[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now is anyone familiar with the Little Ice Age? Anyone? It’s cold temperatures ushered in the dark ages. [/quote]
You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
Yes, during the present millennium there was a period of relatively mild climate called the Medieval Warm Period, lasting from about 1000 to 1300 AD. But, as with the Little Ice Age, its timing and effects varied from region to region, and many experts doubt that the Medieval Warm Period was a truly global phenomenon. In East Asia, for example, temperatures were cooler.
The Global Warming we’re experiencing now is, well, GLOBAL.
Carbon dioxide and methane have been important players in the climate system since our planet’s beginnings, but their natural variations in recent centuries have been too tiny to have had much of a GLOBAL impact.
That, however, is changing. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been increasing steadily on account of the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. For example, specifically with regards to what you’re talking about, Judith Lean, a solar physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, says that while changes in solar output and volcanic dust drove those fluctuations of the past, this century’s rise in temperature was influenced by humans.
Boston, there are competing theories. Neither one of us is qualified to make the decision as to which is correct.
The arguments pulled out of peoples asses for political effect are the ones that are easy to understand but not necessarily very applicable.[/quote]
True enough. And very true of both sides.
[quote]vroom wrote:
My concern is that the physics, the effects of various gases in the atmospher is known.[/quote]
Hmm, not as well as we might like. We know a lot about what happens in a closed system - not as much about what happens in the atmosphere.
The models generally don’t even track the instrumental record very well. They may, some day in the future, but they need to incorporate more of the variables that affect climate change. There is particularly poor understanding of cloud formation.
Particularly problematic as well are the apparent assumptions in the models that the ability of C02 to capture energy is infinite and increases linearly.
And then you look at the doom and gloom – the predictions of “extreme weather” consequences, and look to what I’ve seen implicated as evidence thereof, like more hurricanes.
The problem is that all of these extreme weather phenomena occur or have occured with lower carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, and during times of global cooling. The horrific rains that plagued Central and Northwest Europe in the years 1317-1320 occured at the tail end of the medeval warming period when Europe?s population was below 75 million. Beginning in April of 1317 and lasting through August of that year, it rained incessently from Normandy through Central Germany. During the Little Ice Age there were times of droughts over Western Europe. In both instances, climatologists in Europe today blame the North Atlantic Oscillation, and not carbon concentrations.
Other climatologists blame the Southern Oscillation for a number of weather extremes. The best example is the horrific drought/famine that stretched from Borneo, through India, and into Eastern Africa in 1876-77. The extreme high temperatures of Austrailia and our Desert Southwest in 1998 is another example. And to go back to hurricanes, the hurricane scientists point to patterns and cycles for those as well.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I realize that there are peat bogs that may be able to sequester large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, or that ocean plankton maybe be able to bloom and consume it as well.
However, there is another issue, for that consumption to occur the CO2 must physically present itself at the appropriate locations. It isn’t something that localizes itself for consumption in this way.[/quote]
All the “carbon sinks” are an interesting sub issue that needs more exploration.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, blogging is a very interesting environent, because people can be posting their “facts” based on politics and not have to worry about having credentials as a media source.
Surely you know this?
A lot of people blog a lot of things on the Internet, and the credibility level is very difficult for most of us to determine, especially if some phsyicist who can use language most of us can’t understand decides to pontificate about things he really doesn’t know about.
Do you want to seriously debate things or do you want to throw questions out that you read on some guys blog?[/quote]
In each case, a little research on the credentials of the blogger can go a long way – that and, quite honestly, in areas in which there are many experts blogging, the internet serves as a much faster paced version of the debates that go back and forth in dueling articles in scientific publications, with all the other interested experts serving as quick fact- and argument-checkers.
Perfect? No. But you can’t dismiss the qualified out of hand merely because they happen to share their expertise and/or opinions via weblogs.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I cant be arsed to worry about it BB, for these reasons:
Global warming will turn all of the US farmland into one big worthless dessert.
Global warming will extend the season and scope of Canada’s farmland greatly.
