Global Warming Debate

[Nautipus]

I said something about that a while back. Would kinda suck if they began to disassociate.

[Coffeehouse]

There's a saying among the Sami people in northern Norway..

"If we humans don't take care of the Earth we live on, the Earth will take care of itself. And then we are not welcome any longer".

Ironic then that the first to see the signs of global warming are the Samis, Inuits and peoples of Greenland, yet they had no hand in the undoing.

[inked]

The Samis and all native peoples have this understanding because of their close dependence on the natural cycles of life.

Of course, global warming is a natural cycle as demonstrated by scientific evaluation of ice cores with masssive swings in climate even when humans were not present - Sami, native, or industrialized. O woe! Nature takes care of itself with little regard to any species. (See Species, extinct, - 99% of all ever existent.)

[Lief Erikson]

Perhaps this is my ignorance speaking, Coffeehouse, but wouldn't Global Warming be somewhat beneficial to Greenland, at least for a while? I mean, the whole country is an ice block. Which is a generalization. But I think you know what I mean. They have so MUCH frozen land there, if more of that ice melted, they'd have more fertile soil available to them for other uses.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Perhaps this is my ignorance speaking, Coffeehouse, but wouldn't Global Warming be somewhat beneficial to Greenland, at least for a while? I mean, the whole country is an ice block. Which is a generalization. But I think you know what I mean. They have so MUCH frozen land there, if more of that ice melted, they'd have more fertile soil available to them for other uses.

Mhm yeah that was my initial thought as well. Hey, now they can go to the nice, sandy Greenlandic beaches right, eating apples from their private orchards?

But in seriousness, I think the answer is yes and no. The population in Greenland, of which the vast majority rely entirely on fishing and hunting, need for example very cold winters couple with adequate amounts of snow and ice for their long-distance dog-sleigh hunting.

Yet there seem to be a few farmers on Greenland as well, and they will certainly welcome the change, with longer periods of growth and a better climate for their crops. Greenland is poor however and while subsistence fishing and hunting does not produce great incomes, it certainly feeds the mouths it needs to.
Poor Greenlanders, particularly native, off-the-land peoples with meagre financial wealth and sub-optimal levels of literacy will therefore struggle to adapt to a agricultural life or any other life.

In the long run that's a hurdle they might overcome. Question is what state the rest of the planet (south of the Arctic areas) is in then..

[Earniel]

Actually, I doubt Greenland will win much arable land. I've always been told that the inland of Greenland lies below sea-level. So that if the ice goes out, seawater's going to come in.

I know glaciers also tend to be a big source of fresh water, I don't know much about Greenland's geology, but without the glaciers, they'll need another fresh water source.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Actually, I doubt Greenland will win much arable land. I've always been told that the inland of Greenland lies below sea-level. So that if the ice goes out, seawater's going to come in.

I know glaciers also tend to be a big source of fresh water, I don't know much about Greenland's geology, but without the glaciers, they'll need another fresh water source.

They won't acclaim much arable land at all, but there they will have a greater availability of grasslands, and those areas that are arable will see increased production. The Norwegians who settled on Greenland 800 years ago even grew barley, while I know that there is potato farming there as well.

There are mountains on Greenland though, so fresh water will be available as I would believe it is now, but one of the main sources of income they could acquire with melting of ice sheets are metal deposits.

But the bottom-line is quite simple. Greenland will see, like the rest of the world, more challenges and problems than benefits.

[Amael]

The Earth can heal itself after 200 years, after the ending of a large amount of industrialization, but just because the Earth can heal itself doesn't mean that this won't be a pretty heavy problem for our children, grand-children, great-grand-children, great-great-grandchildren, and great-great-great-grandchildren. That's how long the crisis would last, at minimum, if everything goes on with the 'business as usual' mentality we seem to see so much of in the developed world. What the developed world has gained in productivity it has lost in clean air, ground water, food, and so on. The forests are falling as well. It will take the Earth a long time to heal from it.

I used to think global warming was a farce. But I prefer an alternative term: climate shift. It's just my opinion so don't kill me for my opinion (on my husband's site, people attack each other for their opinions). Some areas of the world cool down while others have great increases in temperature. The temperate zones get very cold winters and very hot and humid summers while the polar regions seem to get temperatures that are a lot higher. Combined with the effects of the ozone holes spreading out widely in polar areas, this lowers the surface life's defense against X-rays, Gamma rays, and cosmic rays which can even cause some pretty heavy damage. UV rays go up and exposure to higher levels of UV radiation mean that it will soon be very dangerous to go out in the sun for anything more than 15 minutes. Life in the sea can survive, but life on the surface is in jeopardy.

