Arctic ice levels "Lowest in recorded history"

[General Ludd]

I wasn't driving the bus by myself.

[Wezil]

You weren't part of that David Suzuki diesel bus tour were you?

That would be the cross country tour with a handful of people on a diesel bus to inform us about GW (and slam Conservatives...)

[Arrian]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I think it rather is. I mean, 30 years is nothing in geological terms, right? And yet, in those 30 years, there has been an incredibly large amount of change recorded. Think about it.

Allow me to rephrase.

It tells us that there is warming occuring (or rather is an additional piece of info supporting the warming, which everyone knows is occurring). It isn't necessarily proof of the cause of the warming - which is where I assumed Odin was going with this.

Regardless of the cause, changes are happening and we need to monitor them and prepare for the impacts. Meanwhile, continuing to work out how we are contributing and how best to respond to that would be wise.

All of which is terribly boring, I know, which is why you don't see that sort of thing in a newspaper article.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Allow me to rephrase.

It tells us that there is warming occuring (or rather is an additional piece of info supporting the warming, which everyone knows is occurring). It isn't necessarily proof of the cause of the warming - which is where I assumed Odin was going with this.

Im not sure, isnt acceleration of the pace of warming at least further evidence that the warming is anthropegenic?

Look, at it the other way. If the melting were slowing down, wouldnt that be used by skeptics to challenge the IPCC model, since that model suggest that the rate of change should be increasing? A chance to empirically falsify the model, and the model emerges unscathed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Regardless of the cause, changes are happening and we need to monitor them and prepare for the impacts. Meanwhile, continuing to work out how we are contributing and how best to respond to that would be wise.

All of which is terribly boring, I know, which is why you don't see that sort of thing in a newspaper article.

-Arrian

You must read different papers than me. The WaPo had an oped the other day by a Congressman Dingle from Michigan calling for a carbon tax, and then an editorial comparing the relative merits of a carbon tax to a cap and trade scheme, and of cap and trade with free allowances, versus auctioning of allowances.

[Arrian]

There were periods in the distant past where there was some pretty quick warming, no? That had nothing to do with us.

Anyway, I'm tired of this debate. Pollution is bad, even if you don't buy that GW is being caused by humans, so I'm all for reducing pollution. Therefore I'm on "your side" as it were.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You must read different papers than me. The WaPo had an oped the other day by a Congressman Dingle from Michigan calling for a carbon tax, and then an editorial comparing the relative merits of a carbon tax to a cap and trade scheme, and of cap and trade with free allowances, versus auctioning of allowances.

Dingle? Heh. Nice name.

IIRC, WaPo now requires registration to read online, which I don't do. So, while I used to read it intermittantly, I don't anymore. Leaving aside that specific case, I'm willing to grant you're better read on the subject (of GW, not necessarily of pollution in general) than I.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
There were periods in the distant past where there was some pretty quick warming, no? That had nothing to do with us.

Anyway, I'm tired of this debate. Pollution is bad, even if you don't buy that GW is being caused by humans, so I'm all for reducing pollution. Therefore I'm on "your side" as it were.

-Arrian

1. There may well have been times in the past when there was quick warming, and when it accelerated. The point is that the IPCC model of whats happening specifically suggested that something like this would happen, and it did. How else do you test a theory, other than by looking for falsifiable predictions?

2. GW isnt like all pollution. A. We've been dealing with other forms of pollution for 40 years. We really havent done much of anything about this, till Kyoto. B. Most pollution has localized effects (more or less) This is global. C. The potential effects, in the worse (but NOT chicken little) scenarios, are massive. D. The way the climate is, we have to make decisions long before we see the consequences. If we reduce SO2 emissions, we get results pretty quickly. If we reduce GHG emissions, it will take decades to change the momentum of climate change. Which means we probably have to act with incomplete knowledge.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Dingle? Heh. Nice name.

IIRC, WaPo now requires registration to read online, which I don't do. So, while I used to read it intermittantly, I don't anymore. Leaving aside that specific case, I'm willing to grant you're better read on the subject (of GW, not necessarily of pollution in general) than I.

-Arrian

try this link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200969.html

Note, your own Senator is an author of one of the more important proposals.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im not sure, isnt acceleration of the pace of warming at least further evidence that the warming is anthropegenic?

Look, at it the other way. If the melting were slowing down, wouldnt that be used by skeptics to challenge the IPCC model, since that model suggest that the rate of change should be increasing? A chance to empirically falsify the model, and the model emerges unscathed.

Not nessecarily. The pace of warming doesn't need to accelerate to increase the melting - it's more like when the temperature of the ice rises, then the melting will accelerate.

When you defrost a freezer, nothing happens for a period, but at some point the ice starts to break up and you have water all over the kitchen floor.

[Arrian]

Thanks for the link, LotM.

Hopefully, Senator Dingell is wrong when he says that "I sincerely doubt that the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them."

But I don't think he is.

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

It thought the letters "GW" was for GW Bush

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Wezil
You weren't part of that David Suzuki diesel bus tour were you?

That would be the cross country tour with a handful of people on a diesel bus to inform us about GW (and slam Conservatives...)

No, but are you implying that a diesel bus is not a good way for such a group to travel?

In terms of green house gases, it's probably the best way for a group of people to travel outside of biking.

[Odin]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
hah... that is if Grenland ice cap doesn't melt... but if it does = 5 m higher oceans... which will be fun for the coastal cities...

I think the dutch will be exporting a lot of their know how with the dams and how to keep the water away ...

overall it should not be a problem for rich countries, but developing ones will have serious issues with relocation as they will most likely not have the $$$ and tech to keep the water at bay, and continue to live under water levels.

More like Holland will be exporting a lot of refugees. If sea levels increase by 20 feet there won't BE a Holland.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Arrian

It isn't necessarily proof of the cause of the warming - which is where I assumed Odin was going with this.

Actually, no. Even if the arctic ice cap melted for totally natural reasons it would still NOT be a good thing. For one thing it will shift the Intertropical Convergence Zone (the climatic equator) northwards significantly (it already is around 5 degrees north because the impact of the Antarctic cap is greater then the Arctic cap), screwing with tropical rain patterns. Plus it will mean the extinction of creatures like polar bears and seals that depend on the arctic cap for thier survival.