Where the ... is that global [climate change] warming?

[Erssa]

In Luleå Sweden, we got some snow but it melted away and now there are barely snow to cover the ground. That is unusual, dont think that ever happened as long I have lived(30years). The temperature have been about 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit) over normal in December month. And almost 2(3.6 Fahrenheit) degrees Celsius over normal for the hole year.

Same here. Less energy needed for heating = smaller heating bills and smaller co2 emissions. Yay for global warming!

[aristide1]

And you honestly expect the leader of the free world to be able to pronounce that? He can't even pronouce nuclear.

Neither could Jimmy Carter...and he was a physicist.

Yes, and Jimmy also has a hard time putting food on his family.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library ... family.htm

[aristide1]

I hope this wasn't too abstract...

[laserred]

Actually, oil won't be here forever. It is a finite resource created by the decay of organic matter over millions of years combined with heat and pressure.

Actually, 99% of this "peak oil" crap started with a Mr. Hubbert in 1956. It was immediately gobbled up by the oil corporations to begin jacking up prices, because if the supply is never-ending, how can they charge a fortune for it? According to this "gospel" from 1956, the planet should have run out of oil sometime in the 1980s. If you notice, NONE of the oil companies are saying "Gee, we're running out of this stuff..." because they know it will last for much longer than they admit in the media. And, your oil creationism isn't completely correct, because they have tried to find new locations of oil by matching geographical and climatological areas and drilling to find oil, but this doesn't work. And just do some research on oil shale... there is enough oil in the shale under Colorado to supply the current consumption today for the next 500 years or something like that, but the oil companies can't have you believe there's enough oil for that. Otherwise we'd have a revolution, and make all the oil companies public-owned again, and gas would be $.10 a gallon again like it should be. Maybe then people could have free health care and pensions that don't vanish. But alas, I am off topic again. It was -3*F here yesterday, and will be in the mid-50s for the rest of the week. Ol G.W. must have the guys at the HAARP installation running overtime to really screw us up!

[jaganath]

your oil creationism isn't completely correct, because they have tried to find new locations of oil by matching geographical and climatological areas and drilling to find oil, but this doesn't work.

actually, that is exactly how it works (as well as seismic surveys, 4D tomography etc). the vast majority of oil fields being exploited today are either current or historical sedimentary basins, including some of the largest, Ghawar etc.

And just do some research on oil shale... there is enough oil in the shale under Colorado to supply the current consumption today for the next 500 years or something like that

yes, please do some proper research on oil shale. contrary to your assertion that this would lead to oil at 10 cents a gallon, oil from shale is many orders of magnitude more expensive to extract than conventional oil, more expensive even than tar sands. basic economics, not wild conspiracy theories, is what has kept the oil shale unexploited.

gas would be $.10 a gallon again like it should be.

it is an American disease to think that it is a God-given right that one must pay a derisory amount for automotive fuel.

[mexell]

it is an American disease to think that it is a God-given right that one must pay a derisory amount for automotive fuel.

I agree. But otherwise, not owning a car in the US really kicks you out of society.
That is, in my opinion, just a symptom of under- or wrong-developed public transport and false urban planning. (We have a lot of space? Let's build some suburbs, and some highways.) When I was in the US for a school exchange some years ago, my guest familiy lived near a shopping mall (~0.7 miles away). But you had to take the car, because it was impossible to cross the highway in between on your bike or walking on a length of about 10 miles in one direction and about 8 miles in the other direction. So weird...

I'd call it car-centric lifestyle.

[Traciatim]

I just thought I would chime in on topic. I live on the east coast of Canada, within walking distance (if you're up for a hike, it's a nicer drive) of the Bay of Fundy. Due to the proximity of the ocean we usually have fairly low snowfall and fairly mild winters.

To put it in to perspective, it's Canada and last year we had a BBQ for my son on his birthday.... that's Dec 29th. There was no white stuff to be seen.

