be made that this is for the better.
"Is it not possible that we human, in our hubris, think we can control mega issues (entropy)?" Or is it more likely that our hubris rationalizes the lives we lead that cause such disasters?
You actually contradict yourself in this post. One one hand you suggest humans "can't control mega issues", and then you suggest that human population is responsible for the enormous scale of damage. So which is it? If you claim that human population is out of hand and the reason for the massive environmental degradation we're seeing around us, then it's unreasonable to say we don't affect 'mega issues' - we can, and we do. I believe population is partly responsible, but a larger problem is out of control consumptionism (though I wouldn't pretend that there is A global problem .. there are many problems, and they aren't all the same, just as all ecosystems aren't the same, etc, etc). If you doubt humans can impact the environment on this scale, google 'acid rain'.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Carl,
You said, ""Entropy: . a situation of going from order to disorder or the natural order of a physical system to seek equilibrium." . so perhaps then one could make the case that what we call 'disorder' is perhaps, actually a higher order, no?"
No! When equilibrium is reached in a physical system there is no potential difference in the energy from one level to another to produce "work". Water at the same, lowest level is cannot produce elecricity through falling. So when entropy is finalized, there is really nothing left. The direction we head with all energy and the things they impact is inexorably towards degeneration in the sense it will never be in the same pristine condition as it was previously. Given sufficient time all things will lose its shiny new cover. The trick is to slow it down. That's what you are talking about. But that begs the question of use, or non-use. Drill or not drill. Those decisions affect us in numerous way, most of which become "unintended consequences".
I get the distinct feeling that we are headed towards austerity anyway. The financial crisis is beginnig to dward other issues.
Read the Whiskey and Gunpowder item I'll email you and see if you can accomodate his allegations. And you might night not even have electricity for you computer and to recharge camera batteries. But rest easy knowing that the arctic might be salvaged through the mess we've put ourselves into.
Have a great weekend!
Morality does not suffer entropy in a scientific sense. Morality can be recaptured if it was ever lost.
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 14, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Hey Larry,
My point is that perhaps equilibrium is the desired state of the universe. What we call 'disorder' may well be the final order. Maybe 'nothing left' is what the world seeks - if so, we'd be misguided to call that 'disorder'.
I think the whole, 'arctic was a swamp' argument is intellectually dishonest, I don't care for it too much. IMO, it has little bearing on the discussion.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 23, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Carl, how can the "whole, 'arctic was a swamp' argument" be intellecutally dishonest when they are digging up dinosoaur remains on the furtherest most portion of the Arctic plain? The claim appears not to be a swamp but a temperate forest, which is much different than now.
I'm more inclined to believe the last 20 years represent nothing but a blip in nature's play between cold and hot periods. But while we are on the subject why doesn't anyone come up with the clouds cover formed by contrails??? To me that's the place to look rather than coal-fired electricl plants. I'll tell you why... the big guys want to fly and so do we.
Consider, we are now in "sunspot minimum" for longer than normal. The last 2-years have exhibited colder winters. Go to 'spaceweather.com' and search for "sunspot". One of those links will mention the Maunder Minimum, an exceptional 70-year sunspot minimum which coincided with the mini-ice age of the 1700's. Carl, could it be that making a new mousetrap is the real engine behind searching for answers that seem real but are bogus? Or could it be more sinister like control of the masses? Perhaps we should be more cautious in our meager time on earth to make sweeping judgements for those who come after us. Steady improvement? OK, but overarching, Al Gorisms don't float.
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 23, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Hey Larry,
We can also say the earth was once way too hot for life of any kind if we want to - to do so misses the point - something a lot of folks like to do.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 24, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Carl, the point you seem to always want to make is that WE control the "hot" and "cold".
My point is that while human activity is a factor it is very small when compared to historical swings in hotness and coldness of the planet.
Volcanic activity, even now, produces huge amounts of atmospheric debris, like particulates, sulfuric acid and chlorine. Heck, you even had one in Alaska erupt this year which has debris circulating the globe since August.
