Agreed. So what? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Is that really the problem? Let me ask you this: If it were shown to you conslusively that a decent number of glaciers were growing, would that make you change your position? Because if not, there’s no point in arguing about whether glaciers are growing or shrinking.
No, your cite is simply WRONG. It is INCORRECT. The Place Glacier and the Helm Glacier are NOT GROWING. They are CURRENTLY SHRINKING. They are getting smaller, year by year. Smaller. Littler. Getting less massive. Year by year, there is less ice there.
You are wrong. The data is not on your side.
Can I put this any more plainly?
In and of itself, no. That is because climate change does not mean that every place all over the globe is warming at the same pace. In fact, in some areas, it may mean that there is more snowfall occurring at high elevations than usual. This will result in more glacial ice forming IN THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION.
You are correct in a way that there is no point in arguing about whether glaciers are growing or shrinking. That is because we have to look at the global picture. It is admittedly very complicated, but the totality of evidence is overwhelming.
looking at your cite, figure 2, the glaciers are growing.
I agree. Assuming for the sake of argument that the CAGW hypothesis is correct, it is possible, even likely, that some areas may see more snow and ice.
Again I agree.
Here I disagree for reasons stated elsewhere.
No, figure 2 shows the annual mass balance changes. This shows that some years there is more snow accumulation than other years. Figure 1 shows the cumulative glacier mass balance. In this figure, the lines for each glacier show a consistent downward pattern. This means that the total mass of all of these glaciers is getting smaller, year over year.
I suspect that I’m dealing with someone who is either unable to read a graph or interpret a scientific paper, or someone who is simply muddying the water. Either way I’m done here.
I suspect I’m dealing with someone who thinks they can link a graph that shows a time cycle of 22 years as proof of anything related to climate.
Not to speak for him, but I believe you suspect wrongly. Of course it’s not proof of anything, nor has he asserted it is. What it is is evidence. Evidence of a persistent and continuing downward trend in the mass of glacial ice worldwide. It’s one more piece of the evidentiary puzzle one needs to assemble in order to see the global climate picture. That’s what you need to look at; the big picture, the gestalt. You can’t point to the last segment of a graph and say, “See? It’s increasing!” That’s stupid. There are lots of places on that graph that trend up-wards. There are also lots of places where it trends downwards. If you plot all the ups against all the downs, you find the overall trend is downwards–less ice mass. That’s what the previous graph does.
Since we’re all busy suspecting things, I suspect you know all this and are being deliberately disingenuous.
I agree with you to an extent, but when you look at the big picture, there is nothing happening in the climate now that hasn’t happened before, as far as I can tell. Tornados in winter time? It’s happened before. Melting ice at the north pole? It’s happened before. In the 1930s, scientists were predicting that the north pole would soon be ice free in the summertime.
(Admittedly, many things we don’t have good records for and they are not so easy to reconstruct.)
Anyway, that’s the big picture. It doesn’t paint a particularly compelling picture for the CAGW hypothesis, as far as I can tell.
So basically, it seems to me that many of the warmists are guilty of the exact sin you point out: Focusing in on the last segment of a (hypothetical) graph.
OK, tell me the last time in history that the global temperature increased at a rate measured in degrees per century.
Over what time period?
See, this is the kind of post that would make a good little lecture for the suburban ladies group that wants to feel good about themselves but doesn’t want real numbers.
Let me take a couple of phrases: “…population growth is leveling off…” Very soothing. See how good I can feel about not dragooning developing countries into birth control and just educating them instead? But the numbers are frightening. 50% more than a population already killing us. Jeez. By that logic my weight is leveling off. It’s gotten to 200 pounds over my lifetime but it’s leveling off and is expected not to surpass 300 pounds.