However, this year the piles of snow beside my driveway are so high that you can't tell if there is a car in it or not when you come up the street. I'm in my late 20's and I can't remember EVER having as much snow as we have had this year.

If this large snowfall is really worldwide I wonder if it will start a spiral in that the suns energy will be reflected far more this year, making next summer a little cooler making next winter even colder and the snow will cover a larger are and then suddenly we will be in an ice age and talking about putting soot all over the ice caps like they were thinking of in the 70's.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

A couple of news items that show the effects of global warming: drowning polar bears, and the 30,000 walruses that just showed up on the beaches in Alaska and in Russia this year. The walruses used to feed on clams and mussels, and then rest on floating ice -- now the ice is gone during their peak feeding season, and they are forced onto the beaches. They cannot feed the way they need to, and they are starving, and almost all of their pups died.

It is similar situation for the polar bears -- they usually feed on seals, using the ice flows as a base. Now they are forced ashore to scramble for food -- or they drown. Polar bears have been found swimming very far (like 60 miles) away from ice or the shore.

Global warming is not a figment of anyone's imagination.

[derekva]

Actually, oil won't be here forever. It is a finite resource created by the decay of organic matter over millions of years combined with heat and pressure.

Actually, 99% of this "peak oil" crap started with a Mr. Hubbert in 1956. It was immediately gobbled up by the oil corporations to begin jacking up prices, because if the supply is never-ending, how can they charge a fortune for it? According to this "gospel" from 1956, the planet should have run out of oil sometime in the 1980s. If you notice, NONE of the oil companies are saying "Gee, we're running out of this stuff..." because they know it will last for much longer than they admit in the media. And, your oil creationism isn't completely correct, because they have tried to find new locations of oil by matching geographical and climatological areas and drilling to find oil, but this doesn't work. And just do some research on oil shale... there is enough oil in the shale under Colorado to supply the current consumption today for the next 500 years or something like that, but the oil companies can't have you believe there's enough oil for that. Otherwise we'd have a revolution, and make all the oil companies public-owned again, and gas would be $.10 a gallon again like it should be. Maybe then people could have free health care and pensions that don't vanish. But alas, I am off topic again. It was -3*F here yesterday, and will be in the mid-50s for the rest of the week. Ol G.W. must have the guys at the HAARP installation running overtime to really screw us up!

Your comment still doesn't address the fact that oil is a finite resource. We can't and shouldn't assume cheap oil will be around forever (unless you believe that a magical font of oil is created by God or somesuch nonsense).

-D

[Tzupy]

@NeilBlanchard: using the Arctic warming as an example for global warming is not a good idea, since it's much faster.
There are some other reasons for this rapid Arctic warming: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

I have to say that this makes the Arctic more important -- once we pass a threshold of melting the polar ice caps, this then contributes to accelerating the overall warming; compounding the problem.

If we get to the point where the Greenland ice shelf melts, and a large portion of it drops into the North Atlantic -- not only will the worldwide sea level go up quite a bit, it probably will stop (or greatly diminish) the Gulf Stream current. This current has HUGE affects on the entire world, and might even plunge places like the British Isles into an ice age.

So, thresholds like melting ice sheets are incredibly important. If this happens, it will not be an incremental change.

[laserred]

it is an American disease to think that it is a God-given right that one must pay a derisory amount for automotive fuel.

Actually, it's not a disease, it's a dream. If corporations, specifically oil companies, didn't entirely OWN the world's governments (billions of dollars of tax CUTS when last year saw Exxon making over $1100 per MINUTE of profit?), then crude oil wouldn't be $100/bbl, gasoline wouldn't be $3+/gal, and American men and women (and the allied forces, heh) wouldn't be dying on Iraqi soil to help oil companies keep Iraq's oil in the ground. Yes, I said it. The goal never was to "liberate" Iraq's oil, it was to strand it in the ground and maintain OPEC and Saudi Arabia's status quo. Same reason Cheney & Co. are eyeing Iran... they're next on the list of oil reserves, right there with Mr. Chavez. So, what I was saying when I said gasoline should be $.10/gal (everywhere, not just here,) was that if the crude oil and the oil companies were publicly owned, like they should be, not only would energy prices be lower, but it would also provide more incentive to research alternative fuels like hydrogen (NOT E-85). There are also other things that should be researched, like zero-point energy and many other things that are ignored because of corporate greed. Don't always assume that because we say $.10/gal for gasoline that we are wearing blinders and dumb to the tyranny that has been festering in our capital. I love the Earth too!

