Sth American Glaciers melting - poor poor people!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The consequences of enhanced global warming extend to all sorts of unintended consequences (as emboldened). We are inadvertently changing the biogeography of the planet and, of course, it will hit the poor hardest. But what do we care, we're rich..?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cities-in-peril-from-glacier-meltdown/2006/08/29/1156816901140.html

Home » World » Article
Cities in peril from glacier meltdown
Email Print Normal font Large font John Vidal in London
August 30, 2006

Advertisement
AdvertisementANDEAN glaciers are melting so fast that some are expected to disappear within 15 to 25 years, denying cities water supplies and putting populations and food supplies at risk in Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia.

The Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia, the source of fresh water for the cities of La Paz and El Alto, is expected to melt completely within 15 years if trends continue. Mount Huascaran, Peru's most famous mountain, has lost 1280 hectares of ice, about 40 per cent of the area it covered only 30 years ago. The O'Higgins glacier in Chile has shrunk by 15 kilometres in 100 years and Argentina's Upsala glacier is losing 14 metres a year.

Although a few glaciers in southern Patagonia are increasing in size, almost all near the tropics are in rapid retreat. Some glaciers in Colombia are now less than 20 per cent of the mass recorded in 1850 and Ecuador could lose half its most important glaciers within 20 years.

The rate of glacier retreat has shocked scientists, says a report on the effects of global warming in Latin America by 20 British-based environment and development groups that have drawn on national scientific assessments. Their study says climate change is accelerating the deglaciation phenomenon.

"The speeding up of the … process is a catastrophic danger," said Carmen Felipe, president of Peru's water management institute. In the short term, it could cause overflows of reservoirs and trigger mudslides, and in the longer term cut water supplies.

The Colombian Institute of Hydrology says that in 1983 the five main glaciers in El Cocuy national park were expected to last at least 300 years, but measurements taken last year suggest that they may all disappear within 25 years. Meanwhile, the ice sheet on the Ecuadorean volcano Cotopaxi and its glacier has shrunk by 30 per cent since 1976.

"The [drastic melt] forces people to farm at higher altitudes to grow their crops, adding to deforestation, which in turn undermines water sources and leads to soil erosion and putting the survival of Andean cultures at risk," says the report by the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, which includes the International Institute for Environment and Development, Christian Aid, Cafod, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and Progressio.

Their report, Up in Smoke, says snow and rainfall patterns in South America and the Caribbean are becoming less predictable and more extreme. "East of the Andes, rainfall has been increasing since about 1970, accompanied by more destructive, sudden deluges.

"The last two hurricane seasons in the Caribbean rim have caused $US12 billion [$16 billion] damage to countries other than the US. Climate change models predict more rainfall in eastern South America and less in central and southern Chile with a likelihood of greater and opposite extremes. The 2005 drought in the Amazon basin was probably the worst since records began."

The report proposes that Latin American governments do not repeat the mistakes made by North American and European governments. Several countries in the region are planning a new generation of mega dams that would displace thousands more people and destroy vast areas of the Brazilian Amazon.

The Guardian

[Obstructed_View]

As soon as someone explains why it's happening, I'll be happy to do my part.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Your state of denial is astounding. It has been explained! Go and speak to some climatologists at your local university and they'll explain it to you in full.

Just because you bury your head in the sand does not mean the world has disappeared.

[Obstructed_View]

Your state of denial is astounding. It has been explained! Go and speak to some climatologists at your local university and they'll explain it to you in full.

Just because you bury your head in the sand does not mean the world has disappeared.
So you don't know then? I have to go to my university to find a climatologist?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yes, I do know. You want me to somehow synthesise the findings of '000s of studies onto this message board? Okay, here's the "climate change for dummies" version:

The basics are these: the earth is in a warming trend; the trend is occuring orders of magnitude faster than anything in the geological record for over 65mil yrs; the trend corresponds to a time during which we have fundamentally altered the composition of the earth's atmosphere; changing the concentration of gases in a closed system will alter the equilibrium conditions of the system... you connect the dots.

You honestly believe that 6 billion people consuming energy and water faster than ever before, altering the basic land pattern biogeography of the planet and thus affecting all manner of natural systems, will not have an effect? If you honestly believe that you are still living in 1800 when our greatest minds thought the planet's resources were infinite and its systems unperterbable.

Don't believe me, go talk to the experts. For every 1 who doesn't believe man is changing the climate you will find 1000 who do.

I don't want to believe it, I'm not gaining anything from believing it, but research and reason tell me and tens of thousands of experts across the globe that man is changing the climate.

Cigarette companies will swear black and blue that there's no link between cigarettes and lung cancer. That link has cost them billions of dollars. Do you believe them or the researchers?

[Sec24Row7]

lol

[101A]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49051

[DFW Spurs]

Although a few glaciers in southern Patagonia are increasing in size, almost all near the tropics are in rapid retreat.

Tropics and ice melting, hummmm. What a coincidence. Could it be that its just fucking hot in the tropics? Hit the panic button everone....

[Yonivore]

I propose we bring back CFC's and ban HCFC's because that's when the problem started. That's when so-called "global climatologists" reversed course and went from screaming "global cooling" to screaming "global warming."

[Obstructed_View]

Yes, I do know. You want me to somehow synthesise the findings of '000s of studies onto this message board? Okay, here's the "climate change for dummies" version:

The basics are these: the earth is in a warming trend; the trend is occuring orders of magnitude faster than anything in the geological record for over 65mil yrs; the trend corresponds to a time during which we have fundamentally altered the composition of the earth's atmosphere; changing the concentration of gases in a closed system will alter the equilibrium conditions of the system... you connect the dots.

You honestly believe that 6 billion people consuming energy and water faster than ever before, altering the basic land pattern biogeography of the planet and thus affecting all manner of natural systems, will not have an effect? If you honestly believe that you are still living in 1800 when our greatest minds thought the planet's resources were infinite and its systems unperterbable.