Global warming will eventually submerge many huge metropolitan areas on the US and European coasts.
Global warming will sink a few Canadian cities, which we’ll easily evacuate.
Global warming will strengthen hurricanes so they can bend over the southern states and ravage them mercilessly.
Global warming may bring more thunderstorms and possibly a small increase in tornado activity to Canada.
You want global warming? Bring it on buddy! All you are going to do is ease our winters, enhance our farming, and increase our importance in the world… seriously.
I don’t know why I’m trying to point you to the potential disaster staring you in the face. I don’t know why you guys don’t take it more seriously… given it’s really your risk.
Why should I care? It’s not like it’s toxic waste or anything. Bring it on, Canada will be a big winner if it actually happens.[/quote]
Global Warming is a plot by Canada to take over the world! (Because they couldn’t do it any other way).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Hmm, not as well as we might like. We know a lot about what happens in a closed system - not as much about what happens in the atmosphere.
The models generally don’t even track the instrumental record very well. They may, some day in the future, but they need to incorporate more of the variables that affect climate change. There is particularly poor understanding of cloud formation.
Particularly problematic as well are the apparent assumptions in the models that the ability of C02 to capture energy is infinite and increases linearly.[/quote]
I’m not sure where you are getting this. The opacity of a substance, such as CO2 to infrared radiation is not something that is questionable.
There are some facts which are very solid and sure. These facts give us the reason to take the issue seriously, but they don’t answer the severity because there are many questions.
For example, what is questionable is the way in which CO2 may accumulate in the atmosphere. Also, we can ask whether compensating processes will remove the CO2 we produce, or in the case of cloud formation, reflect some light that otherwise would have made it to the surface and became heat.
[quote]
And then you look at the doom and gloom – the predictions of “extreme weather” consequences, and look to what I’ve seen implicated as evidence thereof, like more hurricanes.[/quote]
Regardless of whether or not you like it, hurricanes are powered by the heat of the ocean underneath them. If you raise the temperature of the ocean, then you raise the intensity of hurricanes.
This isn’t gloom and doom. When you watch the weather during the summer, they show you the ocean temperature bands to explain why a hurricane is getting weaker or stronger as it travels towards shore.
Your other weather phenomenon are not part of anything I’m concerned about. Heavier rains isn’t something that is on my gloom and doom list I’m afraid.
However, I do realize that there are “other” scientists for most positions, but you have to realize that though there are other scientists, you and I have no reason to believe one set of scientists over another.
The “don’t worry it’s all cool” group also has an appealing message, but we can’t just assume it is right because we’d like to either.
On the point of not dismissing bloggers, then I’d suggest not dismissing scientists and their official reports either. I mean, if you can dismiss those, then I can surely dismiss bloggers talking out of their field?
Anyway, to go back a bit, on the meteor issue, this is something we have done some appropriate risk reduction with. Perhaps you are aware of the project to find and categorize all objects that might eventually collide with Earth?
Did you realize they sent a mission to a comet to impact something on it to see what would happen? This is risk reduction – taking steps that we can take to protect ourselves.
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/deep_impact/
Deep Impact Facts
Launch date: January 12, 2005
Comet Tempel 1 flyby and impact: July 4, 2005
Earth flyby: planned for December, 2007
Possible comet Boethin encounter: 2008
You are aware another mission is being planned?
ESA has awarded contracts to three industrial teams to carry out initial design studies for the agency’s proposed mission to attempt to deflect the path of an asteroid. The mission, called Don Quijote, will comprise a primary spacecraft called Hildago, and an impactor called Sancho.
Regardless of gloom and doom nonsense, prudence would dictate we be cautious until we know that we don’t have to be. We don’t know that we can discharge CO2 or other substances endlessly without consequence.
We have indications that there are potential dangers if we do so. We have some people who discount those dangers. If you want to take the position that we don’t know, then caution is dictated.