Consider the following:
Atmospheric Sources of Chlorine:
Seawater--600 million tons
Volcanoes--36 million tons
Buring biomass--8.4 million tons
Projected from CFC's-- 0.0075 million tons
Source: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling, by Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer (Washington, DC: 21st Century Science Associates, 1992, p. 13
Yet humans were asked to spend literally millions "upgrading" rom Freon refridgerant. Now who made money? Those few who lobbied in Washington.... tail wagging the dog, Carl.
The same goes for "low-volume" toilets. People now flush twice instead of once, because if they don't, their sewers clog. Water was not conserved but pockets were made flush. Again the old tail is controlling our canine friend.
Ever wonder why no one wants to leave Washington once they get there?
Such a great disparity in "facts" leads me to believe the labeling of "good" and "bad" is an Algoreism for control and profit.
Be aware but-----------be aware----------of the total realm.
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 29, 2008 at 9:51 PM
hey Larry
Sorry, I'm in the field and don't have time to respond here.
But you're right - be aware of the total realm of 7 billion people burning up energy and it shouldn't come as a surprise to think that just maybe we might play a greater role in the current climate changes that some would've guessed.
Discussion
37 repliesI think I just have to find a wall to bang my head against for a while....
And this morning there was the same sickening array of news on TV again... Just economy and football.. Talking about heads and walls..
This is indeed bad news. Nowhere to be found on the cover of my local "news" sources.
Well... I guess... maybe... that indeed means that... could it be? Yes, that must prove it IS a hoax. Oh phew, what a relief! Shame about the headache and the hole in the wall, but I can just plaster my head and give the wall an aspirine!
Ok, joking time is over. This is freightening. I fear that my kids or grand kids (should I have any) won't know what a polar bear is, or what those beautiful white baby seals look like. I think this will be a huge loss to the world and to humanity. Sure, it won't impact our everyday life much - but I think that we, as human beings, need our environment and need to be inspired by the wild and remote places and the creatures living there for our "psychological well being". Yeah, maybe I'm a weirdo. So be it.
I'm actually sick and tired (do I sound old? I'm 24) of all the babbling going on. Everybody's complaining about the high gas prices. I think it's about time. As far as I know, the car industry here in Switzerland signs an agreement with the state every year, promising that they'll bring down average gas consumption of new cars - it's gone up every year so far.
I'm equally sick and tired of the good old "dissent" tactics being applied for the third time now to undermine credibility of scientific work. First, there was supposedly dissent about tobacco and cancer. Then there supposedly was (and is) dissent about the theory of evolution among biologists. And now, there's yet again supposedly dissent about the human impact on the climate when in fact (almost) all scientific studies (excluding those sponsored by Exxon Mobile and Shell) speak a very clear language.
And I'm even more upset that the states around the north pole are jumping up and down in joy, waiting for the stupid ice to clear, so they can finally exploit the oil and ore resources below the ice cap. Why don't people realize that there's no way around reducing our oil consumption? It's a limited resource. It ends (or costs $100 a gallon) one day.
G'night guys. It's late here in ole Europe.
Basil
Catherine, some people may get a wee bit tired of me repeating this in quite a few threads, but I think that some reassurance based on really good arguments can be found in these books by Daniel Quinn: "Ishmael", "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", "Beyond Civilization" and "If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways".
At the very least I think he has the only answer that would really work. No hope in technological advancements or making people and this system that works to its own destruction (and that of people and millions and millions of other species) better by inventing ever more laws, but by changing the system drastically. If you want to be reassured, please read!
Arthur, I've been sold on this for years. I don't get tired of seeing it repeated. I get tired of the NEED to see it repeated. Sigh.
And here's my thing. Global warming is a fact. The whole point of argument is whether or not humans are the primary cause. But you know? To me that's moot. All the things we've talked about doing to combat global warming are simply things that good stewards of our earth should do, global warming or not.