Don't believe me, go talk to the experts. For every 1 who doesn't believe man is changing the climate you will find 1000 who do.

I don't want to believe it, I'm not gaining anything from believing it, but research and reason tell me and tens of thousands of experts across the globe that man is changing the climate.

Cigarette companies will swear black and blue that there's no link between cigarettes and lung cancer. That link has cost them billions of dollars. Do you believe them or the researchers?

So again, you've listed effects but REFUSE to state the cause, all the while acting like you actually understand what's going on. Sounds like I'm not the one in denial. I keep my car tuned up, my air conditioner clean, I turn lights off, use fluorescent light bulbs, recycle, etc. If you can't tell people what to stop doing, then you are about as useful as someone standing in the rain complaining about getting wet.

Why has the problem accelerated in the years since we banned CFCs and developed fuel injected engines? Has anyone mentioned that smog-preventing catalytic converters actually produce nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas? Were you aware that the Sierra Club is trying to prevent roads from being built into forest areas, preventing firefighters from having access?

All you can tell me is "man is changing the climate"?

[Sec24Row7]

remember when there used to be an ozone layer in the southern hemisphere?


We have no record of there being any time on earth that there WASN'T a hole in the ozone layer.

Everyone just ASSUMED that a hole wasn't supposed to be there...

[Crookshanks]

Just heard on my way home from work that the ozone hole is healing itself! The ozone started thickening back in 1998. Hmm, now will be have more hurricane or less, global warming or global cooling? Darn, our universe just won't cooperate with the scientists will it!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

So again, you've listed effects but REFUSE to state the cause, all the while acting like you actually understand what's going on. Sounds like I'm not the one in denial. I keep my car tuned up, my air conditioner clean, I turn lights off, use fluorescent light bulbs, recycle, etc. If you can't tell people what to stop doing, then you are about as useful as someone standing in the rain complaining about getting wet.

Why has the problem accelerated in the years since we banned CFCs and developed fuel injected engines? Has anyone mentioned that smog-preventing catalytic converters actually produce nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas? Were you aware that the Sierra Club is trying to prevent roads from being built into forest areas, preventing firefighters from having access?

All you can tell me is "man is changing the climate"?

I'm sick of going around in circles with your dumb ass. I stated the CAUSE - increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which come from our industrial and transport industries primarily. We know that this is the cause because of the rate of change of the atmosphere and the rate of warming - they have occured at the same time, and the rate of warming is orders of magnitude (10+ times) quicker than anything observed in the history of the planet over the last 65mil years (ie. it IS NOT part of a natural cycle). How much more specific can I be?

Now you guys are just introducing absolute furphies. Global warming and the hole in the ozone layer are essentially seperate problems, except that HCFCs are also greenhouse gases - however, the rate of HCFC emissions is literally a drop in the ocean compared to our emissions of CO2, CH4 and nitrogen oxides, the main greenhouse gases we produce. As for the Sierra club and forest fires, that is entirely incidental to what we are talking about which is anthropogenic air pollution (forests will have fires, we have to accept that, it's part of their natural cycle. In fact, the longer you leave a forest between fires, the more likely it is to burn as fuel builds up).

Why has the problem accelerated recently? Because industrial production has gone through the roof, and with it gg emissions!

There was a documentary on the issue here last night that I wish you could see. It centred around the response of the Australian BUSINESS COMMUNITY, headed by CEDA, the Committee for Economic Development in Australia, who have no interest in admitting to the problem. Here's a quote from the transcript of the show:

NOEL PURCELL, WESTPAC (one of the big 4 banks here): Whether we like it or not, there is growing pressure on us as companies to act. Well, I think, Jonathan, it's not just us that takes it seriously, I think everybody does. I mean, the science debate has been won. 95 per cent decline in species on the Great Barrier Reef…

JONATHAN HOLMES: It's true that these days, public scepticism about the science of climate change is hard to find - no matter where you look.

MARK O'NEILL, EXEC. DIR. AUSTRALIAN COAL ASSOCIATION: I actually can't find on the record somebody from the coal industry in this country saying that they didn't think it's a problem. It is a big problem. We've got to do something about it.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1726376.htm

So, banks, business execs and THE COAL LOBBY all admit that there's something wrong, that the science is irrefutable. But no, I'm the crackpot. There's no point talking to ostriches. :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

See, doubting the science, which is exactly what OB and Yoni are doing, is like saying you doubt the link between asbestos and mesothilioma or cigarettes and cancer. The scientific evidence is now that overwhelming. As quoted above, even THE COAL INDUSTRY does not deny that EGW is happening and that humans are causing it, in fact, that they are causing it.

What to do? Many things. Too many to list here, but for a start:
1. EDUCATION - educate people about the limits of the planet (it is not infinite), and the damage currently being done to it by the "cult of consumerism" - everything we use consumes energy, so we should start thinking about and reducing what we consume. Education to change patterns of consumption.
2. EMERGING INDUSTRIES - we need to use seeding funds to stimulate investment in emerging technologies like sequestration, solar/wind/geothermal, nuclear, and new ways of constructing cities to reduce sprawl, increase energy efficiency, etc. Current funding is miniscule in comparison to the scale of effort necessary.
3. CARBON TAXES - the most effective way to get current business to account for its pollution and switch to cleaner technology is a price signal. Cap carbon pollution and reduce the cap gradually over time so that industry (and through them the consumer) has to respond or pay the price.
4. SOCIOECOLOGICAL TAXES - rather than putting the tax burden on people's income, give them their full income and tax the consumption end of the equation on the basis of energy/water consumed to make a product. This is a price signal directly correlated to the extent of each person's consumption which means that you pay for what you take from the planet.

That's just the start.

Anyway, I'm out.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Just heard on my way home from work that the ozone hole is healing itself! The ozone started thickening back in 1998. Hmm, now will be have more hurricane or less, global warming or global cooling? Darn, our universe just won't cooperate with the scientists will it!

