Global Warming You Can See

With all the current (and justified) focus on the criminal activities of the Bush Gang, it is perhaps easy to get distracted from other issues that are vitally important, but peripherally related.

Global warming is a real phenomenon despite conservative denials and a head-in-the-sand approach from the Bush Gang. AT dkos I know that I am preaching to the choir, but it bears repeating. The difficulty (as has been said many times before) is the scope of the problem and the slow response of the climate to changes that are introduced (slow to start and stop) and the equally slow political response of our highly fragmented political systems (intenational and domestic).

This is a graphic friendly reminder that we may not have much time to address it before we go past the "tipping point", i.e. runaway warming, a.k.a. the global train wreck.  

The BBC noted recently that the arctic "spring" had advanced by approximately 2 weeks since the early 1980's.  This is an interesting land observation, but it pales in comparison to what is happening to the Arctic Ocean. The melting of the Arctic sea ice has been accelerating at a frantic rate, significantly faster than has been predicted by various climate models.

If you look at this image, the yellow represents ice, white represents snow. Note the date in the lower right corner. The image below is the same date in 2007.

Note that the amount of yellow is significantly lower in the 2007 picture, particularly in the area of Siberia. No surprise, this year has been the warmest ever so far and the warmest of the warm areas was, you guessed it, Siberia. The difference between the pictures is equivalent for this time of year to approximately 2 weeks of melting. So, while the effect of warming has advanced spring 2 weeks in 20 years on land, the effects of warming have advanced melting by 2 weeks in just 3 years in the Ocean. 2005 was notable for its dramatic increase in melting, but the data so far in 2007 show ice melting at a faster rate even than 2005.

What does this mean? There's no turning back. The Arctic Ocean will be ice-free soon.  How long is soon?  That's hard to say. All you would need is a sudden break up as occured for the Larsen B ice shelf in the Antarctic and that would spell the end of the Summer Ice Cap. That in itself would not raise the sea level, but it would facilitate the flow of arctic glaciers.  That will increase sea level, quite a bit. So all you folks in NY? Take some scuba lessons. Might be the only way to get to the Battery some day...sooner than you think.

In the meantime, The Senate has passed legislation requiring CAFE standards of 35 mpg by 2020.  Wow, that was helpful. Talk about a glacial pace! Arctic melting will move much faster than that. And of course, Bush has threatened to veto. SFI

•  Tips

  by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:14:45 PM PDT

•  You and your hemispheric prejudice

  It's like the southern hemisphere doesn't exist at all!

  If you really want to see the results, look to China where their glaciers are melting so fast that in a few decades their solid freshwater reserves will be all but gone, and they will be at the mercy of living on rainwater.

  Glaciers are like a piggy bank, saving water for a not-so-rainy day.

  by Dcoronata on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:17:07 PM PDT

  •  China ...

    Southern hemisphere?

    :-)

    PS:  Like the last line ... if yours, the tip is extremely well merited.

    by A Siegel on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:22:01 PM PDT

    •  Dude, haven't shared a diary with you in a while.

      Spent the week testing Chinese LED lamps.  Fuckin' A, they are going to flood the market.

      This is the company:  

      http://www.all-line.com/...

      Note their website doesn't mention anything at all about it...   Rather poor website, but they are our Chinese contacts.  If they are doing LED's, then 100 more companies must be doing it, and it won't be long.

      Off-the top of my head, their 1.5W bulb (2.4VA actual power) gave off 2.63 foot-candles of light at one meter.  A GE 25W tungsten bulb (28.1 W actual) gave off 2.33 foot-candles at one meter.  Now the LED gave off a lot more spot, but they are at the point where they can provide about 10-15 times as much light/power.  Not so good for PAR lighting, but again you can use their LED's as hockey pucks; for shock and vibration nothing on earth will beat them.

      And we tested it from -75°C to + 75°C.  Worked fantastic throughout the range.  These guys will radically reduce the cost of these items, and I think within the year we'll be their US distributor!

      And the line was mine.

      by Dcoronata on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:41:09 PM PDT

      •  makes you wonder if they aren't using some

        technology developed elsewhere and absconding with it.  Not my area though.

        by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:05:38 PM PDT

        •  It isn't very high tech

          but it is a matter of making it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper.