But then, I was canvassing the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Duluth and Fargo/Moorhead (USA) areas on environmental issues back in 1989.
Seems like a long time ago, now.
Shoveled more snow last winter than the last two combined . 130 % of normal .
Isn't called climate change and not Global warming now ??
I do feel that the earth is changing , like it always has and will , but i do not buy that we are responsible for the changes . Sorry , way tooo much junk science being sold as fact .
In the capitalistic system, all of us are building pyramids for the top ultra rich. Of everything we, the middle class and the poor masses down below, earn and buy, a part is for us of course, but a percentage of it always goes up to the top of the pyramid, making the ultra rich even richer. Communism was interesting in that it said that the poor and middle class should not work to build pyramids for the ultra rich anymore, but for themselves. It was an attempt to create a more egalitarian system, but all the same people had to still work their *rses off and of course, as we know, the system was highly corruptable. Those doing the corrupting of course weren't true communists. Neither am I, let me assure you just in case. Now, you tell me where the communism is in the environmental movement, ok? It's a nice idea for a sort of James Bond parody, but as a true hypothesis I find it a laugh. And you accuse people of believing junk science?
No mate, the environmental movement isn't all good. There are corrupt people working in it just as well as in any other movement. There is junk science used in the environmental movement, but lo and behold, it happens at least as much in the movement that wants to keep monopolising biomass by taking it away from wild systems and converting it all into human flesh and human food and making gicantic heaps of money in the process.
After years of studying and keeping an open mind for both camps (a frame of mind that I don't find in your comment), I say that MOST LIKELY we are HELPING the climate to change faster than ever recorded before. Yes, of course climate changes all the time, but never this fast and the evidence supporting our part in the fast change is quite overwhelming, even if you filter out everything that may be junk science.
And whether we call it climate change or global warming doesn't matter all that much huh? If it's not warming all over the world, then you seem like the kind of guy to me who says that the enviros worried about what they call global warming are wrong and thus the whole thing about the climate must be wrong. Typical... Climate change is the most precise term up till now I believe, but whatever you call it, there is gigantic change and, again, not all of it can be explained by 'natural' causes at the moment.
To be continued...
Finally, I can't resist being either insulted or made to laugh by your quote "If you don't believe in God, you will believe anything!!". Cheeses, isn't that an easy way to be able to shove aside anything you hear but don't like? I'm an atheist and my believes are not limited by the conviction that Humans and Nature are separate and opposing entities, that we are destined to suffer on this earth (suffering mostly caused by the way totalitarian agriculture gave rise to money, an economic system based on unlimited growth on a limited planet and the consequence of that pyramid of an ultra rich peak and the hard working labouring and suffering masses below) and that we are here to steward the earth while to do that well, we would need the wisdom and power of the gods that the modern religions claim exist. I believe that humans are just another species in the community of life, and unique and sacred exactly like all other species are unique and sacred.
As a final thought, if ever proof would come that climate change is not caused by us and even that a certain god would exist, I would be the first to fall on my knees to thank that god that we are at least not to blame for the climate disaster. I believe in what reason tells me and if that would be it, I'd have no trouble to adapt. What I read in your comment, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you have made up your mind about this and will not be swayed by any evidence that disagrees with your convictions. Shouldn't it then be: "If you believe in God, you won't believe anything!!"?
The Hot News article states a lot a "may" and "if" and "good chance" which doesn't prove much, but notice the opening line that causes panic:
Sounds emotionally convincing, but is absolute nonsense. That's not a scientific claim. Were they there to observe the poles over the last several thousand years? Not at all. It's time we separate the pontification from the facts we observe.
While panic ensues, there has been one thing evident: climate flucuates. Nobody has 4000 years of observable data to compare against what we see recently, to know if this is a crisis, a bad spike, or just part of the normal fluctuation. This is why the scientists are so split on the whole thing. There isn't enough evidence in this short spit of time to support this recent crisis that man is freaking out over. Anybody remember 30 years ago when the same freak mode kicked in because of how cold the poles were getting, and how we were heading for an ice age? That got forgotten pretty quickly.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence for warming. I'm saying there isn't evidence that this is an end-all-be-all slide into massive earth destruction (not my opinion, do some research on the non-panic side to make sure you have all facts).
