Yeah, we're in a real period of denial across the spectrum. I still can't figure out if it is idiocy serving greed and hubris or calculated selfishness.

Sorry for the above wet blanket summation. I guess we just like to argue or debate the causes of global warming but in the end I'm convinced that nothing will be done about it. We'll just settle for scrambling upward to a higher deck to obtain a bit longer comfort zone as they did on the Titanic. My "molecule or two of optimism" is that 1) We're wrong about the CO2 connection, or 2) Mother Nature may come to the rescue and neutralize the problem before it gets too far out of hand....though if so, she may use a cure worse than the disease itself.

Like any positive social change, civil rights recognition for example, I'm interpreting the linked Monbiot article to mean that nothing will be done about GW until we start doing something, not wait until the choice is legislated. The challenge is to build a popular movement accepting less now and in the long run. To me this says we have to adopt an entirely new set of expectations regarding our future, no small undertaking in a society dominated by short-term achievements.

Clip:

I hear people talking about the carbon cuts they would like to see. I am not interested in what people would like to see. I am interesed in what the science says. And the science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030. Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands. The notion that we can achieve this by replacing fossil fuels with ambient energy is a fantasy. It is true that we have untapped sources of energy in wind, waves, tides and sunlight, but it is neither so concentrated nor so consistent that we can plug it in and carry on as before. A cut like this requires massive reductions in our energy use. There are some technofixes available, but they are unlikely to take us more than halfway there. If carbon emissions are to be capped at 10%, energy use will have to be capped at under 50%. The only fair means of doing this is national rationing accompanied by global contraction and convergence. And we find ourselves in an extraordinary position. This is the first mass political movement to demand less, not more. The first to take to the streets in pursuit of austerity. The first to demand that our luxuries, even our comforts, are curtailed. These are the greatest political challenges any movement has faced. But we are rising to it. We are rising. But let no one tell you it will be easy. If it were just a matter of slagging off George Bush, we would have won by now. But we must struggle not only against him, not only against our own government, not only against each other, but also against ourselves. The struggle against climate change is a struggle against much of what we have become. It is a struggle against some of our most fundamental urges. We cannot call on others to stop flying if we still fly. We cannot ask the government to force us to change if we are not ready to change. The greatest fight of our lives will be fought not just out there, but also in here.

Interesting observation by Monbiot that this is a movement of those demanding austerity to protect the environment from what is a fundamental urge of our society to consume. I agree that it will be difficult to win over many to conservation who, as you note Althea, live for today. I think most will laugh-off the recommendations of the global warming alarmists as modern day ludites and will choose convenience over sacrifice. I have doubts that a reduction of carbon by 90% by 2030 as Monbiot recommends, can be accomplished by GW aware people sacrificing their own materialism to show the way. The demand is such that any slack will be taken up by others. If the predictions for future of global warming and scarce fossil fuels are true, we can't make much difference by simply making personal changes. I don't think you can accomplish drastic reductions like 90% by anything less than a sweeping revolution or sudden collapse.

I agree with KT; gradualism will not work and personal sacrifice will only allow others to take the freed up energy for their personal use (and probably laughing all the way.)

Monibot is a strange case of a smart man coming to terms with his promotion of globalization and genetic engineering with the revolutionary needs addressed above. He has a ways to go, including to stop attacking organic agriculture and specifically Prince Charles.

This just posted by Yahoo News.

Hummmm....maybe I should have moved west of Richmond rather than east of town?...nah, I'll be long dead by then:

{{gwi:1371679}}

Well, Cuba will no longer be a political problem nor will Washington DC. The Pacific will will form a ria just below my hillslope with a nice little island seaward of my hill. Make a nice big snug harbor for smaller boats, especially if we dredge to get rid of the freeway and those pesky overpasses.

I wanted to thank you all for the interesting info in this thread. As I type away in near record cold temperatures, my conservative colleague remarked "global warming my butt!" which illustrated two things about conservative Utahns- 1- They don't know how to cuss, and 2- They don't know the difference between climate and weather.

