Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

schwit1 writes "A report from The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research says that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."

Comments

Welp,

[James Skarzinskas]

All thanks to President Obama.

Re:Welp,

[powerslave12r]

He solved the issue of Global Warming? Already?

Re:Welp,

[dogmatixpsych]

No. Al Gore did. Pres. Obama just gets the credit just like other people received the credit for "the internet." ;)

Re:Welp,

[Wonko the Sane]

He solved the issue of Global Warming? Already?

The audacity of hope.

Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Re:Welp,

[jmorris42]

> Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax.

Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them. It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West and thus finally stamp out everything they don't like by taxing it out of practicality. And the things they don't like include pretty much all of western civilization.

Re:Welp,

[maxume]

Ranting about Kyoto would make a lot more sense if the United States Congress had ratified it.

I really don't think that the current Congress is a whole lot more likely to ratify it than any past Congress, but who knows.

Re:Welp,

[Kjella]

Yeah, damn him here he was promising change and first thing he does is to halt everything and preserve the status quo. Politicans, you just can't trust them.

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you should thank the Somali pirates. Now, I think we can all agree that, based on overwhelming evidence, piracy prevents global warming. There's UNDENIABLE PROOF for that. I mean, if you can't tell that correlation equals causation, well, you're just in denial, or being paid off. With the recent surges in piracy, how can that ice not grow? It is simple logic, stupid! Now, I know that the mainstream media will probably call them thieves and killers (because they are obviously in the pocket of Al Gore and Big Carbon Credit), but I'm going to call them what they really are: Heroes, righteous environmental crusaders, examples for all of us to follow. Somali pirates, I salute you!

Re:Welp,

[XavierItzmann]

Well, in his nomination acceptance speech on June 3, 2008, Obama did say that his presidency would be remembered as:

"the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Moses had nothing on this guy. He only parted one measly sea, let alone oceans.

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them."

Yes. But you don't have any clue why.

It has something to do with the fact that it is the industrialized countries that have been emptying CO2 into the atmosphere in ever-greater amounts for the last 2 centuries or so before realizing it might be a problem. The premise of the Kyoto agreement is: they are the ones that have created the problem so far, they're the ones that are already industrialized and have most of the money. They are therefore the ones best positioned to come up with technical solutions and ways to meet lowered targets or at least flatten out production. The race is to do that before countries like India and China ramp up as fast as people are expecting given their populations.

How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!" It's like eating 3/4 of the pizza at the party and then telling a skinny latecomer: "Whoa there. Don't go eating all the pizza that's left. It's bad for you and we also have to share", while still stuffing your face as fast as ever.

The whole point was to meet the goals of Kyoto and THEN say to India, China and other developing countries: "See? This can be done. Now it's your turn to meet the same targets." That was the bargain.

Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook. Well, they probably will be because we're dragging our asses on what we committed to do.

Here's hoping the world can make do without any kind of agreement, and that the predictions expected from that scenario are wrong. Hope really hard.

Re:Welp,

[genmax]

I remember a quote from the former Indian prime minster Indira Gandhi - "Poverty is the biggest polluter."

Re:Welp,

[lseltzer]

Where's the logic in this? We can't complain about problems in a treaty unless we ratify it? The problems are the reason not to ratify it.

Re:Welp,

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Just because Kyoto wasn't ratified doesn't mean that a carbon tax can't be implemented in the future.

Re:Welp,

[Shivetya]

Honestly if we don't stop the up and coming countries from repeating our mistakes then what do we gain? A big fat nothing. A so hate this excuse of its not fair to them, well tough shit. We know better now and they can't claim to not know better either. If we get them off on the right foot it is going to be a lot easier for all of us. If we excuse them then we just push the problem off to the next generation. Of course that seems to be the aim of almost all politicians these days, push off to another generation what we are not willing to do today.

I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.

Re:Welp,

[YrWrstNtmr]

I remember a quote from the former Indian prime minster Indira Gandhi - "Poverty is the biggest polluter."