More importantly, regardless of issues we can't control, we have a responsibility to be good stewards of this earth with the areas we CAN control. The finger-pointing at liberals and conservatives and government and Bush and God (absurdly enough) and anyone else we can find has gotten old long ago. Maybe it's time we turn the finger around the other direction (author included) and see where we can give and not take.
The Fever
In fact I am very scared about our future. It looks pretty dismal.
2 Peter 3:10
BUT THE DAY OF THE LORD WILL COME AS A THIEF IN THE NIGHT; IN THE WHICH THE HEAVENS SHALL PASS AWAY WITH A GREAT NOISE, AND THE ELEMENTS SHALL MELT WITH FERVENT HEAT, THE EARTH ALSO AND THE WORKS THAT ARE THEREIN SHALL BE BURNED UP.
Mk 13:31
HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY: BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.
Rev 21:1-AND I SAW A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH: FOR THE FIRST HEAVEN AND THE FIRST EARTH WERE PASSED AWAY; AND THERE WAS NO (longer any) MORE SEA.
We love our planet... and God put us in it to look after and have dominion over it. But man destroys everything... from looking after the environment, to not loving thy neighbour. Its called selfishness, and its root is pride.
But we were only to have dominion over it for a set time. If you study the bible it talks of 3 days.. we are now in the 3rd day. Time is running out quickly people.
Hope this doesnt get removed. There is a lot of 'spirtualism' spoken on the npn site i.e full of mother nature etc.. statements.
I hope im allowed to express my faith just as much as the next man who expresses his, but talks in metorphoric language regarding nature and its spiritualness, rather than acknowledging the one true God, Christ Jesus in the bible.
QUOTE:
Rules of Conduct
NPN is strictly dedicated to the art and technique of nature photography and all conversation should pertain directly to it. While on-topic spirited debate is welcome, please keep all conversation congenial, professional and non-combative. Discussion of religion, politics/political activism or any other controversial subject that has little or nothing to do with ther art and technique of nature photography is subject to deletion without notice. If you have any issues or concerns with any aspect of forum activity, please contact the forum moderator(s) using their email contacts at the top of the forum page. You may also contact NPN administration directly at editor@naturephotographers.net.
Second, I think one thing that hurts the global warming camp are things like the title of this thread "Arctic could be ice-free this summer". The linked article does not say this! It says the North Pole (a specific point in the Arctic) may be free of ice. It does not state the entire Arctic will be free of ice. It's statements like these that further the argument of "pseudo-science" and sensationalism.
Just my opinion.
I believe (pun intended) that Arthur meant
"If you believe in God, you won't believe anything else!!?"
If you believe in God, you do believe in something.
And to help emphasize the point that it did happen, we had a family stop here in Kodiak who had just completed the passage east to west. In a modified Maine lobster boat.
Wow! Hank, how was it modified and what are its length/beam/HP specs, if you know? And what's east to west? West from Baffin Bay to Kodiak?
I'm no Alaskan, though I'd do it in a heartbeat if my spouse would relocate (not in a million years), but in my reading, ice-free means to Arctic folk what Hank said.
Aha! Here the story is! The boat is a 46-foot former Maine lobster boat. There's also a link to their website. Kinda gets my traveler's blood flowing too, Steve!
Careful, Arthur. Those who would call us "liberals" will remind us that climate change is a hoax and that this is just pure speculation - intended to strike fear into those concerned about their future, their children's, and our planet
This is indeed bad news. Nowhere to be found on the cover of my local "news" sources.
Quote
Well summer is over !!
Is it ice free ???
'ice free' typically refers to navigable .. and yes, it sure was this summer. Bummer, wouldn't you say?