[quote]hspder wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Now is anyone familiar with the Little Ice Age? Anyone? It’s cold temperatures ushered in the dark ages.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
Yes, during the present millennium there was a period of relatively mild climate called the Medieval Warm Period, lasting from about 1000 to 1300 AD. But, as with the Little Ice Age, its timing and effects varied from region to region, and many experts doubt that the Medieval Warm Period was a truly global phenomenon. In East Asia, for example, temperatures were cooler.
The Global Warming we’re experiencing now is, well, GLOBAL.
Carbon dioxide and methane have been important players in the climate system since our planet’s beginnings, but their natural variations in recent centuries have been too tiny to have had much of a GLOBAL impact.
That, however, is changing. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been increasing steadily on account of the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. For example, specifically with regards to what you’re talking about, Judith Lean, a solar physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, says that while changes in solar output and volcanic dust drove those fluctuations of the past, this century’s rise in temperature was influenced by humans.
[/quote]
This is all supposition and opinion. There is not one shred of valid evidence that proves that GW is caused by humans. If there were, we would not be having this discussion.
I would continue this, but I am late for my out door exhaling exercises. See a bunch of us evil Texas republicans like to go outside and exhale as much as we can just to do our part to contribute to the CO2 in the air.
But Fridays are special days. We load up on red beans and cornbread, and we fart while we exhale - making it a 2-fer with the methane.
I essentially consider myself an agnostic on the question of man-made global warming. Not an atheist – if you prove it to me, I’ll convert.
Problem is that all the claims that it is proven, when it’s not, annoy the holy hell out of me.
I’m willing to concede as a general principle that it’s wise to tread cautiously when monkeying around with cause/effect relationships you don’t understand - in fact, that’s a central idea of conservatism in a Burkean sense. Care to apply that more broadly to social mores or societal institutions? Genetic research and nanotechnology? =-)
Anyway, though, I’m again going to quote someone else for my position because I’m lazy and it’s already been written:
There is stuff we know for sure, where the data all points one way, and the theory has passed every observational test we can think up. There is stuff we are less sure about. There is stuff totally fuzzy?like, trying to measure the overall mean temperature of the earth to a fraction of a degree, and then repeat the measurement for the earth of 50 or 100 years ago. The data points in all directions. Naturally scientists, who are human beings, will favor the direction that suits their inclinations and preconceptions, and propagandize on that basis. If the data gets clearer, the ones proved wrong by it will fall silent, or face the ridicule of their peers. That’s how it goes when the science is real fuzzy. It doesn’t tell you anything about science at large. A water molecule is still two hydrogen atoms, one oxygen. Moving electric charges still generate magnetic fields. The earth still goes round the sun. Human beings still evolved from nonhuman predecessors. E still equals M C squared. We know these things, and lots of other things, to as high a degree of certainty as it is possible to know anything outside our own sensations. Is anthropogenic global warming going on? That we do not know.
Now, given that we don’t even know what’s causing what, it doesn’t seem to me, from a cost/benefit analysis, that we should go to some program of capped CO2 emissions, which would have huge economic costs. If we were more sure of the cause, perhaps. But if what you’re concerned with is the effects of raise in global mean temperature, I think other risk-management strategies, involving structural preparation of cities and/or population redistribution, should be much more strongly considered.
If you want to argue we aren’t doing anything at all, as hspder is, you’re probably right. You can blame the politicians for that all day long - though I don’t know if there’s the political will necessary for even those expenditures unless and until it becomes more clear to people that they indeed face danger.
If, on the other hand, you’re simply making the point that we’re pumping more CO2 in the air without knowing what it will do, part of me agrees, though I would be more inclined to go the route of encouraging carbon sinks and other such means of trapping CO2 at the moment rather than trying to do a capping system – particularly when we cannot control the developing world’s output - China, India and Brazil, to name 3 countries - which will easily be the largest contributor as they keep moving toward industrialization.