Best regards.

Dswan!!!!!

Welcome back! We sure missed you here!

How cold is near record cold in Utah?

It got down around zero last night which was a record for this date where I live.

I've been out at Amazon under the handle "Western Liberal Warrior" battling neocons for the hearts and minds of America. I got tired of the hate mail so I thought I'd come hang over here for a while.

Marshall and VGKG, you guys haven't changed a bit (thank goodness). I've always loved your posts.

Thanks for the vote of favor, Dswan. We have been missing you and other former stalwarts of the SOE. How could you stand the puke issuing from the maws of neocons? I tried posting under various nom de nets on NR board and other blog sites but soon tired of the abusive an cliche-ridden assults.

Just so you know we are suffering too...our nights have been consistently below 40F for about a week now. Cold enough to require some spot heaters and a bit or stove-top heating of the morning kitchen. Brrrrr....

that would be twenty degrees above our high today. I've been taking the bus lately and boy does it get cold waiting for the bus.

As for neocons, I mostly try a strategy of shock and awe and then once I get their attention try to reason with them. I've been able to reason with several, though there are alot out there in bloggerland that are filled with the vile the propaganda ministry spews forth from Rove on down.

BTW, since the price of gasoline skyrocketed and I started riding the bus, I calculate that I've saved over $350 in gas alone and I started riding in October.

It's hard to farm and market by bus, especially since bus service requires several transfers and an hour or so wait at the farm end.

Good on you for doing the bus commute. We really have nice buses and somewhat convenient system although a few years ago service was badly limited because of poor ridership numbers.

hello Dswan;How are your Penstemons fairing??Where are you hanging out these days??

My penstemons are in serious hibernation mode. They had a pretty good spring and summer and the agastaches took over in the late summer and fall.

I've been working two jobs for the past two years and quit the second job just a month ago. I've also been reading and critiquing right-wing rags on Amazon.

I haven't posted much on the Gardenweb for a while and my gardening year was a wash because I came back from the Bahamas with a bad case of cellulitis that landed me in the hospital in late June. My legs were ravaged by MRSA (Mellicin Resistent Staffolococcus Aureus) and it nearly took my life. The water park at the Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas was very nice, but a tremendous breeding ground for bacteria to creep under your skin.

That's the Reader's Digest version of what I've been doing. What have you been up to?

Good grief!! Just passing through, huh, and by the way I almost died this year. :) I've never heard of MRSA although know of other resistant bacteria problems. Has your body overcome the Staffolococcus or do you have to keep on mix of meds? I ask because I also nearly expired in Amazonia with a Staph infection; I still carry the critters around somewhere in my head but haven't had but a few minor problems since 1970.

You probably noticed that GW has changed, both in ownership and in volume of activities. The convo pit that was attached to the Soil/compost forum was closed and many members banned or leaving in support of the banned. Another site started up to accomodate the emigres but that recently went kaput. Now there is a new one at Invision and a backup at Yahoo Group.

None of the newer sites focussed much on gardening and soil and compost matters. Newbies have stayed away in droves. :)

Can you explain what you mean by "reading and critiquing right-wing rags on Amazon"? Are these blog sites?

goodness...
...I don't wish to hyjack Marshall's thread here...Maybe we can 'chew the cud' on the Organic Forum's Conversations Page...

Thanks for the suggestion. I've been out of action for a while.

Dave, my mother had cellulitis in one of her legs two years ago. It took over a year to cure. Glad you're alright.

The landmark event during this past year for me was meeting Monte_ND. He was here in Saint Paul celebrating the birth of a new grandson. Yours is the only GWebbers name that came up during our visit.

While it\'s difficult to definitively prove that global warming exists and is caused by our use of fossil fuels, what would be the harm in reducing emissions? It will cost money to comply but if everyone is doing it, the costs and the benefits are shared by all equally. How about the harm of not doing it? Are short term financial gains by the oil industry worth rising oceans and negative effects on agriculture? How about the health costs of pollution caused by burning fossil fuels? This \"anything for a buck\" mentality is antiquated, deleterious and shouldn\'t be tolerated by the global community.