Cheers
Carl
CLIMATE CONFUSION:
How Global warming hysteria leads to Bad Science,
Pandering Politicians, and misquided policies that hurt the poor.
I bought it. I read it, and I recommend it to you.
The explanation on how they have measured temperature over the last 100 years alone
is worth the cost of the book. If only the news media would read this book before writing
their stories, there wouldn't be so many horror stories to worry everybody.
Art Lund
Which publisher?
When?
Who's the author?
What's the ISBN?
Guy
On the other hand, Nature Geophysics have just released a peer-reviewed piece that concludes global climate change is, at least to some degree, anthropogenic.
Their article can be purchased here.
If you don't want to fork over the cash, or aren't a subscriber to the journal, CNN covered the piece here.
Cheers
Carl
And at one time there was no life on earth at all, eh? Weren't you just decrying the idea of 'ratcheting backwards' in another thread? :) On one hand, 'all things change', on the other we're sliding down a slippery slope of moral deterioration, no? Seems like all things change there, too, doesn't it?
Cheers
Carl
I just wanted to point out that all things change.
You compared science to morality in your rebuttal.
In science we speak of entropy... a situation of going from order to disorder or the natural order of a physical system to seek equilibrium. In morality it is called licentiousness--a marked disregard for rules of correctness. Carl, your attempt is flawed because that's apples and oranges............
Is it not possible that we human, in our hubris, think we can control mega issues (entropy)? Let one asteroid of significant size hit the earth and it matters not about polar bears, or photos, or philosopher king's policy, or public opinion.
I submit, that the sun is the engine that determines a lion's share of heat / cold on our planet. I submit that the Maunder Minimum exhibits the extreme effect of sun's activity. I submit that even the scientific community cannot agree on causes and effects with the so-called global warming.
Speaking of the Maunder Minimum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum), this phenomenon, which has occurred only once since sunspot activity has been observed, was a record 70+ years with no sunspots. It corresponded with the "mini-ice age" of the 1700s.
So, is there more to the equation than greenhouse gases? Very likely.
So much of opinion is pride--we need caution. Everyone likes to spout off--be an expert.
Yes, we need thought, but not knee jerks.
I'm all for reducing waste in all forms. That requires time, education, research, implementation.
Will that save the polar bears? I hope so, but the truth is, with human population growth, probably not. A more likely scenario is a prolonged sunspot minimum which is out of our control. That is my take and I suffer the same limitations as everyone else.
Hope that clarifies my statement about "all things change"--whether or not there is life or whether or not there are humans.
the fisch
"Entropy: . a situation of going from order to disorder or the natural order of a physical system to seek equilibrium." . so perhaps then one could make the case that what we call 'disorder' is perhaps, actually a higher order, no?
But what does entropy have to do with anything here. You've just pointed out that the climate has warmed before; a return to a previous state is hardly entropic.
So these 'rules of correctness'; who made/makes them? Perhaps what you're calling licentiousness is actually a step towards a higher morality. You've still never told me where is this point to which you'd suggest we 'ratchet back to', regarding morality. You're right though, all things do change, even morality - and a perfectly reasonable case can be made that this is for the better.
"Is it not possible that we human, in our hubris, think we can control mega issues (entropy)?" Or is it more likely that our hubris rationalizes the lives we lead that cause such disasters?
You actually contradict yourself in this post. One one hand you suggest humans "can't control mega issues", and then you suggest that human population is responsible for the enormous scale of damage. So which is it? If you claim that human population is out of hand and the reason for the massive environmental degradation we're seeing around us, then it's unreasonable to say we don't affect 'mega issues' - we can, and we do. I believe population is partly responsible, but a larger problem is out of control consumptionism (though I wouldn't pretend that there is A global problem .. there are many problems, and they aren't all the same, just as all ecosystems aren't the same, etc, etc). If you doubt humans can impact the environment on this scale, google 'acid rain'.