          I've had the opportunity to research plenty of Chinese goods lately, and for the most part they make them well, but they sometimes really haven't got a clue about applications or how to crack the US market.

          They are getting much better, but they still have a major problem with building awesome prototypes and first-run components, and then gradually getting worse and worse.

          All in all, they make crap, but they make it cheap.  With these LEDs though, the Koreans and Taiwanese have just about taken the lead over the top American companies, and it will eventually lead to much, much cheaper, and far less polluting sources of light.

          Oh, and you'll never change a bulb again, unless you want to.

          by Dcoronata on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:17:55 PM PDT

          •  Well, I've had my own experience

            with Chinese manufactured goods. They were manufacturing specialty plastic products for biomedical research.  The specifications were very exacting. It was in some respects similar, in that the prototypes were good, and it went downhill from there. We had a few quality control problems with them, blowing off some of our specifications. But the real kicker for us was when we identified to different patches of plastic under the same lot number. We pulled out.

            by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:39:03 PM PDT

  •  Melanie Morgan is on Hardball disputing science

    with RFK.  It's like watching Betty Boop and Einstein have equal billing on fusion.  How do they do it?  She puts herself forth as an expert and tells RFK he is wrong about everything.  How he keeps his composure, I just don't know.

    by astoundedstill on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:22:42 PM PDT

    •  I just posted a partial transcript below

      Betty Boop and Einstein.

      ROTFLOL!

      here's the link to the comment below.

      by jhritz on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:28:55 PM PDT

      •  Talk about denial. That was invented denial!

        Of course that's been going on for quite some time.

        by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:35:53 PM PDT

    •  Melanie Morgan is such a pig

      I get stomach pains listening to her.  Why the hell does Tweety insist on having a radical like Morgan on over and over and over.  She is a waste of space.

      by bunny99 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:32:17 PM PDT

      •  tweety has her

        because it takes someone that loony to make him look "moderate" or "centrist" (his pretend role) by comparison.

        by Deward Hastings on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:00:36 PM PDT

        •  He's rolling out he rug for Coultergist super Tue

          n/t

          by astoundedstill on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:20:10 PM PDT

        •  And that is because

          they know how to use the Overton Window...  Democrats run from it.

          by SarahLee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:25:14 PM PDT

  •  "Mountains will crumble to the sea"

    Life in the high alps is becoming dangerous. Boulders are breaking off from mountinas that were once held together by glacier ice.

    by Tigana on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:24:32 PM PDT

  •  There's another hemisphere?

    Seriously, I get what you're saying. Glaciers are melting on land at a very rapid rate. However, the huge concern is the glaciers at the poles because they hold such an enormous volume of water. I chose the Arctic because the degeneration there is much more visible than in the Antarctic.

    by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:32:42 PM PDT

    •  I was just joking!

      The two projections you'd used were looking down at the earth from a point essentially above the north pole!

      And you are right- there isn't the great visibility of deglaciation in the SH as there is on the NH.  How can you see the melted ice when it's on top of another mile of ice?

      by Dcoronata on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:16:03 PM PDT

•  China, Tibet

  are on the map.
  this visual is a dramatic representation of where the most immediate problems lie: at the north pole.
  once the breakup of the ice in the Arctic Sea happens, there will be rapidly greater effects on the systems that govern temperature and weather patterns.

  I hope that anyone looking at these maps can see this, but I really know that too few really care.

  good luck to us and our children.
  when things change, they will really change.

  by migo on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:22:07 PM PDT

•  The real long-term danger here,

  beyond the sea level rise, temperature rise, and the loss of freshwater everywhere is the danger that changes in ocean salinity could shut down the the global conveyer belt that circulates heat throughout the oceans. This could change weather patterns drastically and usher in an ice age(!)

  by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:24:19 PM PDT

  •  In AIT, Al Gore hints at coming ice age

    In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore discusses events that led to the last ice age - when ,massive amounts of cold water flowed into the North Atlantic, and stopped the warm Gulf Stream. Then he brings up the melt of glaciers in Greenland.
    "Has this ever happened before? Oh, yeah..."

    by Tigana on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:28:39 PM PDT

    •  Oh yeah!