Here’s another: “…cell phones are not the problem…” Well, as the synecdoche for at-will consumption and modern lifestyles they are exactly the problem, and that’s how the term is being used here. Who made 'em? And with what? On average for most of the stuff I own, the answer is China/India/Indonesia etc, and with coal-fired energy. And their energy grid ain’t getting swapped out anytime soon. As I mentioned, the 3 extra Billion folks will be getting in line for their stuff. That stuff isn’t just Nano MP3’s; it’s Nano cars. And houses with garages to put them in.
“Your plan is doomed if it requires us to be become third world peasants…” And that is why the plan is doomed. Some numbers again: 20 tons of carbon for Americans; a few hundred pounds for Tanzanians per year. No way no how is reducing waste and turning down the thermostat going to close that gap. We would have to become peasants just to offset the third-world rise; there is no time to swap out the energy grid.
And you are right about one thing: We won’t become peasants. We will choose to live our lives as close to Al Gore’s lifestyle as we can. We might not be able to fly private jet, but we’ll take first over coach over car over bus. And we’ll still be swapping out the window dressings when they get old without much concern about the environmental impact of the Chinese factory that pumped 'em out.
Everyone who doesn’t ask for the numbers can read your post, have warm fuzzies about how it’s OK to be them and use their cell phone while they drive home in their Prius to turn down the thermostat and recycle. Some nice additional fuzzies about how the developing countries just need “…Gender equality, education, civil rights, political freedom, democracy, capitalism…” and not draconian measures for population control. Feels lovely. But so does peeing in Lake Michigan to help raise the water level.
I don’t believe in AGW and I am uninterested in debating it here. I’ve never seen a single mind changed on this board around it. But if you buy into it–particularly the scare tactics-- you do have to either admit it’s unfixable without drastic peasant-producing change of lifestyle.
And lastly: “The thing to do is appeal to people’s thriftyness.” Um…any chance you haven’t heard about the financial crisis? Newsflash: root cause was whatever drive is the opposite of thrifty, whether you were an over-borrower or a financial wizard hoping to make enough money for a bigger yacht. Thrifty as a core value to which you might hope to appeal died with S&H Green Stamps, apparently. You can make the appeal. But your audience has left to buy their new cellphones.
I simply pointed out that the glaciers were growing. The chart shows that they are growing. Yes, it’s the end of the chart but it’s a 22 year chart which couldn’t be more meaningless in a discussion that involves time on a much larger scale. The chart could just as easily be used to show the effect of the 22 year solar cycle or a shift in the jet stream. This thread is about the chicken-little fear that was spearheaded by Al Gore. The world isn’t going to end tomorrow. Tomorrow the glaciers will grow like they always do.
I also pointed out that technology will supercede everything that we currently comprehend to be the future. 30 years ago it was inconceivable to me that I could put a palm sized device in my car that held every road and address in the United States and could navigate me to it. I couldn’t conceive of a car stereo where I could plug in a USB stick and play music continuously for 12 days or a pocket telephone that took pictures and played music, display live TV and could serf a world network of information of unlimited size. Energy is already following this technological trend and will continue to do so in ways I can’t imagine.
Well, Chief, how exactly are draconian population control measures going to work? What the fuck are you envisioning exactly?
The fact is that the population bomb projections of the 60s and 70s were way off. The fact is that human beings who have the ability and incentive to control their fertility will do so. The fact is that countries with those warm fuzzy pie in the sky platitudinous luxuries of education and civil rights and democracy for some reason just happen to also be countries where the rate of natural increase is zero or below zero, while countries that lack such things for some reason just happen to also be countries where the rate of natural increase is above zero.
That ain’t no coincidence, Chief. That’s cause and effect. You really want to stop population growth in Africa the absolute best dollar for dollar thing you can do is set up schools for girls. That ain’t warm fuzzy clapping to bring Tinkerbell back to life, this is hard-headed realism. This is how we’re going to win.