See, you don't even have a clue what you are talking about!? Enhanced Global Warming (EGW) is not linked to the hole in the ozone layer, (except for the tiny quantity of warming HCFCs have contributed since their introduction) - the ozone layer has nothing to do with EGW. THESE ARE TWO ESSENTIALLY SEPARATE ISSUES.

[Nbadan]

Nice try Ruff, but some of these guys are in complete denial about GW. I've posted charts detailing how the increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere correlates to increased global temperatures. Not one person has ever successfully desputed this.

The thing is we have the science to solve this problem now, but what we need are politicians to get their heads out of their asses and their hands out of the oil lobby industry pockets and accept that if we don't deal with GW now as a nation and as a global community, the ramfications will be severe to the earth and our environment and these changes will happen in most of our life-times.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Nice try Ruff, but some of these guys are in complete denial about GW. I've posted charts detailing how the increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere correlates to increased global temperatures. Not one person has ever successfully desputed this.

The thing is we have the science to solve this problem now, but what we need are politicians to get their heads out of their asses and their hands out of the oil lobby industry pockets and accept that if we don't deal with GW now as a nation and as a global community, the ramfications will be severe to the earth and our environment and these changes will happen in most of our life-times.

Dan, absolutely, you speak the truth. I cannot believe the absurd disavowels these guys come up with when they have the internet and are surrounded by evidence that contradicts their bloody-minded opinions. As I have stated over and over again, don't believe me, talk to the scientists. They all know and speak the same truth you and I are trying to disseminate to a wider audience, but somehow these shifty neo-con bastards have insinuated false doubt into the minds of the masses...

I was pleasantly surprised to watch the doco referred to above and find that big business is also now taking EGW seriously. I mean, when the guy from Big Coal says "we know there's a problem and we know we have to fix it", it feels like we're finally getting through to everyone.

But you know what? We're not. You know the crux of the problem? It's easy to pin on the politicians, but at the core they are only puppets responding to the whims of the populous. The problem is ALL OF US!

No-one wants to sacrifice a dime or a minute for something that is thus far intangible to them. We live in relatively peaceful and stable times, and we have constructed a society so complacent and used to the amazing luxury we live in every day that no-one can fathom cutting back on anything. The greatest example is the mobile phone/internet - what would we do without them??? Probably read books, spend more time with people, etc., but that age has past.

Also, we continue to focus only on the SUPPLY SIDE of the energy crisis... where's the discussion about the unrealistically escallating DEMAND for everything? No-one wants to have that conversation, because that might end in a realisation that our capacity to satiate our collective desire is not infinte, it is in fact limited by the finite nature of the planet we live on (and by extension its ability to support us), and that would not be a popular idea with the decadent masses, which is ALL OF US.

If each of us cut our total energy consumption (embodied in everything we buy and do) by 2% a year, we could halve our impact on the planet in terms of energy and resources in 25 years. Couple with that a switching away from polluting technologies and we could probably cut our impact in half again. And at 2% a year, most people wouldn't even notice. That is the only way we can shift to true sustainability, and it would have to be an iterative process, monitored and adjusted the whole way.

Of course, that will never happen, and we will stumble from environmental catastrophe to famine to genocide to resource war, as we have been doing for a century, and eventually when someone with a button makes a mistake or gets fed up, nuclear war will obliterate life on the planet. Give or take this last para, but that's the way I see it playing out, because we are suffering from a terminal dose of asynergy - the sum of our collective intelligence is far less than that of the parts. We are blinded by our own human nature - greed, self-interest, and extreme myopia, the inability to effectively plan in the long-term. I dearly hope that I'm wrong and that we collectively awake from our destructive ignorance very soon.

[jochhejaam]

Apparently the problem isn't nearly as severe as was previously thought.

Hot off the press:

Science tempers fears on climate change
Matthew Warren
September 02, 2006

THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.
A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago.

For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.

In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.

The new projections put paid to <----laid to rest? some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.

The report projects a rise in sea levels by century's end of between 14cm and 43cm, with further rises expected in following centuries caused by melting polar ice.

The new projections forecast damage by global warming, such as stronger cyclones, modest sea-level rises and further shrinking of the arctic sea ice.

CSIRO research predicts the biggest impact of sea-level changes of this scale would be to increase the effect of storm surges, particularly on Australia's tropical northern coastline.

The forecast temperature rises would also result in lower rainfall over most of the Australian mainland and exacerbate the threat to the survival of coral reefs and shellfish by increasing the risk of bleaching and increasing the acidity of the ocean.

Australian Conservation Foundation energy program manager Erwin Jackson said the projections required an urgent and immediate response from the federal Government to drive accelerated investment in low-emissions technology in Australia.

"Every day we delay taking action, the problem gets worse," Mr Jackson said.

"The Government keeps throwing up the costs of action but totally ignores the costs of inaction.

"No one ever said that saving the planet would cost nothing - that's the bottom line."

A recent Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report on the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions estimated Australians would incur a fall in real wages of about 20 per cent if the nation was to unilaterally cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.

John Howard this week said that sort of scenario would have an "enormously damaging" effect on the economy. "I accept that climate change is a challenge," the Prime Minister said. "I accept the broad theory about global warming. I am sceptical about a lot of the more gloomy predictions.

"I also recognise that a country like Australia has got to balance a concern for greenhouse gas emissions with a concern for the enormous burden to be carried by consumers ... of what you might call an anti-greenhouse policy. It's a question of balance."

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the draft IPCC report was still undergoing a thorough review process before its approval by the panel next year.

"It highlights the need for an effective global response to climate change as Australia alone cannot alter the pattern of world emissions," Senator Campbell said. "We are taking a leading role internationally to achieve effective engagement by all major greenhouse gas-emitting countries."

The new projections are based on the results of 23 climate models, developed by government climate scientists from IPCC member countries.

According to current climate change models, stabilising global greenhouse gas levels to 400parts per million offers a good chance of avoiding 2C global temperature increases.