      I forgot about that... it wasn't one of the major points of the film in any case.

      But yeah, the mouth of the St-Lawrence river was basically caused by massive amounts of freshwater violently breaking through ice and ripping through the landscape... Keep in mind that we had over 100 feet of ice covering Canada once.

      And, if you want to get scared, have a look at this:

      Why an Ice Age may come to Britain in 20 years

      by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:34:41 PM PDT

      •  An ice age is not coming in 20 years

        Global climate models show strong warming for Eurasia and North America.

        by FishOutofWater on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:40:58 PM PDT

        •  I don't think there is an ice age coming in 20yrs

          but at some later date, if changing ocean salinity disrupts the global conveyer an ice age is a potential outcome.  Moreover, evidence suggest that ice ages can set in over relatively small time scales - a century or less. So we don't need to worry about, say, a Day After Tomorrow type scenario, no... but it's something to at least worry about, IMO.

          here's a link, though not from a refereed journal: LINK

          There's a lot of factors to consider - salinity gradients and temperature gradients among the many- as the water volume of the ocean changes and the climate heats up. Our models suggest how future climates might look but they're not perfect.

          We've already notices some strange disruptions of large macroscopic features of our climate, like the North Atlantic Oscillation

          by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:14:34 PM PDT

          •  More on the thermohaline circulation

            The circulation is not easily measured. A moored array set up to measure flow across the north Atlantic found a high degree of variability.

            From realclimate.org

            RAPID is a focused research program being run mainly out of the UK, but with contributions from Norway, the Netherlands and from the US. One of their main achievments has been to set up a mooring array (which consists of a dozen or so permanently attached monitors of temperature, salinity and pressure) that can continuously monitor the circulation in the North Atlantic across a section at 26°N. Measurements taken as the moorings were first installed were highlighted in the Bryden et al paper last year. As readers will no doubt recall, that publication, suggesting that a long term decrease in the MOC was underway, was greeted by a media storm. We cautioned at the time that the results were preliminary and, specifically, that the internal variability was probably high enough to make it unlikely that the changes had risen above the noise.

            At the meeting this week, Bryden and colleagues gave an update of the work, specifically focusing on the first year of data from the moored array. This is the first time that there has ever been such a continuous set of estimates across the whole Atlantic and so reports of the size and nature of the variability were eagerly anticipated. And they did not disappoint! There were two key observations: first, that the approximations that had been used in the Bryden et al study were actually valid, and secondly, that the variations day by day varied by around 5 Sv (1 Sv is about 10 times the flow of the Amazon). The mean over the year for the MOC was 18 Sv - very close to what was expected and in the middle of recent estimates - and significantly, larger than the value seen in the 2004 snapshot. Given that degree of 'noise', this implies that no conclusions about trends over recent decades can be supported.

            by FishOutofWater on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:27:51 PM PDT

            •  Well,

              I'll just shut up then.... clearly the flow of the conveyor is going just fine at the moment!

              At least one thing isn't going to hell! :P

              by dantyrant on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:15:32 AM PDT

          •  Something else weird that I have noticed.

            Ever since 1997, with it's rather awesome El Nino event, annual changes in CO2 have been linked to equatorial pacific sea surface temperatures around a baseline increase of 2ppm CO2/yr). Before that, nada. Completely unconnected. Could be an artifact of data collection, but that's hard to imagine. The shift is fairly obvious when you plot it out. I only have limited access to datasets, so its hard to tell if it is based on fluctuations in global ocean temperature or just the Southern Oscillation as those follow a similar pattern.

            by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:52:18 PM PDT

  •  Well, that'd solve the whole problem

    wouldn't it?

    Unfortunately, the cooling scenario you allude to is limited mostly to Europe.