With regard to risk management overall, I do agree that generally we should take steps to avert the most costly outcomes. The problem becomes that cost is a limiting factor, and there are quite a few potential problems out there that could have disasterous consequences at the tail end of their probability functions. So maybe you pick global warming - maybe you pick earthquakes - maybe you pick volcanoes - asteroids - flu pandemics - et al. Pick all of them AND have your social programs too? 'Tisn’t bloody likely.
Me, I’d pick asteroids and social security/medicare. All fine and good that they’re mapping them (which I did realize), but I’d much prefer that they get to the point where we could do something if one were hurtling toward us. And the social security/medicare problem is a known catastrophe waiting to happen – that gets more expensive to fix each minute.
…if you read several official scientific reports indicating that there is a possibility that peeing standing up can cause erectile dysfunction, you’d start pissing sitting down, right? Sure, it’s a pain to totally drop trou, and park yer nekid butt down on the seat, and sure it might take longer to pee, but in the end, even if only 15% of men who piss standing get ED versus 12% of those who sit, you’d STILL do it, because hell, you don’t want to be in that 3% group, do ya? Besides - pissing sitting down isn’t all that bad… you get a chance to park it for a few, thing about life, shut out the outside world… you can even take a dump too as a tertiary goal!
…now, I realize that implimenting policies that reduce CO2 emmisions are a lot more involved than sitting to pee, but for the average consumer, really, it’s not going to make that huge of a difference, especially if its implimented gradually. Public transit will be a huge part of this - taking the train to work gives you a chance to park it for a few, think about life, shut out the outside world… and as a tertiary goal to attempting to prevent human exasorbated global warming, you’ll get cleaner air and the chance to read a new book on the way to work instead of cussing for an hour in traffic.
that’s REALLY not so bad, is it? If you can admit that human exasorbated global warming is a POSSIBILITY, or even a PLAUSABILITY, the prudent, logical thing to do would be to take proper precautions.
I mean hell, we thought Saddam MIGHT have WMD, so we invaded Iraq as a precaution, which is costing us BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives. He didn’t, and we’re still entrenched in a seemingly never-ending war with religious extremeists, but we got a brutal dictator out of power. If we can clean up our mess, Iraq might actually become a nice country to live in some day. so why the kicking screaming fight and asking for hardfast PROOF (which if you know anything about science you know there’s no such thing as “proof”) before implimenting policies to prevent global warming?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
We did find 500 Checmical weapons in Iraq this week. So they did in fact have WMD’s. Not trying to jump in to you argument, just point out a fact.[/quote]
You really need to stop getting your news from Ann Coulter.
Despite Coulter’s touting of the purported WMD discovery, intelligence officials confirmed that the shells Santorum and Hoekstra spoke of were not part of the suspected weapons that the United States went to war over, and the Iraq Survey Group’s September 2004 final report (also known as the Duelfer Report) had already noted that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions” were discovered after the invasion, as the weblog Think Progress noted.
This report develops probability-based projections that can be added to local tide-gauge trends to estimate future sea level at particular locations. It uses the same models employed by previous assessments of sea level rise. [i]The key coefficients in those models are based on subjective probability distributions supplied by a cross-section of climatologists, oceanographers, and glaciologists. The experts who assisted this effort were mostly authors of previous assessments by the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The estimates of sea level rise are somewhat lower than those published by previous IPCC assessments, primarily because of lower temperature projections. This report estimates that global temperatures are most likely to rise 1?C by the year 2050 and 2?C by the year 2100, that there is a 10 percent chance that temperatures will rise more than 4?C in the next century, and a 90 percent chance that they will rise by at least the 0.6?C warming of the last century. By contrast, IPCC (1992) estimated that a warming of 2.8?C was most likely. Our temperature estimates are lower because (a) we assume lower concentrations of carbon dioxide; (b) we include the cooling effects of sulfates and stratospheric ozone depletion; and (c) our panel of experts included a scientist who doubts that greenhouse gases will substantially increase global temperatures.[/i]
Based on the aforementioned assumptions, which this report explains in detail, our results can be summarized as follows:
Global warming is most likely to raise sea level 15 cm by the year 2050 and 34 cm by the year 2100. There is also a 10 percent chance that climate change will contribute 30 cm by 2050 and 65 cm by 2100. These estimates do not include sea level rise caused by factors other than greenhouse warming.