This would require global emissions to be 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

CSIRO recently concluded that the goal of 60 per cent reductions might be considered the minimum needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

Any further reductions in global temperatures would require cuts in emissions of about 80-90 per cent in industrialised countries by 2050, which would require a faster transition to near-zero emissions technologies.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement for developed countries to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets by 2012.

Australia and the US have refused to sign the protocol, instead proposing a global climate pact that focuses on working with developing countries such as China and India to reduce their greenhouse emissions.

Mr Jackson said the IPCC draft report highlighted the inadequacy of Australia's policy response to the threat of climate change.

"If these projections become a reality, our children face living in an Australia with no Barrier Reef, no Kakadu wetlands and a Murray River reduced to a trickle."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20332352-601,00.html

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Somehow the fact that the predicitions have been refined makes you feel warm and fuzzy!? Did you even bother to read the entire article?

So the prediction has been refined, from between 1.4-5.8C to 2-4.5C. That is still a very serious problem, as stated throughout the article. Climate change will not only result in rising sea level, it is already changing the biogeography of the planet. Changes of the magnitude described will severely disrupt agriculture and water resources across the planet, not to mention the oceans.

This story is not an "everything will be okay", the point is that we have more accurate predictions now. I'm looking forward to reading the final IPCC report.

"If these projections become a reality, our children face living in an Australia with no Barrier Reef, no Kakadu wetlands and a Murray River reduced to a trickle." Fantastic, especially as 70% of Australia's agriculture relies on the Murray.

[jochhejaam]

Somehow the fact that the predicitions have been refined makes you feel warm and fuzzy!? Did you even bother to read the entire article?
So the prediction has been refined, from between 1.4-5.8C to 2-4.5C. That is still a very serious problem, as stated throughout the article. Climate change will not only result in rising sea level, it is already changing the biogeography of the planet. Changes of the magnitude described will severely disrupt agriculture and water resources across the planet, not to mention the oceans.

This story is not an "everything will be okay", the point is that we have more accurate predictions now. I'm looking forward to reading the final IPCC report.

"If these projections become a reality, our children face living in an Australia with no Barrier Reef, no Kakadu wetlands and a Murray River reduced to a trickle." Fantastic, especially as 70% of Australia's agriculture relies on the Murray.
What's wrong with you RnR? :drunk Beggin' for a fight?
Who said anything about feeling "warm and fuzzy" or inferred that the article implies that "everything will be okay"?
And yes, I read the "entire" article, found it interesting and posted it here as it was germane to the subject.

[Nancy Pelosi]

Well, Other scientiest say we are going to have another ice age in possibly a decade.
And when I become speaker of the house and after I impeach Bush I am going to hold
hearings. Do you hear!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

What's wrong with you RnR? :drunk Beggin' for a fight?
Who said anything about feeling "warm and fuzzy" or inferred that the article implies that "everything will be okay"?
And yes, I read the "entire" article, found it interesting and posted it here as it was germane to the subject.

Let's see - your tag line says "the problem isn't as severe as we first thought" (actually, at the lower end of the scale of variation it is more severe, at the upper end less - in other words, it is more ACCURATE, as stated in the 4th paragraph), and a lot of people will read the tagline and not the article and assume that "oh, now they're telling me it isn't a problem".

Then you embolden the phrase "put paid to/laid to rest", which, once again, many people will infer to mean no problem without even reading or understanding the main points in the article which were that the planet is still in deep shit if we don't act now. A 2-4C rise in temperature will have vast consequences on the water and food resources of the planet, and thus on its human population.

I find both of those actions misleading on your part. Other than that, thanks for posting the article, it was interesting.

As for picking a fight, accuracy and transparency is all I ask. But, yes, this place is not good for my blood pressure and maybe I should just give up. I'm not really going to influence anyone here to think more about these issues - this place is pretty much polarised into: the "aware", and the "don't care" (let's prod the greeny in the cage with our stick, representing the specious arguments and BS "facts" trotted out by corporate apologists like Yoni and everyone's friend Nancy Pelosi).

As for you Nancy, primary source please (and, no, websites sponsored by oil companies are not primary sources - I'm talking about peer-reviewed journals thanks). Let's see, ice melting, temperature rising, but we're headed for an ice age. Um, no. You are talking out your arse, as per usual with the people who come in here in make BS claims.

You are probably talking about the climatologists who suggest that, according to historical cycles, the next ice age is overdue. However, changes in the climatic cycle they are talking about occur over centuries to millenia, not decades. You are talking on the wrong timescale by a factor of 10-100, and those cycles they are discussing are historically observed - that is, they do not take into account the massive changes humanity has wrought on the planet and it's atmosphere, particularly over the last 200 years. Who knows how the next long-term cooling cycle will be affected by the changes we've made to the planet?

Why do you people trot out this garbage without actually understanding any of what you are saying? That's why msg boards need guys like dan and I, to straighten out all these spurious claims that people make and then represent as mainstream science. :nope

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RuffnReadyOzStyle]Let's see - your tag line says "the problem isn't as severe as we first thought" (actually, at the lower end of the scale of variation it is more severe, at the upper end less - in other words, it is more ACCURATE, as stated in the 4th paragraph), and a lot of people will read the tagline and not the article and assume that "oh, now they're telling me it isn't a problem".
My lead in was overstated. If I could repost the article it would have been more accurate for me to lead in with "it isn't as severe" rather than "it isn't nearly as severe".






Then you embolden the phrase "put paid to/laid to rest", which, once again, many people will infer to mean no problem without even reading or understanding the main points in the article which were that the planet is still in deep shit if we don't act now. A 2-4C rise in temperature will have vast consequences on the water and food resources of the planet, and thus on its human population.