    And, some estimates are that once the cooling (that now may very well plunge Europe into an ice age) is overlaid on the projected warmer temperatures anticipated in the future, the effects will pretty much cancel each other out.

    by Roadbed Guy on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:30:34 PM PDT

    •  Well,

      nature has ways of self-regulating... scientists are worried that the additional CO2 that we're adding to the system from carbon buried long ago(hence adding to the net carbon budget) might move our planet into a different 'dynamic mode' - a mathematical term that basically means range of possible climates. That's to say, if the planet heats up so rapidly, it's possible not even an ice age could save it... this is the so-called nightmare runaway greenhouse possibility. Ice melts, methane gets untrapped from the ground, and the Earth becomes a living hell. We're not on this path as far as scientists can tell, but we've already dialed in a certain amount of warming...

      In any case, while an ice age might negate the global warming effects through increased Earth albedo(reflective white snow = energy reflected back into space), it would be disastrous to civilization and so not something to hope for...

      by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:40:50 PM PDT

      •  Actually Hansen's models project that if we

        continue on our present course, once we pass the 1C temperature increase, we're pretty much committed to the uncontrolled warming scenario. He says that we have about 10 years to start doing something effective, otherwise...

        by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:01:51 PM PDT

        •  I'd heard 2°C...

          Lovelock thinks we've crossed the so-called tipping point, but others disagree. There's the question of whether our Earth will settle on a stable, warmer climate – one that's appreciably different from our present planet– which is a possibility that I thought I'd heard Hansen speaking about, rather than the runaway greenhouse. In either case, today's Energy Bill doesn't inspire much confidence that we're doing what needs to be done...

          by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:09:41 PM PDT

          •  You can read the Hansen publication on line.

            It's in an open access journal. A pdf version is available here.

            It's not easy reading! But he makes a fairly good argument for his lower temperature scenario.

            by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:58:57 PM PDT

            •  Thanks!

              I'll check that out!

              by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:21:03 PM PDT

    •  that would be handy! But with peak oil we still

      would need alternate energies.

      by Wee Mama on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:48:39 PM PDT

      •  I should emphasize

        when I said the effects would cancel each other out, that's just for Northern Europe.

        The rest of the planet would be a living hell, or at least several degrees closer to that.

        Of course, an optimist would claim the higher ocean level would cancel out the fiery glow of hell, but once again, it's kinda a big chance to take . . .

        by Roadbed Guy on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:58:54 PM PDT

      •  Or

        An alternate lifestyle.   It might not hurt to dial back "civilization" a bit to something a bit less hectic and much more community/humanity intensive.

        by ssmt on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:08:20 PM PDT

      •  Oil's not scarce... just our production

        Hopefully that assertion isn't too controversial -

        But i think that the realities of global warming mandate that we move off of fossil fuels immediately regardless!

        by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:21:36 PM PDT

        •  Well sure

          But if demand is increasing and production decreasing every year, it doesn't really matter if half the oil is still in the ground.  It's the half that's the hardest to get to and ultimately won't be cost effective or will cost more energy to extract than it's worth.

          by ssmt on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:24:26 PM PDT

          •  Right, I agree with you

            I'm just pointing out that constructing the argument for renewable/alternative energy sources does not require that oil scarcity even be mentioned - we have more pressing reasons(ie survival) to move away from fossil fuels.

            by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:28:38 PM PDT

            •  Sadly

              Most people think that life will remain essentially the same for generations to come.  Global warming means nicer winters and lack of abundant cheap oil is something that never even crosses their minds.  So it's hard to say how they'll react when things become tougher and if they will feel they're entitled to "the good life" as things become more difficult.  

              by ssmt on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:37:22 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely. At this time there is no clear effect

    that has been documented (although one publication came out not too long ago, but it was withdrawn later). But everyone is very concerned about it. Most models of the Ocean circulation predict an effect of melting on deep ocean upwelling.

    by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:47:06 PM PDT

  •  "The Day After Tomorrow"

    The Day After Tomorrow

    by opendna on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:16:44 PM PDT

  •  No, that isn't the real danger

    The thermohaline circulation is primarily wind driven. It may slow down, but it won't stop Because of global warming.

    The real big dangers are mass extinction and global famine.