Hey there President Dave! Welcome Back, glad to hear you survived your ordeal with cellulitis/MRSA, sounds rather nasty. The Atlantis resort should clean up it's act. Stick around! vgkg

Global warming is definately occuring. The debate about its causes is likely going to go on for a while. Different climate models say different things about what will happen with an increasingly warm planet. The density of life in some of our planet's previous warm spells was relatively high, but within the framework of a world that regularly goes into an ice age, it is hard to predict what the impacts will be. The easiest things to predict are rising sea levels, melting ice cap and increased intensity of tropical storms. However, I think climatologists are still trying to get a handle on how to weigh the various variables in their models to predict what to expect.

Better safe than sorry, I think most people would be wise to reduce their energy consumption and to increase the density of their plantings when it is practical.

Best regards.

More grist for the mill...

NASA Revising Public Affairs Policies

By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer

NASA is revising its public affairs policies following allegations that political appointees tried to muzzle the agency's top climatologist, who is known for speaking his mind about global warming.

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told a luncheon audience here Feb. 9 that scrutiny of the agency's communications policies and procedures would continue despite the abrupt resignation of NASA press aide George Deutsch, the 24-year-old political appointee thrust into the spotlight in late January when The New York Times reported allegations that he took part in an effort to stifle climatologist James E. Hansen, the outspoken director of the New York-based Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Hansen's claims prompted House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) to send Griffin a sternly worded letter criticizing NASA's conduct. "It ought to go without saying that government scientists must be free to describe their scientific conclusions and the implications of those conclusions to their fellow scientists, policymakers and the general public," Boehlert wrote.

David Goldston, a long-time Boehlert aide and the Science Committee's staff director, told Space News that Boehlert's concerns did not end with Deutsch's resignation. "It's not over as far as we are concerned and we are glad to see it's not over as far as NASA is concerned either," Goldston said. "George Deutsch was part of the problem but he wasn't the whole problem, and NASA is quite properly pursuing other elements of the problem including the need to develop clearer policies."

Goldston, who has been working with NASA to investigate Hansen's claims that public affairs personnel tried to silence and intimidate him, said he was pleased that NASA appears to share Boehlert's commitment to see the problem resolved.

"There are people other than George Deutsch, both political and career, who have mishandled matters concerning Hansen and perhaps other scientists," Goldston said. "But again NASA is not taking a case-closed attitude toward this and they are doing exactly what we would hope and expect. The chairman has spoken directly to the administrator and deputy administrator about this and both of them have the same exact attitude as we do about openness and they're doing exactly what they should be doing."

In Griffin's first public comments about the controversy since authoring a "Statement on Scientific Openness" sent to agency personnel and later posted to the NASA Web site, he reaffirmed his commitment to free discourse but also talked about the importance of maintaining clear distinctions between factual observations and policy recommendations.

"Nothing is more important to this agency or to me than a free and open discourse on technical subjects," Griffin said during a question-and-answer session following his National Space Club speech. "Now there is a line where technical subjects cross over into policy recommendations. ... Some folks don't wish to observe that line. And if they don't, as long as people speak as private citizens, my attitude is let me hold your coat for you. You can get into that fray and get beat up. You just can't label it as an agency position."

Griffin went on to say that NASA's policies governing what its scientists and engineers can or cannot say "have admittedly not been clear."

"So before we can expect people to adhere to standards we wish to have as a federal agency, we've got to re-look at those standards," Griffin said. "We've got to say what it is we want to say in a clear and consistent fashion and then we can have a close to it."

Deutsch, in his first interview since he resigned Feb. 7 after it was revealed that he misrepresented his academic credentials to NASA, said that he had done nothing improper and that he was the victim of a partisan smear campaign.

