The cause?

[AMCTony]

If the current group of people that are pushing this "human caused" global warming deal down all of our throats are really serious about their beliefs then why do so many of them have private jets that burn thousands of gallons of fuel to go cross country 1 way? what kinds of cars do they drive? Do they recycle anything? And as for the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS that they spend pushing their agenda, have they invested any amount into the real solution, an alternative energy source that does not involve co2 at all. I am talking about real money of millions or billions of dollars that it will actually take to get a new energy source and not some showy hundred thousand dollar donation BS to some foundation that they own. I am also talking about their personal money and not our money that they so proudly steal in the form of tax dollars. The energy sources that we use today,(coal, gas, oil, nuclear, ect...), all took BILLIONS of private dollars to get and perfect, none of which came from the feds who are going to save everyone from themselves. All of this combined looks like a group effort in the quest for power, nothing more. Control the worlds CO2 output, control the worlds energy. Sounds like a cheesy James Bond villian plot but stranger things have happened in history. I find it funny that these people have everyone arguing on how to stop a climatic event that we may not have caused at all, may not be able to do a damn thing about, and if we can magically stop this phenominon, then what is the result? No one is stopping to consider that this may be natural and if it IS stopped an reversed then what? Cleveland under 5000ft of ice? This is a real possibility that is not on the table. The world was MUCH warmer than it is now 1000 years ago but that also is not on the table. There were laws made in France in the that peroid restricting the import of british wine due to it hurting the local wine market. Now we all know of the lush mediteranian climate that the UK has. Great for wine. Finally, as for the national forest, we need to pick a path here in the US and live with the results. If you do not timber the national forest, you also cannot put out any of the forest fires. This is their natural way of cleaning house. Let the trash pile up long enough and now you have a real problem. The other option is to log the forest in check with good forest management practices. I am from a lumber family and believe me, it is in the interest of the lumber company to PROPERLY log a patch of timber. You do not want land owners pissed, and you want to have trees in the future or your doors close. you can only truck logs so far until it becomes economically unfeseable. The type of logging depends on the type of land, trees, and climate. Often, in the northeast, clear cutting is the best method because the forest tends to come back the fastest with the most diversity. In other places that will not work at all. My familys business employed as many degreed professional foresters as men with chainsaws. They also own a large amount of the property that they cut. Annual production is in the 10's of millions of board feet per year of lumber products so this is no small operation either. Land that was cut 20 years ago with good practices now has healthier forest on it than it did before the logging. BTW, a tree grown in a managed forest can consume up to 4 times as much CO2 as one in an unmanaged, read (un logged), forest. This information comes via Penn State University from the educated scientist that Nine6 suggest we listen to. I say if we are going to listen to scientist then we need to listen to ALL that they have to say and not just what gives political power plays at our expense. If your doctor gives you a prescription you also listen on when and how much to take. This is because your life depends on it. Maybe it does here too.

[eb2jim]

Hello, late to the party.
I find the recent global warming mania to be fascinating. I have the luxury of having a close friend who is a climate scientist, with a background in meterology. He makes his living doing environmental studies. This is for a private company, but much of his work is mandated by EPA standards, so he has his finger in both pies, so to speak. We debate and talk a lot on it.
The bottom line is that man-related global warming is possible, and a connection is probable. We just don't know, and the conclusions being drawn by the UN panels are based on hoped-for outcome rather than fact. The gloom and doom scenarios that are cranked out in the press and through different media types, are scientifically irresponsible at best. Al Gore's flick, while well intentioned from an anti-pollution aspect, plays fast and loose with much of the information that he uses and more importantly ignores.
The US has actually pioneered cleaner-alternative environmental practices well beyond the rest of the industrial world. We use more, but we use more in a much more efficient and clean way, and without govt mandates to initiate much of it. Sometimes the feds did prod, and that is not a bad thing either.
So, what is going on? A lot of public opinion is centered around the greater belief in fighting pollution and protecting our environment, which is great. As old Al Franken says, most Americans are liberal. BUT, most of us (for now) are not socialist in our view of government. And that is where worlds collide. There has been a big muddying of the concept of role of government over the last 50 years, with liberal minded people gravitating to a more European Socialist view. The global warming craze is, I believe, being used as a route to power. There is a great wealth of potential political power running through this movement. And the greater issue at stake, the greater threat is politically motivated people using a legitimate environmental concern and distorting it. My observation, for what it is, is that conservative minded Americans are as environmentally responsible as liberal minded Americans. Maybe more so. This is a weird phenomenon in the interesting times we live in. Good luck.