Indeed. Images from Mumbai.

Re:Welp,

[russotto]

"Poverty is the biggest polluter."

That was back when pollution meant stuff like raw sewage. Nowadays, pollution means one of the inevitable results of complete burning of carbon-containing materials. Which, since there ain't no replacement for burning of carbon-containing materials (nukes ain't happening and the rest ain't sufficient), means pollution equals energy use. So in the guise of "stopping pollution", the EPA can ration energy. Cool, eh?

Re:Welp,

[bricko]

What the big stink anyway...the earth has only had ice at its poles for about 30% of its existence. It comes and goes with or without humans and has for millennium. Some are being a tad arrogant to think the human can affect such a chaotic large system.

Re:Welp,

[MrNaz]

Al Gore also invented general purpose computing. Why else do you think they call it an Algore-ism?

Re:Welp,

[Nutria]

no mention of the Arctic ice, which is the ice that's usually pointed to by climate scientists as a sign of global warming.

You mean the ice which "experts" authoritatively stated was going to all melt away, and that much of it was already gone, because their remote sensors said so?

Except that the people who actually flew out there, and the satellites that orbit the poles showed that the non-existent ice actually exists?

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/0420255

And that anchored ice in the Arctic?

Because dark Asian soot is blowing north and west, settling on (Arctic, Alaskan and Rocky Mountains) ice, holding heat and thus melting the ice.

Soot filters on those thousands of Chinese dirty coal-fired plants would do wonders for re-thickening the ice that really is thinning.

Re:Welp,

[Curunir_wolf]

What the big stink anyway...the earth has only had ice at its poles for about 30% of its existence. It comes and goes with or without humans and has for millennium. Some are being a tad arrogant to think the human can affect such a chaotic large system.

Why is he modded a troll?

Arrogant human with mod points

Re:Welp,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes. But you don't have any clue why.

It has something to do with [...]"

Well, apparently you don't either, both self-admitted and as evidenced later in your comments.

The reason the other countries were left out had to with the expected slower development of their (industrialized) economies. As such, these countries were expected to develop later and hence when they did build their plants and industrialized bases, they'd be using *newer*, more efficient technologies from the get go. These newer technologies, without specification or enforcement in the exempted countries, were supposedly more efficient, more cost effective, etc., so the *expectation* by Kyoto was that the exempted countries would use them implicitly over the old (which alone shows how shoddy Kyoto is).

So the old, inefficient, CO2 and other greenhouse gas belching plants and the like would not be built in India and China. But they were...Kyoto assumed increased efficiencies over time (which does happen), but it missed the RATE because Kyoto itself caused unexpected consequences similar to the corn to ethanol law in the US.

"The whole point was to meet the goals of Kyoto and THEN say to India, China and other developing countries: "See? This can be done. Now it's your turn to meet the same targets." That was the bargain."

Liar. There is nothing in Kyoto that forces any current signees to sign a future agreement. It's a glaring loophole in Kyoto, one of at least two major ones, and the big reason Kyoto is a good idea but implemented horribly.

"Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook. Well, they probably will be because we're dragging our asses on what we committed to do."

They're off the hook, you moron, because the international community let them off the hook and continues to do so. They're off the hook because it allows the signees to offload their carbon to those countries.

You want to know the reason why the US has higher CO2 emissions than, say, most if not all European countries? Because despite being a huge importer of China made goods, comparatively and relatively to the EU, we have offloaded less of our manufacturing to China compared to the EU.

The EU countries largely have shut down their dirtiest industrial complexes to meet Kyoto. But they simply buy the parts and chemicals and products that were previously made at these now closed plants from, yup, China and India. Which are exempt.

This had at least 5 effects, which Kyoto DIRECTLY FRACKIN CAUSED--

(1) China and India do not have the political will or experience or experienced manpower to implement pollution regulations that the EU and US had and continue to have. Some or similar process, more pollution, simply not in the EU.