I find both of those actions misleading on your part. Other than that, thanks for posting the article, it was interesting.
The bolding was just my way of trying to restate wording that I didn't understand. "put paid to" didn't make sense to me and I admit that I exercised journalistic license by paraphrasing that with "laid to rest". If you can clarify what "put paid to" actually meant, I'm open to another iterpretation.
That an abundance of greenhouse gases are having a negative impact on the Earth is more than likely not open to serious argument and needs to be addressed. Whether this translates into the Earth being in "deep shit" as you state, is a matter of opinion.




As for picking a fight, accuracy and transparency is all I ask. But, yes, this place is not good for my blood pressure and maybe I should just give up. I'm not really going to influence anyone here to think more about these issues - this place is pretty much polarised into: the "aware", and the "don't care"
Nah, don't give up (unless it's truly adversely affecting your health). "Pretty much polarized" leaves open the possibility that some are open to being educated. I believe that to be the case. If it weren't for the forum I probably wouldn't have initiated taking a closer look into the Global Warming issue.



That's why msg boards need guys like dan and I, to straighten out all these spurious claims that people make and then represent as mainstream science.
It's good to see that, despite your misgivings about posting in this forum, you are able to maintain a sense of humor.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

jo, "put paid to" means "laid to rest". I was objecting to the fact that you emboldened that one phrase in the whole thing, which says to the scanning eye "not a problem any more", particularly in combination with your tagline.

The vast majority (over 99%) of scientific opinion, including the national scientific organisations of over 150 countries, agree that EGW is anthropogenic, and now politicicians, business leaders and even the coal industry in Australia (I'm curious what coal industry lobbyists have said in other countries) agree. National governments across the world already have nascent schemes in place to address CO2/CH4/NOx emissions. The science is overwhelming, now it's just a matter of what we do in response to the knowledge. Therein lies the matter of contention.

My reference to "deep shit" was not properly explained. What I mean there is that EGW is just one of a raft of massive problems facing our civilisation this century - overpopulation, non-renewable resource depletion, war, pollution, all of which will put further pressure on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that are the bedrock underlying life on the planet.

IMHO, modern human civilization is in for a rough ride socially, economically and environmentally over the next century as we must find a way to bring our aggregate consumption of resources, energy and water back into some sort of long-term sustainable balance with our environment. I naively believe that, if we start now and plan well, we might be able to affect a smoother transition to sustainability than if we just reinforce the spiral of over-consumption that has gripped the planet over the last 50 yrs.

Later ths century, as we start to run out of things we are yet to develop an alternative for (or have developed the alternative at an insufficient scale), the economic chaos that causes will feed into the world's social instability.

Meanwhile, the changing climate, and consequent changes to rainfall and extreme event patterns, will affect agricultural output, ocean rise will displace hundreds of millions of people (120mil live at sea level in Bangladesh alone) and warming of the oceans will feed back into the climate system in unpredictable ways. Fisheries are already exhausted in many places (NE US, NZ, North Sea, SE Asia) with no sign of recovery. River systems worldwide are severely affected by pollution, agricultural runoff (which further destrots fisheries), daming, siltification, etc.

Anyway, you get the drift. There are lotsa problems, and each is going to make others harder to solve. In many cases, we have the changes in behaviour or technologies to solve the problems, but they generally involve some sort of switching behaviour and thus a "cost".

As I see it:
start now, bear the costs slowly over time, adaptively manage the solutions, lessen the impact of the problems
OR
ignore what we know, party like it's 1999, and wait for the house of cards to tumble.

That's what I mean by "deep shit".

And man do I hope I'm wrong. But the consequences if I'm right and we do nothing about it are potentially catastrophic for our civilisation on a GLOBAL SCALE. The planet will "live" on in some form whatever happens, but I actually have a great respect for the many of the things we modern humans have accomplished. The thing is, we could do them better, in a way that doesn't hurt our environment (and each other, through war and genocide) so much, and I see that ability to do things better as a moral imperative. We can be better.

Anyway, the ravings of a cynical man crossed with the ramblings of an idealistic boy.

I'm concerned for the future, so shoot me. :spin

[jochhejaam]

jo, "put paid to" means "laid to rest". I was objecting to the fact that you emboldened that one phrase in the whole thing, which says to the scanning eye "not a problem any more", particularly in combination with your tagline.

The vast majority (over 99%) of scientific opinion, including the national scientific organisations of over 150 countries, agree that EGW is anthropogenic, and now politicicians, business leaders and even the coal industry in Australia (I'm curious what coal industry lobbyists have said in other countries) agree. National governments across the world already have nascent schemes in place to address CO2/CH4/NOx emissions. The science is overwhelming, now it's just a matter of what we do in response to the knowledge. Therein lies the matter of contention.

My reference to "deep shit" was not properly explained. What I mean there is that EGW is just one of a raft of massive problems facing our civilisation this century - overpopulation, non-renewable resource depletion, war, pollution, all of which will put further pressure on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that are the bedrock underlying life on the planet.

IMHO, modern human civilization is in for a rough ride socially, economically and environmentally over the next century as we must find a way to bring our aggregate consumption of resources, energy and water back into some sort of long-term sustainable balance with our environment. I naively believe that, if we start now and plan well, we might be able to affect a smoother transition to sustainability than if we just reinforce the spiral of over-consumption that has gripped the planet over the last 50 yrs.

Later ths century, as we start to run out of things we are yet to develop an alternative for (or have developed the alternative at an insufficient scale), the economic chaos that causes will feed into the world's social instability.

Meanwhile, the changing climate, and consequent changes to rainfall and extreme event patterns, will affect agricultural output, ocean rise will displace hundreds of millions of people (120mil live at sea level in Bangladesh alone) and warming of the oceans will feed back into the climate system in unpredictable ways. Fisheries are already exhausted in many places (NE US, NZ, North Sea, SE Asia) with no sign of recovery. River systems worldwide are severely affected by pollution, agricultural runoff (which further destrots fisheries), daming, siltification, etc.

Anyway, you get the drift. There are lotsa problems, and each is going to make others harder to solve. In many cases, we have the changes in behaviour or technologies to solve the problems, but they generally involve some sort of switching behaviour and thus a "cost".