[Erssa]

@NeilBlanchard: using the Arctic warming as an example for global warming is not a good idea, since it's much faster.
There are some other reasons for this rapid Arctic warming: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

A week ago National Geographic released an article claiming, that Finnish polar bears are hurting because of global warming. It was a major headline here in Finland, because we don't have any (and never had) polar bears. They corrected the video couple of days ago Link, but that's all it took to take all credibility from NG. From now on it's going to take more then a grain of salt for me to believe anything published NG. That article made NG look like a politically motivated tabloid science paper.

[laserred]

From now on it's going to take more then a grain of salt for me to believe anything published NG. That article made NG look like a politically motivated tabloid science paper.

And here's your answer why: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.php National Geographic is owned by NewsCorp, A.K.A. Mr. Rupert Murdoch. We all know that Fox News is obviously "fair and balanced" because they tell us so themselves, so it stands to reason that we have no grounds to question the NGS, right? Heh. Thanks Erssa.

[LinuxSam]

Just wanted to let everyone know, "Information can be found to support anything an the internet."

So what if the earth may not be "normal". This whole debate is centered around the thought that the earth isn't normal, maybe we just need to open our eyes and look past the tv screens. Normal may not be normal anymore. Big deal. If the earth gets warmer then, like was said, more places will become more habitable. If it gets colder, congradulate the polar bears.

The whole "humans are chanhging the planet- they have an unfair advantage over other animals- We need to leave things the way the were.... Just annoys me to death. I'm proud to be a human. If some other species get irritated, big deal. Why not let them deal with it. Why are humans left to do everything? Obviously, because we are told that we did it (by the media) and we are told that we need to fix it.

Thanks

[aristide1]

And here's your answer why: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.php National Geographic is owned by NewsCorp, A.K.A. Mr. Rupert Murdoch. We all know that Fox News is obviously "fair and balanced" because they tell us so themselves, so it stands to reason that we have no grounds to question the NGS, right? Heh. Thanks Erssa.

Rupert Murdoch? You may as well get all your news from Bluefront.

[Auberon]

It's warm in Wisconsin...

Seriously, though, we should all be aware that we're technically still in an ice-age because there are still areas that are covered in snow for the entire year. Though it's a little alarming that things seem to be changing rapidly recently... either that or my memory is bad, and Wisconsin has had a ton of warm winters in the 26 years I've lived here... like the winters we've been having recently where we keep seeing the grass in January.

I've seen plenty of evidence both ways, but I mostly just stick with the parts that aren't very disputable: polluted air is awful to breathe, and spending less on energy is great.

[Tommy Jefferson]

I'll start paying higher taxes to some government for the purpose "combating climate change" when they tell me what the correct temperature of the earth is supposed to be.

Until then, they need to keep their hands out of my pocket.

[jaganath]

Normal may not be normal anymore. Big deal. If the earth gets warmer then, like was said, more places will become more habitable.

generally the places that will become more habitable are currently uninhabited (ie Siberia and large areas of Canada). are you volunteering to resettle the hordes that will be displaced in Bangladesh and other low-lying places to their new northerly quarters?

[NeilBlanchard]

Greetings,

I'll start paying higher taxes to some government for the purpose "combating climate change" when they tell me what the correct temperature of the earth is supposed to be.

Until then, they need to keep their hands out of my pocket.

I'll make two points: the "right" temperature is the one that doesn't change the environment -- so, whatever the temperature was in say 1850? (Before the Industrial Revolution...)