(2) There is no effective intra-national monitoring body in China.

(3) The EU and other signees bash the US for not signing Kyoto, and stupid people like yourself think the US is a bad actor, by ignoring the fact they have offloaded their carbon to India and China. A more effective way would be to take the goods imported per person from these countries or any country and factor in their production and CO2 costs on a per capita basis, instead of the current method of actual usage in the country. This would represent a more accurate CO2 usage per country count.

(4) Because of the trade imbalance that resulted, as well as cheaper labor, in India and China, there has been a major explosion in industrialization in these unregulated countries. This came a) larger than expected and b) earlier than expected (maybe there will be a followup post mod'd funny). As such, the supposed efficiences did not manifest. First, China uses older equipment anyways. Second, even if they used current equipment, the efficiencies are not as mature as Kyoto expected--China is probably a decade or two ahead, and hence using equipment the Kyoto protocol bean counters expected would have been MORE efficient since they would

Re:Welp,

[Paltin]

Yeah, and us humans have only been on Earth for 0.00002% of it's existence.... species come and go, mostly without humans. So why worry?

Except, there is a problem in your logic. We can understand what has caused the coming and going of many of the global glaciations over the history of the world.

For example, the glaciation that occurred in the late Devonian is linked to the spread of plants on land. Before this time, there were no trees. They captured a large amount of atmospheric CO2, triggering global cooling and glaciation. The result was one of the "big 5" mass extinctions on the planet, with about 50% loss at the genera level.

Guess what? Humans have spread all across the planet! Guess what? It's not arrogant to collect data that shows we are actively changing the system and try to make predictions based on it.

I'm not advocating any certain policy; but I am saying it is foolish to assume that we can't change the world, and that we can't understand complex systems.

Re:Welp,

[Toonol]

Slavery is a lot more appealing to people who envision themselves as masters.

Re:Welp,

[Gerzel]

The North West passage in the last three centuries was a fabled myth that many explores risked their lives and often died trying to find, all in vain.

This century it is almost a yearly occurrence.

The difference? The ice.

Global Climate Change due to manmade influences on nature is occuring, and seeing as how we depend on climates remaining stable throughout nearly all parts of the world it is a big deal.

Climate changes in good growing region means no food for cities supplied for that region. Yes another region may pop up with better climate but without the access roads and modern technology infrastructure to use and harvest it.

So even if Climate Change/Global warming is a zero sum over all, it is still a major issue to be dealt with and not just some "liberal" conspiracy.

Re:Welp,

[shutdown -p now]

How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!"

Of course we can say that, because if they will do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, it will be a disaster. No amount of political correctness bullshit can change that.

Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook.

There's no myth, because there's no hook. If, as you say, Western countries impose those limits for themselves just to set a righteous example for everyone else to follow, then the most likely reaction you'll get from comrade General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party is, "gee, these guys are even more stupid than we thought". Since there's no obligation for China to follow suit, according to Kyoto, then why would they?

Of course, this all is no excuse for doing some serious changes for the sakes of ourselves - like switching to mostly nuclear, investing heavily into thermonuclear, and using solar/wind/tidal wherever there's opportunity. But that's a whole different kettle of fish; and, I suspect, eventually, when time comes to bring China in line with regard to emissions, it will have to be done at a gunpoint, and no "gestures of goodwill" today will change that.

Re:Welp,

[wwwillem]

"Poverty is the biggest polluter."

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.

The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.

Re:Welp,

[BrokenHalo]

It's getting a bit late to ratify it in any case. IIRC its recommendations were supposed to have been put in place by 2012. Now everybody has denied the existence of the problem for so long, the problem has got that much bigger, and Kyoto is not enough, and maybe never was.

Re:Welp,

[Rei]

Did you even read the source article?