There is a 1 percent chance that global warming will raise sea level 1 meter in the next 100 years and 4 meters in the next 200 years. By the year 2200, there is also a 10 percent chance of a 2-meter contribution, and a 1-in-40 chance of a 3-meter contribution. Such a large rise in sea level could occur either if Antarctic ocean temperatures warm 5?C and Antarctic ice streams respond more rapidly than most glaciologists expect, or if Greenland temperatures warm by more than 10?C. Neither of these scenarios is likely.
By the year 2100, climate change is likely to increase the rate of sea level rise by 4.2 mm/yr. There is also a 1-in-10 chance that the contribution will be greater than 10 mm/yr, as well as a 1-in-10 chance that it will be less than 1 mm/yr.
Stabilizing global emissions in the year 2050 would be likely to reduce the rate of sea level rise by 28 percent by the year 2100, compared with what it would be otherwise. These calculations assume that we are uncertain about the future trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions.
Stabilizing emissions by the year 2025 could cut the rate of sea level rise in half. If a high global rate of emissions growth occurs in the next century, sea level is likely to rise 6.2 mm/yr by 2100; freezing emissions in 2025 would prevent the rate from exceeding 3.2 mm/yr. If less emissions growth were expected, freezing emissions in 2025 would cut the eventual rate of sea level rise by one-third.
Along most coasts, factors other than anthropogenic climate change will cause the sea to rise more than the rise resulting from climate change alone. These factors include compaction and subsidence of land, groundwater depletion, and natural climate variations. If these factors do not change, global sea level is likely to rise 45 cm by the year 2100, with a 1 percent chance of a 112 cm rise. Along the coast of New York, which typifies the United States, sea level is likely to rise 26 cm by 2050 and 55 cm by 2100. There is also a 1 percent chance of a 55 cm rise by 2050 and a 120 cm rise by 2100.
Let’s see 2.8 degrees was the previous prediction, 1 degree is the current best prediction. Based on the fact that they were 180% off in the previous guess, they were selected to generate this ‘correct’ guess. And this guess is ‘correct’ because it a) make assumptions b) takes into account things they didn’t know 5 yrs. ago (that explains the 180% error) c) allowed the single dissenting scientist to speak and correct for ‘bias’.
So, based on this report, a group that differs 180% from the previous prediction, is 1% a certainty that sea levels will rise 1 m in the next 100 yrs. Of course, barring the discovery of any phenomenon like 4 yrs. prior or gaining another guy on the panel who is dubious of (unpropagandized by?) AGW.
I wonder what kind of ‘risk assessment’ you do on numbers like these from sources like these?
BB, I have to wonder how they keep getting hired and not booed and hissed.
Note: Unless I’m mistaken, the most recent gravimetric survey has proven them wrong. Officially, .3 mm/yr.
The reverse argument, that we are all guaranteed to be safe from bad effects, pisses me off just as much as the claim that everything is proven annoys you.
Why do you think I keep saying it is somewhere in the middle?
There are counter arguments, for sure, but we sure as hell don’t know anything about them either. Heck, they’ve been researched less than the arguments concerning whether or not global warming is occuring and due to mankind to some as yet determined degree.
Anyway, your quote sounds very much like the EPA which I pointed to in a recent previous thread. It talks about things we know for sure, like the physics of CO2 gas, and then it goes into things we aren’t sure about yet.
Holy shit. Annoys the hell out of me that you turn around and basically use the same material I did (but from a more spun location presumably) to try to convince me that I’m going about this the wrong way.
If you, like Rainjack, continue to believe that I’m jumping on the “it’s all a sure thing” boat, then you really aren’t paying any fucking attention to what I’m saying… which would not be a first, because it appears you only listen to blogs and spin that support your viewpoint.