I am optimisstic that humans will survive ... if war or famine doesn't strike us down first. Things do have to change in a hurry if we are to have any chance of seeing the Earth heal itself. But the damage is already done. The Earth's climate has already changed. Cutting off the streams of wind throughout the oceans means that the warm currents will begin to fail and this could contribute to much lower temperatures in the next 25 to 50 years. Solar power has to become more efficient, or some type of fusion power needs to become the replacement. Solar power is only around 9% efficient, and fusion power is only 3 or 4% efficient. We have a long way to go to a true replacement to current power infrastructures. So things have to be done to slow the damage being done, because at this rate it can't all be stopped. Most humans can't even take care of themselves let alone save the planet. It would take more than half of humanity in a combined effort to begin to reverse the damage done. That's 3 or 4 billion people!!

But the economic crisis worldwide is contributing to a greater inability to turn away from the old uncleanly power sources and industrialization the world uses. So it might actually accelerate. It's going to mean more hurricanes, more cities disappearing off the globe because of massive flooding, and so on. They say things get worse before they get better. We just have to find a way to make the better stuff happen sooner, rather than later!

[me9996]

http://comics.com/peanuts/1958-01-05/

And that's all I have to say about global warming.

[Earniel]

I don't get it... What does a fallout have to do with global warming? The only meaning of the word that I know, has to do with nuclear bombs and assorted accidents.

[inked]

Earniel, I believe the humour is that Linus mistook snow for (radioactive) fallout - from nuclear testing. I'd need to know the date of the cartoon to be sure, of course, but this is one of those things you have to have lived through for the sudden turn of thought.

You'd have to be old enough to be told you couldn't make snowcream because of the fallout from nuclear tests possibly contaminating the snow to really get the paradox.

Now, what has it to do with global warming? Well, it would seem to this old timer that it suggests that global warming is as valid as Linus' "fallout". It is a natural phenomenon.

Right, me9996?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Earniel, I believe the humour is that Linus mistook snow for (radioactive) fallout - from nuclear testing. I'd need to know the date of the cartoon to be sure, of course, but this is one of those things you have to have lived through for the sudden turn of thought.

Could be a subtle clue about the date hidden here somewhere

http://comics.com/peanuts/1958-01-05/

You'd have to be old enough to be told you couldn't make snowcream because of the fallout from nuclear tests possibly contaminating the snow to really get the paradox.

Now, what has it to do with global warming? Well, it would seem to this old timer that it suggests that global warming is as valid as Linus' "fallout". It is a natural phenomenon.

Right, me9996?

And of course at that time conservatives were pooh-poohing those wild claims by liberal/socialist/commie environmentalist wackos who were complaining about strontium-90 in mother's milk.

All the while trying to cover up the actual evidence:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/27/...arming-photos/

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Earniel, I believe the humour is that Linus mistook snow for (radioactive) fallout - from nuclear testing. I'd need to know the date of the cartoon to be sure, of course, but this is one of those things you have to have lived through for the sudden turn of thought.

You'd have to be old enough to be told you couldn't make snowcream because of the fallout from nuclear tests possibly contaminating the snow to really get the paradox.

Now, what has it to do with global warming? Well, it would seem to this old timer that it suggests that global warming is as valid as Linus' "fallout". It is a natural phenomenon.

Right, me9996?

I got the bit about the fallout and the snow, which I connected more to falling ash and the concept of nuclear winter, than that of contaminated snow. Must be the age difference, as you pointed out.

But while I got most of the actual joke, I didn't get Me9996's comparison to global warming until now. That said, I'd rather live through a great number of winters than through an equal number of climate changes.

[GrayMouser]

And of course, looking back, the irony is that Linus was right- the innocent natural phenomenom of snow was at that time actually being poisoned by human activity.

[inked]

Hey, it's still cooling, ya'll. Now we have MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE instead of global warming, eh? Like Flavor of the Week at the ice cream joint, I suppose? Sort of like the science at the ice cream parlour, come to think of it. One idea, just applied to a lot of different areas............refrigeration; so global warming.

[inked]

Now here's a shocker: GreenPeace LIED (again) {just call it "emotionalizing"}

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog...ann-mcelhinney

and the link to the admission on BBC is there, too!