Cheers
Carl
You said, ""Entropy: . a situation of going from order to disorder or the natural order of a physical system to seek equilibrium." . so perhaps then one could make the case that what we call 'disorder' is perhaps, actually a higher order, no?"
No! When equilibrium is reached in a physical system there is no potential difference in the energy from one level to another to produce "work". Water at the same, lowest level is cannot produce elecricity through falling. So when entropy is finalized, there is really nothing left. The direction we head with all energy and the things they impact is inexorably towards degeneration in the sense it will never be in the same pristine condition as it was previously. Given sufficient time all things will lose its shiny new cover. The trick is to slow it down. That's what you are talking about. But that begs the question of use, or non-use. Drill or not drill. Those decisions affect us in numerous way, most of which become "unintended consequences".
I get the distinct feeling that we are headed towards austerity anyway. The financial crisis is beginnig to dward other issues.
Read the Whiskey and Gunpowder item I'll email you and see if you can accomodate his allegations. And you might night not even have electricity for you computer and to recharge camera batteries. But rest easy knowing that the arctic might be salvaged through the mess we've put ourselves into.
Have a great weekend!
Morality does not suffer entropy in a scientific sense. Morality can be recaptured if it was ever lost.
My point is that perhaps equilibrium is the desired state of the universe. What we call 'disorder' may well be the final order. Maybe 'nothing left' is what the world seeks - if so, we'd be misguided to call that 'disorder'.
I think the whole, 'arctic was a swamp' argument is intellectually dishonest, I don't care for it too much. IMO, it has little bearing on the discussion.
Cheers
Carl
I'm more inclined to believe the last 20 years represent nothing but a blip in nature's play between cold and hot periods. But while we are on the subject why doesn't anyone come up with the clouds cover formed by contrails??? To me that's the place to look rather than coal-fired electricl plants. I'll tell you why... the big guys want to fly and so do we.
Consider, we are now in "sunspot minimum" for longer than normal. The last 2-years have exhibited colder winters. Go to 'spaceweather.com' and search for "sunspot". One of those links will mention the Maunder Minimum, an exceptional 70-year sunspot minimum which coincided with the mini-ice age of the 1700's. Carl, could it be that making a new mousetrap is the real engine behind searching for answers that seem real but are bogus? Or could it be more sinister like control of the masses? Perhaps we should be more cautious in our meager time on earth to make sweeping judgements for those who come after us. Steady improvement? OK, but overarching, Al Gorisms don't float.
the fisch
We can also say the earth was once way too hot for life of any kind if we want to - to do so misses the point - something a lot of folks like to do.
Cheers
Carl
My point is that while human activity is a factor it is very small when compared to historical swings in hotness and coldness of the planet.
Volcanic activity, even now, produces huge amounts of atmospheric debris, like particulates, sulfuric acid and chlorine. Heck, you even had one in Alaska erupt this year which has debris circulating the globe since August.
Consider the following:
Atmospheric Sources of Chlorine:
Seawater--600 million tons
Volcanoes--36 million tons
Buring biomass--8.4 million tons
Projected from CFC's-- 0.0075 million tons
Source: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling, by Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer (Washington, DC: 21st Century Science Associates, 1992, p. 13
Yet humans were asked to spend literally millions "upgrading" rom Freon refridgerant. Now who made money? Those few who lobbied in Washington.... tail wagging the dog, Carl.
The same goes for "low-volume" toilets. People now flush twice instead of once, because if they don't, their sewers clog. Water was not conserved but pockets were made flush. Again the old tail is controlling our canine friend.
Ever wonder why no one wants to leave Washington once they get there?
Such a great disparity in "facts" leads me to believe the labeling of "good" and "bad" is an Algoreism for control and profit.
Be aware but-----------be aware----------of the total realm.
the fisch
Sorry, I'm in the field and don't have time to respond here.
But you're right - be aware of the total realm of 7 billion people burning up energy and it shouldn't come as a surprise to think that just maybe we might play a greater role in the current climate changes that some would've guessed.
I'm gone
Cheers
Carl