[NinerSevenTango]

Among other such interesting articles as the one about toothpick fish on this site, is this one;

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=297

It is fascinating what these people went through to locate and recover this plane. Note how deep the planes were buried in ice. It's anecdotal, but fascinating.

And nine6, your flippant dismissal of all those real scientists who were willing to publicly put their name to that document informs that not only did you not read the material therein, but you didn't even read the cover page.

The effort was paid for by a few individuals against a tidal wave of public funding for the orthodoxy. It is not a PR campaign by well funded sources. There may be more information out there since, but the information contained in the document still stands on its own.

--97T--

[jhowelb]

We are arguing over the cause when the effect is still NOT PROVEN!!

[fizzissist]

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L07305, doi:10.1029/2004GL019626, 2004

Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s

S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Bidston, UK

P. L. Woodworth
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Bidston, UK

Abstract
Sea level rise over the last 55 years is estimated to have been 1.7 ± 0.2 mm yr−1, based upon 177 tide gauges divided into 13 regions with near global coverage and using a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model to correct for land movements. We present evidence from altimeter data that the rate of sea level rise around the global coastline was significantly in excess of the global average over the period 1993–2002. We also show that the globally-averaged rate of coastal sea level rise for the decade centered on 1955 was significantly larger than any other decade during the past 55 years. In some models of sea level rise, enhanced coastal rise is a pre-cursor of global average rise. It remains to be seen whether the models are correct and whether global-average rates in the future reflect the high rates of coastal rise observed during the 1990s.


Then, 3 years later..........

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007

On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.


Curious???

Anyone have the full text so I don't have to pay $18??? Would like to see the full context to see what's going on.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by fizzissist .... Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr. Curious??? Anyone have the full text so I don't have to pay $18??? Would like to see the full context to see what's going on.

To answer your questions backwards;

Isn't that what libraries are for?

Let's see: Maximum increase 1.9 mm/yr., make it 2 for simplicity. Height of dyke above maximum high tide when designed, around 300 mm. 300/2 = 150. Oh good I can relax.

Have you seen any of the stuff from the GRACE satellites? Antarctica has lost an average of 36 cubic miles of ice per year between 2002 and 2005 and Greenland between 38 and 57 cubic miles per year over the same period.

But considering this is somewhat less than 400 cubic kilometers and the volume of grounded ice in these two ice caps is around 29,000,000 cubic kilometers I think I can stay relaxed.

[jhowelb]

Cause........................................and effect!

[jhowelb]

Conflicting input!

[fizzissist]

Gee Geof, I never woulda thunk to look inna libary. Was hoping I didn't have to pander to some AGU or IEEE member at work, especially since it's Sunday.

You might notice that GRACE was launched in '02 (with an expected life of 5 years), where ERS-1 was launched in 1991 (retired in 2000) and ERS-2 in '95.

GRACE series data in it's first 3 1/2 years seems to show a net gain of ice mass in antarctica, as shown by Chen and Wilson in 2006.

ERS-2 data seems to show a net gain (losses in the west, but more gains in the east) in antarctic ice, according to Davis and Ferguson in 2004

East antarctica comprises about 75% of the total mass, and has been increasing in ice depth approx. .07"/yr., according to ERS-2 satellite data. I also note that the net Greenland loss way overshadows what appears to be the antarctic's gain. What might be interesting to see is if the rates change, and if they track each other.

Yes, I've seen GRACE pictures. They're really pretty.

[Geof]

Stop taking away my excuses for being scared.

[tobyaxis]

So, should we be scared? Honestly, I do worry about it and do what I can. The truth is that we may never live to see the effects. Maybe 4 or 5 more generations will start to see it, but there are lots of things being done to help prevent Global Warming.

I have to say that this is a very interesting Thread.

However is it not true that we are entering into an other Ice Age, or is that a Crock the the Weather Channel put out a few years ago?

Any thoughts?

[fizzissist]

To be honest, I'm more afraid of AlGore & Friends than I am of the whole climate issue!

Bush may be big oil, but Burkle is big food....and Gore & Burkle have teamed up to tap into California employees pension funds to start a cable TV channel. Stay tuned!