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:39:06 PM PDT

    •  Well there I agree with you

      There's many dangers to consider - certainly crop failures, collapse of ecosystems and global instability leading to potential war are all threats to civilization and, more generally, the future of life on our planet.

      by dantyrant on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:22:13 PM PDT

•  Watch Hardball today if you want to get your

  blood pressure boiling.

  Matthews had Robert F. Kennedy, Jr (yay!) and Melanie Morgan (boo!) on to discuss global warming.

  Kennedy:  Go to glacier national park.  127 glaciers at the beginning of this century.  17 left today.  They'll be gone by the end of this century.  IPCC report reached a concensus...  You can get a talk radio show host who says she knows more than the top 2500 scientists, and then, the public has to choose who to believe.

  Morgan:  and then you can get another talk show radio host like yourself (she's talking about KENNEDY) who makes these outrageous claims along with Al Gore and his movie, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, or you can listen to science and medicine magazine (?) which says there's no evidence that greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

  hmmm....

  Here's a question:  WTF????

  Why is this woman given a voice on the environment?  

  Matthews did challenge her, at that point, saying that even (gulp) George Bush had acknowledged there was global warming.  Her response:

  "Well, yeah, absolutely, and it's just ridiculous.  But then the president has been caving on any number of issues because of enormous public opinion..."

  double hmmm....

  Scratches head....

  He did???

  On Iraq, too?????

  Morgan=looking glass=everything.that.is.wrong.with.this.country.

  period.

  by jhritz on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:27:44 PM PDT

  •  Kennedy is absolutely correct

    I saw that very thing (i.e., no more glaciers in Glacier State Park) on The Simpsons.  And that's on Fox, so if anything the effect was probably minimized . . .

    by Roadbed Guy on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:32:10 PM PDT

  •  I love it.

    Their new meme seems to be that Bush is a closest liberal.

    by LithiumCola on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:29:58 PM PDT

  •  Look. If Chris Matthews's version of ...

    ...journalism had been around in 1942, he would have  pitted an escapee from Treblinka talking about what was happening to Jews against denier Reinhard Heydrich.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:11:50 PM PDT

    •  ugh

      mb, omg.  I'm not sure if that's funny, sick or just too Godwin...

      Of course, there's a tie for me.  Just finished a script included the antichrist Heydrich.  

      Double ugh.

      I do agree that pitting Morgan against Kennedy is about as ludicrous, though.  

      It's almost as if Matthews says:  "Okay, we've got Bobby Kennedy's son who's one of the most respected people on Climate Change, who just was a major contributor to the Rolling Stone big thing on global warming."  

      "Who can we get that will insult him and the audience the most?"

      Like I said, (triple) ugh.

      by jhritz on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:39:30 PM PDT

•  Significantly faster than climate models

  Is not a verification of the accuracy of the models.  It is, in fact, an indicator that forces other than the ones modeled are occuring and that the models cannot be relied upon for prediction in the future since they have already failed to predict the present.

  In spite of 'the science being settled', the CO2 based model of climate is failing to track past and present climate changes.  It's just possible that there might be some other reason for the obvious warming.

  And if there is some other reason, then predicting the future based on a CO2 model may be completely wrong.  Perhaps instead of labeling scientists as deniers we should continue to experiement with various approaches until someone comes up with a model that will actually predict temperatures.

  by william shipley on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:32:50 PM PDT

  •  Actually, not true. The most recent studies have

    shown a very close correspondence between current trends in global temperature, changes in CO2 and climate changes. Where the models have broken down a bit is with respect to the issues of ice melting and the ENSO phenomenon. That has not been adequately modeled so far, but changes are being made to the models to account for the additional warming effects of soot deposition and the like on melting. But they do a pretty damn good job of predicting where we've been and where we're going and it's not looking good.

    by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:43:33 PM PDT

  •  its not so much that the models are inacurate

    most of the recent ones are excluded. If you look at the IPCC reports, most of their data is mid nineties, and the most recent data if included would skew their results from a straight line increase to an exponential rate of increase.

    In other words instead of the oceans rising a couple of meters in a century we are likely to see 6 meters in half a century. Instead of the polar ice lasting another millenium it might last another century or less.