I don’t know. You don’t know. Some scientists on both sides think they might know. Prudence calls for some risk avoidance, it really does, because the potential appears to be there.
It’s like insurance. We don’t know whether or not there will ever be a disaster that effects us, but it’s damned well prudent to protect the assets and well being of your family from complete disaster.
Frankly, my vote is that I’d rather not chance fucking up the planet just because some people feel that everything will be just fine, but have no proof. Can I prove anything will happen, no… but which outcome would you prefer to be wrong about?
We could begin to take steps without forcing half the planet to spend trillions in the next few years. However, I suspect we won’t, and I don’t like it when greed is the motivator for decisions, because greed is also a very strong and manipulative emotion.
Pretty much all of the MSM sources caqrried the story.
Why the info was not released is outlined below.
Why Iraq WMD Finds Were Kept Secret
June 23, 2006:
The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, leads to the question as to why the U.S. waited so long to reveal this. The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.
If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk ? for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.
The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants ? because they want to keep on living. A lack of informants leads to a lack of human intelligence, and the troops don’t like being sent out on missions while short on intelligence ? it’s easy to get killed. This has led to media coverage (particularly around “milestone” deaths) and
The biggest danger with intelligence is in its over-use. This might sound odd, but it is the biggest concern many decision-makers in wartime have to make. Protection of an intelligence advantage can be so important that it might require allowing an enemy action to go forward (like the 1940 bombing of Coventry ? Churchill allowed that to occur rather than risk exposing the British ability to read German codes), or it might require high-level approval of a mission (like the 1943 operation in which Thomas G. Lanphier shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto ? the decision to attempt the mission was made by the Secretary of the Navy). In the world of intelligence, decisions are rarely simple, and easily answered. A great deal of consideration goes into the decisions based on the intelligence provided, and when to release the information to the public. ? Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com) Strategypage.com
[quote]
The Mage wrote:
Now is anyone familiar with the Little Ice Age? Anyone? It’s cold temperatures ushered in the dark ages.
hspder wrote:
You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? [/quote]
Apparently not, so thank god we have your infinite wisdom, not to mention Judith Lean. I have go to change everything I said because of Judith Lean.
Too bad she (like you) didn’t read the link I posted above about how the “hockey stick” data is faulty, and the model used takes all data and turns it into the same shape.
Your argument was a complete sidestep of everything I said, and in fact brings in a person who works for the organization whose data we are finding fault with.
The discussion of the medieval warm period and little ice age as being a local phenomenon, and not a global one is an opinion being pushed by the UN organization, and interestingly the UN acts like it has a vested interest in seeing global warming proven to be true. Evidence of both these events has been found in Japan of all places.
Now if the connection between global warming and CO2 has been so established, please explain how global warming started before a big jump in CO2 production, then when CO2 production ramped up, temperatures started dropping, to the point people were wondering if an ice age was upon us.
We are dealing with a science in its infancy, and people are acting like everything is absolutely known.
I will ask the questions I have asked before.
Is there Global Warming? Can you prove it? Is the increase in temperature greater then the standard deviation?
Are people responsible for this? All of it? How do we know this, and can we prove it?
Is Global warming a bad thing? How do we know it is not a good thing?
Now the Earth is actually greener then it was. Any global warming is resulting in more plants, which obviously would suck up more CO2, helping counterbalance the CO2 increase.
Anyone who owns a greenhouse tries to increase the CO2 so their plants grow better, so obviously this is working for the Earth.
Now first we know there were 4 seasons. Spring, summer, fall, and winter. Then they found out about El Nino and La Nina, which has been described as 2 more seasons. And they are still learning about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. What other events have they yet to discover?
Here’s the BBC talking about ‘warm’ species invading the Antarctic… so bitch at/about them, not me.
‘Warm’ species invading Antarctic
[i]
Scientists are calling for action to prevent foreign species from taking hold in Antarctica and wrecking the continent’s unique ecosystems.