"There has yet to be any proof of any scientific watering down or any scientific censorship coming out of NASA in regards to Hansen or anybody else. What you do have is hearsay coming from a handful of people who have clear partisan ties and they are really coming after me and the rest of the Bush appointees because this is a partisan issue," Deutsch said in a Feb. 9 interview with Bryan, Tex.-based WTAW News Talk radio. "It's a culture war issue. They do not like Republicans. They do not like people who support the president. They do not like Christians. And if you are perceived as disagreeing with them, or being one of those people, they will stop at nothing to discredit you."

I plan on taking a trip to the local library to review the current issue of Scientific American pertaining to the acidification of the oceans also referenced in the Journal Nature and the Royal Society website.I have referenced a few web links above with regards to how biological organisms are perceiving and reacting to climatic changes and perhaps we should include the baggage that comes with it....

Greenland Dumps Ice into Sea at Faster Pace
By Andrew Bridges
Associated Press
posted: 16 February 2006
03:14 pm ET

ST. LOUIS (AP)Greenland's southern glaciers have accelerated their march to the Atlantic Ocean over the past decade and now contribute more to the global rise in sea levels than previously estimated, researchers say.
Those faster-moving glaciers, along with increased melting, could account for nearly 17 percent of the estimated one-tenth of an inch annual rise in global sea levels, or twice what was previously believed, said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

An increase in surface air temperatures appears to be causing the glaciers to flow faster, albeit at the still-glacial pace of eight miles to nine miles a year at their fastest clip, and dump increased volumes of ice into the Atlantic.

That stepped-up flow accounted for about two-thirds of the net 54 cubic miles of ice Greenland lost in 2005. That compares with 22 cubic miles in 1996, Rignot said.

Rignot and his study co-author, Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas, said their report is the first to include measurements of recent changes in glacier velocity in the estimates of how much ice most of Greenland is losing.

"The behavior of the glaciers that dump ice into the sea is the most important aspect of understanding how an ice sheet will evolve in a changing climate,'' Rignot said. "It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes.''

Details of the study were being presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The study appears Friday in the journal Science.

The researchers believe warmer temperatures boost the amount of melt water that reaches where the glaciers flow over rock. That extra water lubricates the rivers of ice and eases their downhill movement toward the Atlantic. They tracked the speeds of the glaciers from space, using satellite data collected between 1996 and 2005.

If warmer temperatures spread to northern Greenland, the glaciers there too should pick up their pace, Rignot and Kanagaratnam wrote.

The only way to stem the loss of ice would be for Greenland to receive increased amounts of snowfall, according to Julian Dowdeswell of the University of Cambridge, who wrote an accompanying article.

I didn't keep the link but a major re-assessment of Antarctican ice recently noted the failure of earlier models predicting increased snow and thus ice formation with warming climate. The warming is happening but the ice cap is losing mass at an accelerating rate perhaps.

Glaciers tend to retreat than expand over time, but it seems that the retreat of so much ice all at the same time may be due to something more than the usual trends.

Dswan, greetings from so.cal. Glaciers act differently than ice caps do and may be retreating while the caps grow, for example. Retreats of all the glaciers in the world is not as important as loss of Antarctic ice cap which contains about 70% of the world's fresh water. Dump that in the oceans and you can start skipping inland.

An ice cap acts much like a glacier. Both glaciers and ice caps hold water from the ocean.

BTW, I just read Cadillac Desert which talked about water development in the west and it's impact on California development and agriculture. Just curious, do you use Colorado River water on the organic produce you grow?

Best regards.

Glaciers and icecap hold fresh water, not ocean water. From my memory of course work in glacial and Pleistocene geology and geomophology, I recall differences between ice caps and montane glaciers. No important in our context.

I read and still have a copy of Cadillac Desert. No we do not use any Colorado River water, most of which has been taken back by neighboring states and the southern tier of Counties in negociations to keep as much of the remainder away from their farmers as possible. You might say the book is pretty dated.