On February 18, we reported that the F15 sensor malfunction started out having a negligible impact on computed ice extent, which gradually increased as the sensor degraded further. At the end of January, the F15 sensor underestimated ice extent by 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) compared to F13. That is still within the margin of error for daily data. By mid-February, the difference had grown to 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), which is outside of expected error. However, that amount represents less than 4% of Arctic sea ice extent at this time of year. When the computed daily extent dropped sharply on February 16, the sensor failure became obvious.

NSIDC stopped displaying the problematic data, and recalculated sea ice extent using data from the DMSP F13 satellite, an older sensor in the same series of satellites. The recalculation changed the January monthly average ice extent by less than the margin of error for the sensor. As we reported in our February 3 post, growth of Arctic sea ice did indeed slow in January because of unusual atmospheric conditions. Using F13 data instead of F15, the September daily minimum that we reported on September 16, 2008, changed from 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles) to 4.54 million square kilometers (1.75 million square miles), within the margin of error for daily data.

The F15 sensor drift does not change any of our conclusions regarding the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice extent. Such scientific conclusions, published in peer-reviewed journals, are based on quality-controlled monthly to annually averaged data. We have quality-controlled the final data through 2007; a thorough audit of the more recent data from 2008 shows that any discrepancies fall within the margin of error.

It's one thing to be a denier, but at least don't be so obvious about your attempts to distort the data. It was one, brief problem which was immediately recognized and only caused an approximately 4% error at its peak.

You're going to have to deal with the *fact* that not only is Arctic ice extent far less than it has been at any point in recorded history, but that it's far thinner to boot. If you hate what peer-reviewed science says, that's your problem. Build your *own* network of sensors and satellites and monitor the Arctic for decades if you don't like the results the current hardware is giving.

And as for the Slashdot article in question? Let me sum up: "Ice is growing at a single Antarctic station. Therefore, tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers which never predicted that ice would shrink at every station are still wrong (because it's "global climate change", not "local weather change"), and global warming is a scientific conspiracy to destroy capitalism."

Re:Welp,

[Burnhard]

Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant and for that reason I declare this entire line of argument idiotic.

Re:Welp,

[Hurricane78]

So you just repeat the same tired unimaginative copypasta jokes year after year unanonymously? ^^
Hey, you even rant like a troll. ^^

Re:Welp,

[FatherOfONe]

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.

Have you seen Mexico? How about China? China may be a bit far for you (if you live in the U.S.), but take a trip down to Mexico city if you dare and then come back and make that same statement. If you can go over to China and see their mfg plants and their towns that have been all but killed by taking the computer junk, you may also change your tune.

Why did a lot of the mfg go over to China? Low cost labor is one point, but little to no regulation is the other. So the "greens" sort of got what they wanted in the U.S.A., but at the cost of jobs. Go out to your local Target, Sears, Best Buy etc and try to find something produced in the U.S.A. If you have a child, go try to find a toy that isn't made in China.

Now the real question is "if" you believe China, Mexico and even Russia to a degree, is getting accurate reports of their pollution levels.

Now back on topic.
The ice is growing? Does this mean global cooling that everyone believed in the 60's?

Re:Welp,

[CrimsonAvenger]

I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.

Never took the chance to tour Eastern Europe or Russia at the end of the Soviet era, I see. Those areas were like the USA BEFORE the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

Re:Welp,

[Burnhard]

*fact* that not only is Arctic ice extent far less than it has been at any point in recorded history

That history is around 30 years of data. Really, 30 years. Let me say it again so you understand, "30 years". It's not outside of the bounds of natural climate variation, given that 80% of the Earth's history has gone by with no ice-caps whatsoever. I appreciate that in your strange value system having ice-caps is considered "good", but I would suggest you do some further reading at least to attempt to fight this intellectual virus you seem to have caught.

With respect to "peer reviewed papers", please read yourself the Wegman report. Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. At most, in Climate Science, it means you have lots of friends in the area and are towing the party line. Moreover, a source none othe than RealClimate, has explicitly made it clear that Antarctic sea ice extent would be expect to increase according to the AGW theory. Later, when data showed it was warming (Steig et al, which now turn out to have been more statistical shenanigans), RealClimate said that of course warming was expect in Antarctica according to the AGW theory. Do you not register the contradiction? Does the data not now falsify the theory? Anyone with a brain would have to say so.