Despite Antarctica’s inhospitable environment, non-native species introduced by tourists, scientists and explorers are gaining a foothold.
Species can hitch a ride on ships and planes carrying visitors and supplies.
A paper on the matter tabled at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Edinburgh met with “good agreement”.
It costs thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to try and get rid of something… prevention is better than a cure
Neil Gilbert, Antarctica NZ
“Antarctica has long been considered as an isolated continent with a harsh environment. So the general perception has been that we don’t need to worry about non-native species. We know better now,” Dr Gilbert, environmental manager at Antarctica New Zealand, told BBC News.
Male and female North Atlantic spider crabs (Hyas araneus) have been found in waters off the Antarctic Peninsula. Neil Gilbert says the species could not have migrated such a great distance by its own accord.
In addition, a cosmopolitan species of grass, Poa annua, is surviving on King George Island, north of the Antarctic Peninsula.
According to Dr Gilbert, two principal factors are facilitating colonisation of Antarctic habitats by foreign species: the increased numbers of people travelling to the continent and climate change.
[/i]
Damn that Dr. Gilbert, he’s such a political fear mongerer. Damn him!
[quote]The Mage wrote:
3. Is Global warming a bad thing? How do we know it is not a good thing?[/quote]
See, these are the kind of comments that completely wreck any credibility on this subject you might have.
It is particularly funny coming from a conservative, who, by definition, frowns upon change (that’s what the word “conservative” means, you know?).
I have covered this extensively in the past, and even most of the Global Warming nay-sayers understand that IF there is Global Warming, it is a Bad Thing. Almost everybody understands the serious consequences and the drastic, catastrophic changes. So I am not going to bother to go over it all again – especially because I know you’ll disagree with anything I say, whatever it is.
See, these are the kind of comments that completely wreck any credibility on this subject you might have.[/quote]
Yeah, I too hate it when people ruin their credibility by being objective.
According to your own data we’re back to where we were 400-2000 yrs. ago. A conservative purist.
And to top it off, you paraphrase the ‘nay-sayers’, whom you think are wrong, as being right. I just hope the one degree in the next century aren’t as “catasrophic” as the one degree over the last century was.
The Mage’s credibility is much more firmly grounded by simply asking questions than someone who blindly believes a group of people who are repeatedly wrong and admit it.
[quote]hspder wrote:
It is particularly funny coming from a conservative, who, by definition, frowns upon change (that’s what the word “conservative” means, you know?).[/quote]
And liberal in the purest definition of the word means open to ideas. You wan’t say why GW is a bad thing, but you feel the need to attack someone that is conservative because he does not swallow the cyanide like you want him to.
Now who is being conservative? Close minded? Bigoted?
Maybe the radical left is the new conservative. Or maybe it is just a bunch of hate filled bigots with an ax to grind.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
3. Is Global warming a bad thing? How do we know it is not a good thing?
hspder wrote:
See, these are the kind of comments that completely wreck any credibility on this subject you might have. [/quote]
Interestingly there is a large contingency of scientists who think global warming is a good thing. The media generally ignores them.
To simply assume an increase in global average temperature is a bad thing when historically climate increases have not been found to have a negative impact on species. (Which cannot be said of ice ages.)
This is the big problem with this issue. Too many assumptions are being made, and assumptions are not science. Any scientist worth his lick will say they cannot predict what will happen.
[quote]hspder wrote:
It is particularly funny coming from a conservative, who, by definition, frowns upon change (that’s what the word “conservative” means, you know?). [/quote]
Fascinating that you do not know that the political term has little to do with the nonpolitical term.
In fact I did make this foolish mistake back when I was in high school, and assumed I was a liberal.
Now, while oversimplifying things a bit, I use the definition that conservative generally wants smaller, less intrusive government, while liberal wants a bigger, more powerful government. (And this is why Bush is a liberal.)
And again you make a lot of assumptions. Most… Almost everybody… Are you sure about that?
And I will disagree with you only if you are wrong. If you don’t have a real argument, just say so.