[Insidious Rex]

To me this is the equivalent of saying your house is on fire you need to take immediate action or else it will burn to the ground in 20 minutes. Now the truth may be that technically the flames will go out before EVERY bit of the house becomes ashes (the cement floor in the sub-basement is going to be fairly difficult for even a strong fire to completely destroy...) and that it may take 40 minutes instead of 20 but gee, the real issue is YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE! You should probably call the fire department to minimize ANY damage! Not sit there reading the paper while the flames lap up the siding, convinced that because Greenpeace didnt give completely accurate information that it means the fire doesnt exist at all. Maybe Greenpeace was just trying to spook people into actually looking for a fire extinguisher when other methods go ignored...

[inked]

So, IR, the end justifies any means?

Is that only for "global warming" aka "climate change" aka "man-made climate change"? Or does it apply to every area of life?

Lying claims about "science" invalidate the whole "argument" since it is specious from the start. Unless you believe you have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre so as to cause a stampede for the exits and crush a few folk along the way?

[Amael]

Some of it doesn't just seem like global warming, it seems like more is going on, more like a climate shift. Plus the solar cycle is way off lately, and this seems to be balancing the effect of warming in some cases, yet without taking the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. But there's still bad things ahead if it continues to be business as usual with the way industry and transportation go. China opens like 4 new coal factories a week, something like that (not sure on the exact statistics, but it's a lot). Not that I'm saying it's going to be like "The Day After Tomorrow" but it may be more like "The Day After the Day Before Yesterday" in that we might get some of the same things happening, but probably not as quickly, nor with expensive motion picture effects nor an ice age that starts within a few days.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Now here's a shocker: GreenPeace LIED (again) {just call it "emotionalizing"}

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog...ann-mcelhinney

and the link to the admission on BBC is there, too!

Turns out to be the usual right-wing nonsense, though admittedly it's the fault of sloppiness at the BBC. What happened in the case is that the BBC interviewer misunderstood this statement by Greenpeace about the Arctic sea ice:

Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.

They say you can't be too thin or too young, but this unfortunately doesn't apply to the Arctic sea ice. Polar bears are the first to suffer from it, but many other species could be affected as well.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...eded-as-arctic


The quote is obviously referring to sea ice but the interviewer has misread it to suggest that it's referring to all ice in the Arctic, including the Greenland glaciers, which is very clearly not the case.

Now, the lede and the next couple of paragraphs are about the Greenland ice sheet, but then they shift topics to a paragraph about the effects of melting on the Inuit and Arctic wildlife, and then shift topic again ("Bad news from other sources as well....") to talk about a new NASA report on the disappearance of sea ice.

This is the original statement from those well-known tree-hugging com-symp Al-Gore Leftists at NASA, referred to in the Greenpeace web-release:

"Ice volume allows us to calculate annual ice production and gives us an inventory of the freshwater and total ice mass stored in Arctic sea ice," said Kwok. "Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage. Our data will help scientists better understand how fast the volume of Arctic ice is decreasing and how soon we might see a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009...n_Sea_Ice.html

The term "ice-free summer" or variations thereof is widely used to refer to the absence of sea-ice on the Arctic Ocean

If you Google "ice free summers" and "arctic" you get about 230,000 hits. Oh, and gosh, look what the first article is: a story from the BBC itself talking about the retreat of SEA ice, but what's the headline? "Arctic summers ice-free by 2013"

Is the BBC scarmongering and suggesting the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet? Or are they reporting the facts?

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingw..._got_it_w.html

You can hear the interviewer differentiating between all ice including the Greenland ice sheet, and sea ice, which he admits is disappearing, and which shows that he didn't understand the original report, because that's exactly what it was saying

Dr. Gerd Leipold, being slammed by some journalist's "gotcha" questions based on the journalist's own mistaken reading of a press release that Leipold hadn't even seen and didn't have reference to

a) said that though the Greenland glaciers were melting and the melting was accelerating that, no, they wouldn't disappear by 2030

b) that though he hadn't seen the article, sometimes you had to emotionalise the issue or people wouldn't listen (you know, 'death panels" "death books" that kind of thing.)


But the simple fact of the matter is that what Greenpeace said in the original quote was correct and that the only false statements made were made by the BBC reporter- since it's the Beeb, and not Fox News, we'll assume they were inadvertent.

First lesson for interviewees: always insist on being given the original quote, in context, of anything you're being asked to respond to. Do NOT rely on the interviewers possibly sloppy and/or malicious paraphrase.