Hi Dave! The Northern Icecap may be totally gone by the end of this century but since it is "floating" it won't have much of an effect on the sea level as will the southern ice cap and world wide glacier melt. But the northern ice cap melt may throw Europe into a temporary deep freeze as it's fresh water dilutes or disrupts the Gulf Stream. Such exciting times we live in huh ;o)

Finally, some more concrete evidence of atmospheric warming over Antarctica:

The Times March 31, 2006

Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world
By Mark Henderson

New finding could have implications for sea level rises
AIR temperatures above the entire frozen continent of Antarctica have risen three times faster than the rest of the world during the past 30 years.

While it is well established that temperatures are increasing rapidly in the Antarctic Peninsula, the land tongue that protrudes towards South America, the trend has been harder to confirm over the continent as a whole.

Now analysis of weather balloon data by scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has shown that not only are the lower reaches of the Antarctic atmosphere warming, but that they are doing so at the fastest rate observed anywhere on Earth.

]]]snip]]]

interesting post,Marshall;
I will photocopy the referenced report from the Journal Science. Thank you for the update.....

Homeless up North....?

oops, forgot to post the story above...

Global Warming's Next Casualty: Igloos
By The Associated Press

posted: 12 April 2006
12:10 am ET

WASHINGTON (AP)It's becoming harder to find the right snow to build an igloo, and melting permafrost is turning land into mud. With climate change the nature of the Arctic is changing, too, in ways that worry the people who live there.
The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History opens a pair of exhibits on Saturday: "Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely,'' and "Atmosphere: Change is in the Air,'' discussing what is happening to the climate and how it affects people living in the planet's northernmost areas.
"They are truly concerned,'' anthropologist Igor Krupnik said Tuesday of the Arctic natives.

Indeed, the Arctic exhibit title comes from an Inuit word natives have used to describe the changing climateuggianaqtuqsuggesting unexpected behavior or "a friend acting strangely.''

The ocean is eating their land as sea ice melts and storms erode shorelines and wash away fishing communities, changing climate means new plants in some areas and changes in migratory routes of animals people depend on for food, weather is stormier and food sources for polar bears and caribou change.

Since the 1950s, air temperatures have warmed over much of the Arctic, rain and snowfall have increased and sea ice is in decline.

While some government scientists have reported political pressure to limit their comments on climate change, Robert Sullivan, the museum's associate director for public programs, said that did not happen in the development of this exhibit.

"Here's the data,'' Sullivan said. "This is not a political position, it's just scientific data.''

"There have been some suggestions that the data is unclear; well, the data is not unclear,'' Sullivan added, standing near a map of Greenland illustrating the melting of that island's giant ice cap.

In addition to Smithsonian staff, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and the National Science Foundation took part in developing the exhibit. It will remain at the museum until November and there are plans for it to travel to other museums.

While change is unsettling for many, it isn't necessarily all bad, the exhibit notes. For example, a reduction in sea ice could improve navigation and industrial development, the growing season lengthens and rich northern fisheries may expand.

Adjacent to the Arctic exhibit is Atmospheres, looking at changes in the air around us, notably the rising level of carbon dioxide which scientists say is a major factor in trapping heat from the sun and raising temperatures.

The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md., has been studying the effect of increasing carbon dioxide levels on plants for years, said center director Anson H. Hines.

Plants like carbon dioxide, using it in their growth, and higher levels of the gas spurred them to grow larger, he said. The plants also became more efficient at water use. However, Hines added, even though the plants grew larger they were less nutritious.

"Global climate change is one of the most significant challenges humankind has ever faced,'' said museum director Cristian Samper. "These landmark exhibitions bring us closer to the science that provides the foundation for understanding how the Earth has changed through time. The exhibitions also convey the human dimension that must be considered in addressing how to respond to the environmental changes that are taking place not just in the Arctic, but all over the globe.''

I know, I know, he's a member of the "oil/gas/Industrial complex" cabal. So what does he know?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

What's agreed upon:
One degree increase worldwide, 30% increase in CO2, should cause warming.

ONE DEGREE.

Is this corrrect?

And while we are at it, what is the overall change in ice in ANTARTICA? Not just the pennisula, but the whole continent? What about glaciers world-wide? What is the sum loss (or gain) in ice worldwide? Does anybody have ANY idea?