As I see it:
start now, bear the costs slowly over time, adaptively manage the solutions, lessen the impact of the problems
OR
ignore what we know, party like it's 1999, and wait for the house of cards to tumble.

That's what I mean by "deep shit".

And man do I hope I'm wrong. But the consequences if I'm right and we do nothing about it are potentially catastrophic for our civilisation on a GLOBAL SCALE. The planet will "live" on in some form whatever happens, but I actually have a great respect for the many of the things we modern humans have accomplished. The thing is, we could do them better, in a way that doesn't hurt our environment (and each other, through war and genocide) so much, and I see that ability to do things better as a moral imperative. We can be better.

Anyway, the ravings of a cynical man crossed with the ramblings of an idealistic boy.

I'm concerned for the future, so shoot me. :spin
Nice post RnR.
It's evident from your posts on this topic that your concerns are genuine and without partisanship. That's commendable. Keep in mind that the causality of greehnouse gases in regards to global warming are still in the early stages (relatively speaking) and with that in mind, actions taken to curb the impact should be applied as confirmation of their negative affects are substantiated.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but we need to be fairly certain that the preventative actions taken will address the problem. The implementation of unnecessarily drastic measures as a result of knee-jerk reaction by activists (Al Gore) are not the answer.

Let's keep in mind the fact that the scientific community does not speak with one voice on the issue. Indeed, scientists are still debating whether the global warming we're now experiencing is a natural phenomenon, and also whether it's part of the Earth's natural cycle. Neither theory has been proven.

And RnR, being concerned for the future does not put you in the minority so forget about being shot for it. :spin


(BTW, are you the raving cynical man or the rambling idealistic boy?)

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Jo, that is where I disagree with you. There is scientific, governmental and business concensus that EGW is anthropogenic. Ten years ago , I agree with you, there was a lot of debate, but the evidence for a link between humans and EGW is now pretty overwhelming.

All the major scientific organisations in the world, like the IPCC, certainly support an anthropogenic basis for EGW, as does common sense. I'll trust the world's scientist and my own judgement on this one. Hell, as I've already pointed out, even the coal lobby down here now admits that it's something they have to address, and we are one of the world's largest exporters of coal, and over 90% of our electricity is generated from coal, so that has serious consequences. Your own EPA admitted the anthropogenisis of EGW back in 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm

There is now very little dissent on this point - guys like Lomborg (out to sell books) and Milloy (oil company lobbyist) are the only dissenters I've come across. If you can provide me with a credible primary source as to this dissent, I'd like to read it, but to suggest that there is still widespread dissent amongst scientists, governments and business leaders about this is simply not the case.

Once again, I challenge any and all to go to their local university and discuss these things with the scientists.

(I am both, and that's why I'm slowly going crazy! The gulf between what could be and what is and will always be sometimes keeps me up at night...)

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RuffnReadyOzStyle]
Once again, I challenge any and all to go to their local university and discuss these things with the scientists.

Here's an article stating that it's the media, not scientists that are claiming that there's a consensus among scientists on global warming.
I'd like to hear your response to this when you get the time.
p.s. I'll refrain from highlighting this time.


Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus


Written By: Alan Caruba
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: August 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute



Leading climatologists spent the month of June fighting false proclamations from non-scientists claiming scientists have reached agreement that catastrophic global warming is occurring.


Alarmists Claim Debate Over

On June 1, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) claimed "the debate is over" and global warming alarmists' predictions had carried the day.

The Natural Resources Defense Council on June 9 declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."

On June 13, USA Today declared, "The debate's over: Globe is Warming." In support of its claim, the newspaper cited the positions of some left-leaning religious groups, some corporations who will reap a financial windfall from a switch to alternative fuel sources, and some politicians.


Scientists Disagree

While each of the above claims from non-scientists received significant media coverage, leading climatologists spent the month of June rebutting such proclamations.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.

Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."

Added Singer in a subsequent letter to the Canadian media, "Thousands of scientists from many countries now fully understand that Kyoto and other efforts to control human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are ineffective and entirely unfounded scientifically.

"Even if you ignore the enormous cost of Kyoto (estimated recently by Prof. George Taylor of Oregon State University--see http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p628.htm--at one trillion U.S. dollars a year for full implementation in OECD countries), climate science research is rapidly moving AWAY from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is in any way significantly contributing to global climate change."


[U]Sun Called Primary Cause

"If we just look at the historical data, there is a scientific consensus that the global mean temperature has risen modestly during the twentieth century," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The impacts have been small and probably beneficial in aggregate. This historical data puts the onus of demonstration on those who think this gradual warming trend will accelerate and lead to dire consequences."

The controlling driver of global temperature fluctuations, according to Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, is solar ray activity. "Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate," Peiser was quoted as saying in the May 17 National Post.

Moreover, reports Peiser, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded, "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

Added Peiser, "In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S. Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of the whole idea."


False Consensus Was Predicted

Indeed, back in November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by non-scientists and even some scientists.

Von Storch, who has yet to side with either alarmists or skeptics, warned, "We need to respond openly to the agenda-driven advocates, not only skeptics but also alarmists, who misuse their standing as scientists to pursue their private value-driven agendas."


Media Echo Scariest Claims

Noting the propensity of large media organizations to echo the alarmists' claims, von Storch wrote, "Judgments of solid scientific findings are often not made with respect to their immanent quality but on the basis of their alleged or real potential as a weapon by 'skeptics' in a struggle for dominance in public and policy discourse."

Ebell agrees: "If the debate is over, why do they exaggerate so much? It seems that once some scientist makes any sort of speculation about the extent or impact of future warming that sounds even slightly scary, then we never hear the end of it, no matter how many times subsequent research refutes it.

"After reading hundreds of scientific articles and consulting widely on what they mean and how they fit together, I am convinced that if there is a consensus, it is not alarmist," said Ebell.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Okay, here we go.