As for the contention that cell phones are a synecdoche for consumerism, well, the problem is that they aren’t a very good synechdoche. Your cell phone is not a resource intensive good. It just isn’t. And the cost of your cell phone is not a good measure of how much environmental impact your cell phone has. As you say, the problem isn’t iPods, it’s cars and houses and garages. Inputs and outputs. Worrying about how your cell phone is contributing to global warming is just fucking stupid.
The information from the last 35 years show that glaciers are not growing like they always do…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png
So now the trend has been extended to 35 years for purposes of discussion. :smack:
Global warming is a religion that doesn’t allow heretics a say. Research money is limited to those who believe in the word of Gore. The result is a lot of depressed individuals who wear Internet sandwich boards announcing the end of the world.
I’ll say it again. We are not going to disappear in 10 years and technology will continue to accelerate exponentially so any long-term conditions that may threaten our way of life will be dealt with as it arises.
But right now is “as it arises”. So let’s deal with it right now.
I envision population continuing to grow, consumption to continue apace unabated–even worsened by a burgeoning population–and CO2 emissions to continue to rise for the forseeable future. While I do not personally accept the notion that anthropogenic CO2 production will result in serious harm to the earth (AGW, in short) I am willing to concede I may be proved wrong. However I hold that there is no scenario under which AGW–if proved correct–will be averted. I see that question as the core debate raised in the OP. Is (seriously harmful) global warming inevitable?
In short: if it’s anthropogenic and if the cause is CO2 emissions from human activity, yes it is; yes it is inevitable.
I do not propose population control of any kind. I hold that population control is not workable except to the extent that countries are able to be devoloped. For some countries that also does not seem to be workable despite earnest efforts and billions in expenditures. For this reason I do not think current projections of 9B are unrealistic. And that’s too many people.
Perhaps I should explain that I’m using the term “synecdoche” in it’s traditional sense–a particular to represent the general. Here the particular is “cellphone” and the general is “stuff I like to own because I can afford it”–i.e. all consumables beyond those things required to literally keep us alive. If you don’t want to use the term “cell phone” as a synecdoche for that, no problem. The point remains: nearly all individuals (soon to be 9 Billion of them) want all the stuff they can get. A cell phone, a car, a house, a garage…and when they have those, they want 2 cell phones, 2 cars, a bigger house, a 2-car garage…and when they have those they want 3 cell phones–well, you get the idea.
A personal remark: I am disappointed in your use of the word “fuck” in Great Debates. It coarsens the discourse without adding value.
I note incidentally that one of my reasons for skepticism over the AGW hysteria is that we seem to be almost addicted to having Great Issues to solve. Among those issues have been Population Explosion in the 60’s; Running out of Energy in the 70’s; Y2K 10 years ago, and now AGW. And on it goes. I’ve been a pretty consistent skeptic for them all, and I’m batting well so far. This is not to say the Great Unforeseen Comet won’t wipe us out while our attention is focused elsewhere. Onward we tilt, as collectively compulsive as Lemmings, fighting for the Great Cause du Jour.
Smack your forehead again, it is a known tactic for the deniers to limit their say so’s to smaller trend periods to then find misleading evidence.
It is still wrong to deny that glaciers are on the whole receding.
The evidence from the heretics so far (like Lord Monkton recently) was shown to be misleading, the item that heretics do not have an opportunity to have their say (and be found to be wrong) is not true at all.
Could you point at the dopers that are doing this? I think if you look carefully at what many have said before is that there is very little talk about doom, but that humanity will suffer for not doing the proper changes. Personally I do not think there is going to be a cataclysm all over the earth, but that climate will change and it will depend on the region one is located if that will be a small or big deal.
We are. We’ve been researching stuff like bio-diesel fuel from algae for years and now the technology is in production. What you are driving today will be entirely different in 20 years. And switching to nuclear power plants is a matter of national will, not technology. Solar thermal power plants are increasing in number and eventual solar panel technology will become viable. We’re doing it now and technology will advance all this at an accelerated rate.