Secondly, if the scientists (i.e. the huge majority of them) are correct, it will seem incredibly cheap to do everything we can to stop and reverse global warming. Pay now -- or pay, pay, pay, and pay some more, later. We can only hope that we are not already too late.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

The "podcast" for this is now available:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=17926941

The Bush administration has censored the scientists at NASA (and other departments, too) about global warming. They had rookie political appointees telling the lead scientists what to say...

Now, why would they do that?

[laserred]

Because he exonerated Scooter Libby?

[qviri]

While I don't agree with the sentiment you're replying to,

I'll start paying higher taxes to some government for the purpose "combating climate change" when they tell me what the correct temperature of the earth is supposed to be.

Until then, they need to keep their hands out of my pocket.

I'll make two points: the "right" temperature is the one that doesn't change the environment -- so, whatever the temperature was in say 1850? (Before the Industrial Revolution...)

this is an unjustified attempt at simplification.

Change is always happening. If humans changed absolutely nothing in their collective lives since 1850, global temperature would have changed anyway. I invite you to define the amount of change due to human activity, due to industrialisation in particular, due to natural factors which would happened anyway, and due to natural factors which would have been prevented by something else than human activity.

[aristide1]

Hello,

In a few hours, the "podcast" for this will be available:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=17926941

The Bush administration has censored the scientists at NASA (and other departments, too) about global warming.

Now, why would they do that?

Well if the government feels they are spreading lies perhaps they should handle the liar problem the same way it's handled here?

[aristide1]

Change is always happening. If humans changed absolutely nothing in their collective lives since 1850, global temperature would have changed anyway. I invite you to define the amount of change due to human activity, due to industrialisation in particular, due to natural factors which would happened anyway, and due to natural factors which would have been prevented by something else than human activity.

China alone brings 2 new coal fired power plants online each week. Some lunatics in TX want to build 10 more there.

So at what point will it matter?

[qviri]

So at what point will it matter?

I sure don't know.

Do you?

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

It really doesn't matter how much of the warming is caused by human activity, and how much of it is natural. Some of it is due to human activity, and it's the results that matter. If reducing our affect also means that we conserve a non-renewable resources, and that we live better by innovating, rather than by exploiting what limited resources we may have -- then what's the harm in trying?

OTOH, what if the doubters are wrong, and the large majority of scientists are right? And if we ignore them -- then the outcome is pretty terrible.

[dragmor]

OTOH, what if the doubters are wrong, and the large majority of scientists are right? And if we ignore them -- then the outcome is pretty terrible.

It takes a crisis to push most people into action. Thankfully when we act we can do things. Oz has been in drought since before 2000 and the majority of the population didn't act. Last year Sydney's main dams dropped below 50%, people panicked but acted. The results show what everyones little contributions can add up to.

http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/84242/

Australia's largest city has cut water usage significantly since 1974 so that Sydney actually requires less water for 1.2 million more people.

Nathan Rees, water utilities minister for New South Wales, credits the improvement to a turnaround in public attitude toward conservation. While Sydney residents once saw water restrictions as an imposition, they now embrace measures such as filling their gardens with native plants and collecting rainwater.

In 1974, water use averaged 123 gallons a day per person in Sydney. In 2006-2007, that was down to 87 gallons.

Sydney Water's daily supplies to the city were down by 2.4 billion gallons a year from the 134 billion it supplied in 1974.

We're using the same amount of water as we did a generation ago and that's testament to Sydneysiders' water awareness and sensitivity, Rees said.

[aristide1]

So it's going to take a crisis to get people in America to starting thinking.

With a little reflection of the factless arguments seen on this site one would need to ask just how severe will it have to be?

[Erssa]

then what's the harm in trying?

There would be no harm, if emission trading and all the tax benefits for less effective, but more economical products/energy sources were paid up by just environmentalist, but instead you are forcing those who disagree with you to pay for your cause. At least when you pay more, you (and your kind) feel good for doing the right thing. The rest just feel cheated out of their money.