Re:Welp,

[Viper Daimao]

the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter

Not quite. In fact, the US and Canada are net carbon sinks.

Temperature

[RichMan]

The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.
The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

The ice sheets have increased their outward flow. Also another indicator of increased precipitation and warmth.

One has to be very careful what one looks at for indicators of global warming/cooling.

Re:Temperature

[highvista63]

This is exactly what I've heard should be happening, as well. Global warming would evaporate more of the ocean's water, which falls on Antarctica as snow, resulting in more ice.

Re:Temperature

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that it's been cooling the last few years points to Global Warming. The fact that the ice sheet is getting larger points to Global Warming. The fact that there are Solar Cycles points to Global Warming.

In fact, there are NO observations that could possibly disprove Global Warming.

Geez. It is a religion, not a science.

Re:Temperature

[alvinrod]

I don't mean to discredit what you say, but could you possibly give a better explanation of what's occurring and how it's related to global warming.

It seems that some times every event is a sure sign that X is occurring, whether or not there's actually any scientific proof behind it or not. It reminds me of whenever something happened it would be attributed to God, the gods, or some other deity supposedly controlling the fate of mankind depending on the time period.

I just don't want things to devolve to that point. I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, but could you provide some links that explain the science behind your comments or provide a more thorough explanation yourself. I don't mean to call you out as my own knowledge of climate science is largely non-existent, but I still tend to take statements without further explanation with a grain of salt.

Re:Temperature

[thesandbender]

Just because it's a desert doesn't mean it gets no precipitation, just very little. It's been averaging 4" a year at the south pole since they started taking measurements. Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth: http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/too-cold-to-snow/

Re:Temperature

[RichMan]

Actually the bit about snow was misleading. The article was about sea ice thickness. Sea ice is caused by cold air flowing from a pole toward the equator and cooling the ocean. More about that in a bit.

Back to the bit about "to cold to snow". Really cold air carries very little water vapour.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/222/

Now back to the article. The article described 1 year sea ice thickness. This is ice that forms on the sea over one winter and is essentially a measure of how cold the air was that winter. So first thought is that more ice implies a colder winter. Yes I agree with that. The question is what is the average global temperature. Global warming (called climate change by those who think explaining all the details will confuse people) does not mean it warms up everywhere.

Fact: Cold air does not come from the polar regions. Cold air comes from high in the atmosphere where air radiates heat to space. Warm air comes from contact with sun warmed ground and sea.
http://www.rcn27.dial.pipex.com/cloudsrus/wind.html

So the polar regions are cold because they get more cold air dropped on them from high in the atmosphere. What pushes the whole cycle is "heat". We like to think of hot and cold as relative to our norms. Real tempeature is degrees Kelvin. So the polar regions just have less heat than the equatorial regions.

Back to the circulation putting more heat into the system results in a global warming but also in an accelerated wind system. This will push more cold air down at the poles. Essentially making the poles colder and the polar winds colder. This will make the polar regions colder --- when they are not heated by the sun.

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles. Overall they will be shorter due to the added heat. There are lots of balances and more complex things. Particularly the global air circulation is not 1 cycle equator to poles, but banded. But the general idea is there.

Re:Temperature

[RichMan]

> Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth:

The article you quoted says --
    Once it drops below -20F, your chances of snow are virtually nil (but still possible).

I will take that "virtually nil (but still possible)" and say that effectively it does get to cold to snow.

Re:Temperature

[shadowofwind]

The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.

Sure, but many climate change alarmists, including Al Gore, have been hyping the threat of rising sea levels due to melting ice. So if global warming is going to cause ice to grow in some areas and shrink in others, as it will, then that still weakens their argument.

Re:Temperature

[JordanL]

Davis is not in central Antarctica. Nice try though.