    Compare the rate of melting for ice left out on a table and ice left in a sauce pan with the burner on high. As the temperature rises more methane is released and the oceans surface rises according to its coefficient of expansion.

    As others have pointed out, the few remaining naysayers who doubt the evidence of their lying eyes have had them so far up their ass for so long all they can see is the shit they talk.

    by rktect on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:43:45 PM PDT

  •  Hmmmm

    Could you possibly be more wrong. Let me think....uh no, you couldn't. As pointed out elsewhere, the IPCC predictions are largely based on older conservative models. The newer models all predict faster changes, and even they are now being revised because they didn't adequately account for positive feedback loops, particularly in the arctic, where, for example, vast quantities of carbon are stored in rapidly melting permafrost (in addition to feedback effects generated by melting sea ice, advancing shrub and treelines and earlier snowmelt).

    That the IPCC consensus may be too conservative says absolutely nothing about whether anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the observed warming. That is simply beyond contention. The disagreements now (among actual scientists) are largely centered around the effects of feedback loops and other phenomena that may accelerate warming.

    And nobody labels "scientists" as deniers because there AREN'T any reputable scientists who deny the data.

    by pacotrey on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:04:03 PM PDT

    •  Too say nothing of the methane hydrates that

      have been identified in the permafrost!

      by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:08:28 PM PDT

    •  So does any model actually work?

      Or are they all being revised to correct for the fact that things are not what are predicted.

      Could you give me a link to someone with a model which does fit the data.  Everthing I see for the last century looks pretty good on the 11 year sun cycle and doesn't look so good on the CO2 fit.

      I'm not actually sure what I think of the various global warming theories, but when I see name calling and obvious false statements I have to believe we are dealing with politics and religion and not science.

      Science, done properly, embraces dissent.

      I'm also not too happy about the IPCC releasing the summary months ahead of the data.

      by william shipley on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:41:15 PM PDT

      •  All models are wrong

        As some famous scientist once said. But some models are useful. Nearly all of the current climate models fit the historical data remarkably well, as long as they include the contribution of anthropogenic CO2. Otherwise they can't explain what we're currently seeing.

        Sun cycles do have an effect on climate but they can't explain the dominant upward trend we are seeing.

        And science done properly does not embrace dissent for the sake of dissent. If you have a model that does a BETTER job of explaining the data than what's out there, that will be embraced. However, just disagreeing with models that DO explain the data because you don't like their implications will rightly get you exactly nowhere with scientists. That's how science works.

        What "obvious false statements" are you referring to? As a scientist myself (who works on the ecological effects of global warming in Alaska), I consider that a serious charge. I assume you have evidence to back it up?

        As for a "link to somebody with a model [that] does fit the data", unless you're a damn good climate modeler yourself, and have some empirical basis for your charges, I'd do some research before you start impugning the results of some of the most sophisticated and accurate scientific models ever developed.

        by pacotrey on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 09:39:49 PM PDT

•  Global Warming? Next Ice Age Coming in 10 Years !

  I'll have the diary up later giving a nice listing of all the global warming deniers.

  by bernardpliers on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:38:46 PM PDT

  •  Actually, it could happen. Not one of the most

    likely scenarios, but it remains a possibility.  The difficulty is that our models are not perfect, and we know it. If we underestimate or over estimate teh impact of certain variables, especially ocean circulation, then Europe could become a freezer resulting in paradoxical freezing.  Unlikely, but it has been considered.

    by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:56:04 PM PDT

    •  Climates Change, Civilizations Crash Continuously

      Most of the time the process is not well documented, but it happens over and over, especially when cities become heavily dependent on importation of food, fuel, and water.

      We import food, manufactured goods, and fuel, while water is in increasingly short supply. All these essential commodities must travel using a fragile and overloaded transportation network. This is not just one tipping point, but a long row of dominos, and pressure on any point could send our country or civilization over the edge. Katrina showed us that even with all our resources, even a brief event like a hurricane can reduce a city to a homeless mass of refugees. Even mild climate change has the ability to create larger problems, and the instability created by our growing population makes this more likely with every passing day.

      by bernardpliers on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:29:42 PM PDT

  •  you saw the movie? n/t

    by MarketTrustee on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:42:41 PM PDT

•  I posted this two days ago:

     A group of US scientists may have given the clearest warning yet that global warming is presenting an imminent threat to civilisation.