Fred S Singer "runs the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which publicizes his own views on various topics, primarily climate change, ozone depletion, risks of chemical pollution (DDT and others), atomic power, and space policy... and was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," [Steven Milloy, Exxon lobbyist's website] defending the industry's views."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

Gun for hire? Ask your local climatology faculty what they think about him.


Myron Ebell of the CEI:

"In March 2001, the nonprofit Clean Air Trust named Ebell its "clean air villain of the month," citing his "ferocious lobbying charge to persuade President Bush to reverse his campaign pledge to control electric utility emissions of carbon dioxide."

In September 2003 Greenpeace obtained evidence in the form of a [[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g memo]] to Philip A. Cooney dated March 2002, outlining their strategy for dealing with the problems caused by scientifically-based "Climate Action Report 2002", which the US government had submitted to the UN. The crucial paragraph of this memo reads:

"As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming the EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the president needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for [Christine Todd Whitman] to be fired. I know that that doesn't sound like much help, but it seems to me that our only leverage to push you in the right direction is to drive a wedgge between the President and those in the Administration who think they are serving the president's best interests by publishing this rubbish." "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell

Yet another hired gun. The CEI's money comes from energy companies (click on the links to see the background of each donating fund):

http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=81


Here is an in-depth deconstruction of Jan Vizier's work on solar cycles:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153


Hans von Storch was part of the team that debunked Prof. Michael Mann's studies, and some of his criticisms were valid. However his reason for questioning the science was hijacked by the naysayers, as he states here:

"In October 2004, we were able to demonstrate in the scientific journal “Science” that the methodological bases that led to this hockey-stick curve are mistaken. We wanted to reverse the spiral of exaggeration somewhat, without also relativizing the central message – that climate change caused by human activity does indeed exist. Prominent representatives of climate research, however, did not respond by taking issue with the facts. Instead, they worried that the noble cause of protecting the climate might have been done harm.
Other scientists lapse into a zeal reminiscent of nothing so much as the McCarthy era. For them, methodological criticism is the spawn of “conservative think tanks and propagandists for the oil and coal lobby,” which they believe they must expose; dramatizing climate change, on the other hand, is defended as a sensible means of educating society. What is true for other sciences should also hold for climate research: Dissent is the motor of further development, Differences of opinion are not an unpleasant family affair. The concealment of dissent and uncertainty in favor of a politically good cause takes its toll on credibility, for the public is more intelligent than is usually assumed. In the long term, these allegedly so helpful dramatizations achieve the opposite of that which they wish to achieve."

Jo, I highly recommend you read this document because it confronts a central theme that I know you are objecting to, and which I agree with - the way in which both sides have sensationalized the debate. And on this I absolutely agree with you - the left has actually shot themselves in the foot by warping the topic. However, at the same time, von Storch states unequivocally at the start of his testimony that:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climatechange brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

He also states the following, which reflects the uncertainty in the scientific community that you describe, but also notes that the majority of climatologists (and remember, they are not the only scientitsts with input into this debate) believe in anthro. EGW:

"A considerable number of climatologists are still by no means convinced that the fundamental questions have been adequately dealt with. Thus, in the last year a survey among climate researchers throughout the world found that a quarter of the respondents still harbor doubts about the human origin of the most recent climatic changes. The majority of researchers are indeed of the opinion that global climate change caused by human activity is occurring, that it will accelerate in the future, and that it will thus become more readily apparent. This change will be accompanied by warmer temperatures and a higher water level. In the more distant future, that is, in about 100 years, a considerable increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is foreseen, together with an increase in heavy precipitation in our latitudes; in some regions there could be more powerful storms, in others weaker ones." (Note: "still harbour doubts" could refer to doubts as to our ability to predict with accuracy what the changes will be or any number of other matters - if you can track down the study he refers to, I'd like to read it).

As you can see, I am not trying to hijack the debate or skew the sources - I'm willing to show both sides. Seriously, read von Stoch's testimony. It's a good lesson for both sides of the debate, and it is testimony to the US House of Reps, so you can't really impeach the source.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/060619_ushouse_energycommercehvs.pdf


Now this would have been better evidence for you to use:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/pdf/lettertoharper2.pdf#search=%22Dr.%20Benny%20Peiser %20background%22

A letter to the the Canadian PM countersigned by 60 dissenting scientisits from across the globe. The question is, 60 vs how many, 10,000, 50,000? There will always be dissent on any matter, it is a question of how widespread and credible the dissent is. Evolution vs Intelligent Design is another great example of this (note: ID has been utterly debunked by mainstream science - I hope you are not a supporter of ID as science!?).

However, if you look at that list you again you will see guys like Singer on it, and if you keep looking at the "dissenting view", the same small number of names (Singer, Ebell, Milloy) keep cropping up. I wish I could give you a list of the scientists who support anthropocentric EGW, but the list would be too long, in the 10s of thousands.

Also, I'm sure if I had time to dig through that list a 60, I would find that many of them have partisan financial backing from big polluters inc., or their own agendas (like selling books). Now you could argue the same for the other side of the debate, but that argument is not nearly as strong when you have 10s of thousands of scientists who you are claiming are partisan to the other side.

To close I'd like to use a little metaphor, eating badly. If I eat shit (ie pollute my body) I am more likely to become obese. How does obesity show itself? In a range of maladies; type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc. Now I can get away with eating shit a few times a week without major repercussions because the shit won't overload the natural ability of my bodily systems to counteract it... but when it becomes a majority of my diet, like on "Super Size Me" for example, the purification systems become overloaded and my body starts to crumble from the inside out. We are doing something similar to the planet - for most of our history, the effect of human beings on a planetary scale has been insufficient to overload the planet's natural cycles. With 6.6bil people, 3 billion of whom are hyper-consumers (or soon to be), we've super-sized our impact and the planet cannot handle it.