Re:Temperature

[RichMan]

Sea ice has a minimal affect on sea level. So anything about more or less sea ice is to a first order irrelevant to global sea level.
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/04/ice-and-sea-level.html

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html
---
    In terms of the ice, there are five identifiable reservoirs, only one
of which is expected to be able to have catastrophic effects on sea
level. They are sea ice, mountain glaciers, the Greenland ice sheet,
the East Antarctic ice sheet, and the West Antarctic ice sheet. The one
expected to be potentially catastrophic is West Antarctica.
Catastrophic is taken to mean meters of sea level in a few hundred years
or less.

    First, why can't the other four be catastrophic? Sea ice cannot
change sea level much. That it can do so at all is because sea ice is
not made of quite the same material as the ocean. Sea ice is much
fresher than sea water (5 parts per thousand instead of about 35). When
the ice melts (pretend for the moment that it does so instantly and
retains its shape), the resultant melt water is still slightly less
dense than the original sea water. So the meltwater still 'stands' a
little higher than the local sea level. The amount of extra height
depends on the salinity difference between ice and ocean, and
corresponds to about 2% of the thickness of the original ice floe. For
30 million square kilometers of ice (global maximum extent) and average
thickness of 2 meters (the Arctic ice is about 3 meters, the Antarctic
is about 1), the corresponding change in global sea level would be 2
(meters) * 0.02 (salinity effect) * 0.10 (fraction of ocean covered by
ice), or 4 mm. Not a large figure, but not zero either. My thanks to
chappell@stat.wisc.edu (Rick Chappell) for making me work this out.
---

As an indicator of other things 1 year sea ice thickness is relevant on a second order. It is an indicator of the local winter average temperature. Local temperature changes are not global. I say that this indicator of a more cold winter shows an increased polar air circulation which is actually a positive indicator for global warming in general.

Re:Temperature

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been involved in any climate research, but what matters is WHY this is hapening.

Is it, as suggested above, because water falling there as snow instead of in Australia and Texas as rain is increasing volumes? Other explanations include:

  - Thermal expansion of the ice
  - Ice melting lubricates glacial movement
  - Ice sheets detatching allows faster glacial movement
  - Lower temperatures resulting in greater freezing of seawater.

Honestly though, conceptually this isn't amazingly complex. If we see temperatures rising, as measured by reliable equipment, thats called warming. If the ice thickens as the termperatures rise, that means something interesting is happening; It doesn't mean things aren't getting warmer.

When presented with scientific data, vested interests say "Oh yeah!? Prove it!". Instead of simply suggesting that they read the science reports and papers, many have tried to find anecdotes (permafrost, ice sheet collapse, etc etc) but these things don't 'prove' global warming any more than an ice thickening disproves it.

If only the population at large had an education sufficient to allow public discussion of the data found through research, there would be a great deal more consensus on this and other issues.

Science is not subjective.

Re:Temperature

[adonoman]

And -20F is only just starting to get cold for places like Antarctica, (or even continental/northern Canada and Russia). Where I live, we regularly get 2-3 weeks with highs below -20F, and you can depend on those weeks to be sunny and dry.

Re:Temperature

[Illserve]

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles.

Truly this is a theory that cannot be disproven.

When we thought the poles were melting, the infamous pictures of a wet polar bear on a little ice shelf were everywhere and we were told that this was the direct result of warming.

So now it seems the global warming theory can have its ice and melt it too.

Re:Temperature

[ultranova]

It is never too cold to snow.

The colder it is, the less moisture the air is capable of carrying, leading to less rain/snowfall. Basically, when it gets below about -10 degree Celsius, you can safely bet it'll be nice and sunny; there simply isn't enough evaporated water to form clouds.

This is my experience from living 30 years in a polar country (Finland); disregard it if you want.

Re:Temperature

[Nyeerrmm]

I'm pretty sure it means reducing the amount of net carbon you add to the climate system. Anything you breathe out or decay into is already in the system, with the natural balance of plant respiration to keep the overall levels even. The problem is when you release carbon thats been sequestered in fossil fuels for millions of years; thus the phrase 'Carbon Neutral'.