     The six experts described the Earth as being in "imminent peril" and warned that a UN panel on climate change grossly underestimated the scale of sea-level increases this century.

     In an article published in the journal the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.", the group led by James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote:

     "Recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures."

     The paper predicts that sea levels may rise by several metres by 2100, compared with a forecast from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in February that predicts sea levels increasing between 18 and 59 centimetres.

     The group has called for extensive efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases to help keep the climate within the range of the past one million years.

  by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:44:11 PM PDT

  •  That's the scary part. Hanson's models are the

    best available that I know of.  They received a whole bunch of attention about a month ago, but disappeared rather quickly. These models clearly predict a lot more melting than the models used by the IPCC. A number of other climatologists have also made note of the problem with the IPCC models. So the bottom line is that the consequences of warming may be coming sooner than we think. That's why I posted those graphics.  They're very clear.

    by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:52:34 PM PDT

•  Melanie Morgan is a leading Republican scientist

  by LRT on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:45:50 PM PDT

  •  Republican Scientist: See oxymoron.

    Well some kind of moron, anyway.

    by Dcoronata on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:55:37 PM PDT

    •  Beat me to it!

      by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:56:58 PM PDT

•  Impacts on People - Inuit Human Rights Claim

  You can read the Inuit petition to InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (warning huge pdf). All the science and a discussion of human rights and global warming. Personal accounts by hunters, elders, and regular folks begin about page 45.

  by greendem on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:01:14 PM PDT

•  Under a green sky

  I'm currently working on Under a Green Sky by Peter Ward, a professor of paleontology at the University of Washington.  Much of the book discusses the geologic/paleobiologic investigation into mass extinctions of the past and how they might relate to today's global warming problem.  I haven't finished the book yet, but the intriguing thought comes to mind:

  What if, in 65 million years, a form of intelligent life evolves to the point where they are digging up ancient fossils of homo sapiens and puzzling over what clues have been left behind by the passage of so much time.  

  There is no guarantee humanity will survive forever...or even 1000 years from now.  We literally could be about to write our own obituary...all for 150 years of coal/oil convenience and "easy living" and the profits of a very small minority of people.

  by ssmt on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:05:50 PM PDT

•  Computer Game: 'SimEarth'

  Time for an updated version, me thinks.

  SimEarth was a 1990 issue by Maxis, the publisher of SimCity.

  SimEarth: The Living Planet is a simulation computer game designed by Will Wright and published in 1990 by Maxis, in which the player controls the development of an entire planet.
  ...
  The game models the Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock (who assisted with the design and wrote an introduction to the manual), and one of the options available to the player is the simplified "Daisyworld" model.
  (wikipedia)

  As I child I battled feedback system with that toy, first trying to balance the factors to support life and then watching in wonder as some sentient species created a climate collapse with their rampant growth. Dinosaurs always started nuclear wars for some reason.

  by opendna on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:49:12 PM PDT

  •  Can we conclude that Republicans are Dinosaurs? n

    by beobjective on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 07:09:46 PM PDT

•  I have an even more immediate example

  for you re: current warming.

  As we speak, Australia is in the midst of a severe drought.  It's been going on about 10 years.  This year, it looks like the little water that's left will be diverted to the cities for drinking needs.  The crops are withering on the vine, so to speak.  It looks like there will be no 'Vintage 2007' and that spells disaster for Australia.

  In a similar situation, the river Po in Italy has all but dried up.  Crop production is threatened, there might not be a wine 'Vintage 2007' for Italy either.

  Interestingly enough, the Pope of course has refused to even consider family planning.  This summer, the air conditioners are running 24/7 to keep His Majesty cool.  

  Also, the Vatican issued a recent statement urging people to "take care of God's Green earth" so they must know something is up.  Since too many PEOPLE are the cause of this problem, it's mighty APT that he's frying his little butt in Rome.

  by Cliss on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:00:54 PM PDT