It seems to me there is a lot of microclimate analysis, but not global.

Anyway, a dissenting opinion and almost libelous charges, if true.

And one more. Salient points: temperatures dipped slightly the last few years, climate is cyclical and unpredictable, and cooling is far more common, and likely, according to historical data, than heating.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Hey, I just link'em, I don't do the science. But such articles make me go "hmmmmmm....".

Are we supposed to post the articles here?

Go see An Inconvenient Truth, then go back and see it again, this time bringing everyone you can with you: http://www.climatecrisis.net/

And read: Tim Flannery's "The Eternal Frontier"
He chronicles the North American continent from the meteor crash that made the Caribbean and wiped out the dinosaurs, up to the present, and argues that North America seems to have a disproportionately high tendency to extinctions and severe climate disruptions...or said differently, when sh*t happens to the world climate, North America gets hit hardest. He says that of any nation, the USA needs to take climate change most seriously because it is likely to suffer the most in the end.

Then read Jared Diamond's "Collapse", and use your newly fanned sense of urgency to get politically active.

The only constant we can expect is change. The warming trend some say we are experiencing
is actually the normal post ice-age phenomenon.

But is "normal" for the northern ice cap to melt (according to predictions) during the warm periods between the ice ages?

Yep

You must have a better search feature than I swanz, got a site which can confirm your "yep"? As you know, I'm on a quest to determine the last time the northern icecap melted into an open artic sea. The age of the present northern icecap falls within a 3 - 50 million years of it's present state. Even with the most conservative 3 million year estimate that period would have included ~30 ice ages based upon the average ~100,000 cycle, all occuring without melting the icecap. That begs the question - what is so different this time around?

I've read some scientific reports claiming that the reduction of the icecap in
certain areas is happen in conjunction with an overal increase in ice sheets in
polar regions.

Yes I have read articles too about how ice is melting in some places while building up in other places but overall the melting is outpacing the build up. Below is a recent profile Greenland's annual ice status - Note no "browns" yet deeper "blues". This is on land of course but I'm mainly interested in the northern icecap which sits atop ever warming ocean currents (unlike interior land ice which is locked into place and is mainly melted by rising air temps).

Nice graphic, vgkg.

Warmer marine environments are generally accompanied by higher quantities of atm. moisture and often higher precipitation. Large icecaps/sheets are basically deserts with low precipitation. Advancing continental ice sheets would have been "fed" by increased snow fall closer to their fronts.

Alpine situations are different. Greenland is very mountainous although glaciation has carved deep channels in underlying bedrock.

Hey Marshall, I know you've heard already but below is a taste of the global climate change report that's coming out this week. There is concern that it's been pared down and doesn't take into consideration the magnitude of the Greenland melt, nor Antarctica for that matter. Be interesting to see it soon.

Antartica is colder now than 50 years ago. A lot of scientific data is overlooked...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

The antarctic ice shelfs are cracking, receding and breaking away. How long are people going to bury their heads in the sand and deny global warming and climate change (its not just about a constant warming - the global climates are already being seriously disrupted across the planet). The worlds scientific community who have published their studies unanimously agree that co2 levels have increased at an astounding rate since the industrial revolution, and this also coincides with dramatic rising temperatures particularly ocean temperatures.

Ice core samples have been studied going back about 600 000 years, these are like a time capsule which clearly show the evidence of rising co2 levels and temperature. the last ice age was about 11 000 years ago and did not show anything near what has been seen in the ice samples of the recent 100 or so years.

For people who still doubt this is going on, look around you at what is happening in the world. Ice caps are receding at an astounding rate, ice shelfs are cracking, ocean temperatures are rising, there are shifting weather patterns such as droughts in one area, and flooding nearby (this is all related to temperature and ocean temperature)

When will enough people wake up and start putting pressure on governments to do something and stop lying and fearmongering that action will cause some economic catastrophe?

We need change at a massive global government level NOW and while people continue to buy into the misinformation being put out in the media, there is going to continue to be a lack of pressure on governments to act.