Maybe the scientists are mostly wrong, and in 50 years the dissenters will be proven right, but I highly doubt it. I have studied the evidence, and my view is that, beyond reasonable doubt, EGW is occuring and we are responsible for it. What we do about it is what we now must decide.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

No answer, jo, or have you been busy? I thought we were having a productive discussion here.

Just thought I'd add that this month's Scientific American is entirely devoted to articles about the energy future of the planet. If anyone wants to inform themselves about the subject, but can't be bothered tracking down the primary sources, this is probably not a bad way to go.

[jochhejaam]

No answer, jo, or have you been busy? I thought we were having a productive discussion here.

Busy the 6th and yes, the discussion has been quite educational for me. It's not often that someone takes one side of an argument but is willing to admit that there is some merit to the opposing view. You have done so and I find that fair-mindedness refreshing. Nice post RnR.


Not a real big deal but I did note a discrepency in what you posted, at least something that appears to be a discrepancy.

At one point in your post you state that 60 dissenting scientists sent a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister and went on to question the validity of their concerns by stating that their views were up against the views of 10,000 to 50,000. Do you have a document of solidarity with the names of those that hold a counter-view? If not, I'm not sure it's fair to assume that because other scientists didn't sign the letter of dissent then they must oppose the 60.

You did precede these numbers with an article stating the following; a quarter of the respondents still harbor doubts about the human origin of the most recent climatic changes.
So the numbers of the opposition went from 1 in 4 to 1 in 833 (I realize the number 50,000 wasn't meant to be a hard number, but it is the number you posted so it's the one I worked with).
Is there an discrepancy here or did I miss something? (not meant to come across as confrontational, just curious).



I agree with Storch and Sterh's assertion that: "Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

I read with interest his reasoning that the the argument for anthropogenic climate change isn't based on the fact that the most recent warming is the greatest in historical times (I believe he labeled that irrelevant in and of itself) but based on the fact that the "rate of warming is markedly stronger than what has happened in the past".


The real problem I had with the issue is as you stated; The alarmists and extremists.

Differing views

-There is no problem, forget about it.

-There is a problem and it should be addressed sooner rather than later.

-The sky is falling.

You seem to me to fall into the middle and I think that's the reasonable position based on what science has rendered to this point.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

jo, when it comes to the 60, I think it is fair to say that those who didn't sign don't agree with them (BTW - I linked to the letter). If there was a significant groundswell of scientists who now don't believe that EGW is anthropogenic, don't you think we'd be hearing about it? I think most scientists have accepted the evidence, and feel that the debate is over, and thus don't feel the need to write their own letters - they feel they have already won the debate.

You also have to define the word "oppose", and phrases like "harbour doubts" (that's why I want to read the study he references). Harbouring doubts could mean anything from disagreeing that it is anthropogenic to agreeing that it is anthropogenic but doubting the predictions being made...

As for the numbers, remember, it said "a 1/4 of climate researchers surveyed" - I take that to mean climatologists. They are not the only scientists involved in this evidence - there are also ecologists, geologists, geophysicists, biologists of all kinds... in fact, climatologists are probably a small minority of the scientists who have contributed to the evidence for and reviewed the findings of the studies in support of anthroEGW. I thought you might take issue with that, but then I figured I could always point it out later.

As for this: "I read with interest his reasoning that the the argument for anthropogenic climate change isn't based on the fact that the most recent warming is the greatest in historical times (I believe he labeled that irrelevant in and of itself) but based on the fact that the "rate of warming is markedly stronger than what has happened in the past".

Bang! Hit nail on head! I may not have said it in this thread, but I have in other EGW threads here in the last two months - it is the unprecedented RATE OF CHANGE of the climate, in conjunction with the human impact on the atmosphere (50% increase in CO2, %150 Ch4, etc. in last 100 yrs), that links the two together. Warming/cooling cycles of this magnitude have historically taken 1000-4000yrs, this one has occured in less than a century. We simply haven't seen this in the climatic record before. That is how scientists have separated this trend from the natural cycles and background noise in the system.

"There is a problem and it should be addressed sooner rather than later." Yup, this is me, although people like Yoni and sick will try to paint me as the later, and they are certainly the former.

Extremism in all forms is the enemy.

Glad that we have been able to constructively discuss this issue (I think we have both learned something here), and glad that you seem to understand the evidence.

Cheers. :D

[RandomGuy]

No answer, jo, or have you been busy? I thought we were having a productive discussion here.

Just thought I'd add that this month's Scientific American is entirely devoted to articles about the energy future of the planet. If anyone wants to inform themselves about the subject, but can't be bothered tracking down the primary sources, this is probably not a bad way to go.

I found the article on nuclear power interesting.

I really wonder if the added costs of security were factored into the costs per new kilowatt hour. I doubt a sufficient level was.

I also noticed that they waited until the very last part of the article, after they had said how cheap etc. nuclear could be, to admit that the long-term storage of waste was still a problem that needed to be solved.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Something interesting happened to me last night.

Now I have been slowly researching the topic of EGW over the last 5 years or so, learning about the science and then trying to develop metaphors and such for explaining the ideas to people. This process has involved a lot of primary sources, some secondary, but I've tried to stay away from the populist stuff because I don't wat to be accused of parroting the mainstream media prima donnas who are, in many cases, warping and marginalising the debate.

So last night Al Gore was on Denton, the best interview show in Australia. I have not heard him speak, nor read about or seen his movie - I decided purposely to insulate myself from it. So what do I find but that he is using my metaphors, dammit!? It was actually pretty funny to come across a guy whose brain came to the same solutions mine did in terms of trying to convey what is a series of complex concepts to the scientifically illiterate masses.

Anyway, it occurs to me that Americans familiar with his message must have assumed I was parroting the guy. I swear that the metaphors and heurisitc devices I use when discussing EGW were actually my own independent creation and had nothing to do with Mr Gore! :lol This was a case of convergent evolution (for those who don't know this term, here's a Wiki):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

Oh, and I must say that Gore was mostly very impressive on Denton. The transcript will be up in the next day or two:

http://abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/date.htm