It's also the reason why biofuels make sense, even if the particular blend isn't much cleaner than a fossil fuel-based product, the biomass that goes into making it sequestered that carbon before re-releasing it, keeping the atmospheric balance at the level we're used to.

Re:Temperature

[Illserve]

You must take into account water/air circulation in the whole system at the very least too. Or choose to take the the butterfly or shit happens explanations.

What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.

The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what's going on. But that doesn't stop many people from boldly claiming that "X causes Y" with undeserved confidence.

What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)

Re:Temperature

[im_thatoneguy]

Of course it can.

Just like I can say we're getting less percipitation but more flooding in the northwest US. If there is a huge deluge of percipitation but then a 3 month drought then that can actually cause worse flooding later.

Similarly it could rain more often but still rain less.

That's why the leading worry about Global Warming isn't that you're going to need to get 3 more days of nice sunny weather every day. It's that Global Warming will cause UNPREDICTABLE weather patterns. Such as freak deep freezes. Unexpected ice patterns etc in addition to hotter summers and draught.

Maybe a region will see its weather patterns change such that they receive tons of percipitation during the winter but none during the growing season. That's a bad change for agriculture even if the region receives "more rain".

You're building a strawman against climate change that "Scientists claim that global warming will cause global heating in every point on earth." That's not a claim of global warming. And when shipping lanes open through the north pole (where polar bears reside) I would hardly be hasty to suggest that in general ice sheets aren't shrinking simply because one small region on earth is seeing increased ice.

There's increased ice in my freezer too... does that disprove global warming? Look at the data as a whole not cherry picked exceptions to the data trends.

Re:Temperature

[im_thatoneguy]

What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)

So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?

Talk about appealing to false causality. Was Katrina caused by GW? Who knows. One point of data trend does not make. Is the Arctic Melting caused by the fact that it's getting warmer, along with the rest of the planet on average? That's a pretty hard thing to disprove with millions of points of data all pointing to the same thing "The earth is warming."

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

Yes, you missed that it is called climate change, and not global warming. The earth is a very complicated heat engine. There are feed backs, inverse feedbacks, flows and currents moving heat around all over the place. If you dramatically change the climate then you may dramatically the way the heat engine works. This may mean that some places get colder even if on average the earth is getting warmer.

So yes, if it is colder in places that are supposed to be warmer, then it may be climate change. If it is warmer where it is supposed to be colder then it may be climate change.

Note also it is climate change. Climate means weather over a long period of time. So if it is freakishly warm one day, or strangely cold another day (or week or even season) then it may not be climate change. You need to look at trends over a long period of time before you can say anything about the climate.

Of course the fact that the earth is extremely complicated doesn't stop some people from using some FUD from oil companies along with a couple of hours of watching the Discovery channel to think that they know everything about an entire field of physics.

Re:Temperature

[TapeCutter]

How insightfull of you to put your words in other people's mouths.

The last few years have been warmer than any year in the 20th centry except 1998.

Antartic sea ice was PREDITED to expand using climate models.

The last one is just mindless.

As for religion, I'm afraid you are the one who's dogma is impervious to science. OTOH it's a free country and you have the right to make a fool of yourself.

Re:Temperature

[Illserve]

So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?

Did the GGGP of this post not just say that global warming causes COLDER poles?

How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?

It's an impossible position you've put your opponents in; none of the evidence counts against you.

Re:Temperature

[wasted]

Fact: Cold air does not come from the polar regions. Cold air comes from high in the atmosphere where air radiates heat to space. Warm air comes from contact with sun warmed ground and sea.
http://www.rcn27.dial.pipex.com/cloudsrus/wind.html

Your reference does not support your alledged Fact, and your alledged Fact ignores the concept of adiabatic warming. The poles are colder than the equator because they receive less energy from the sun, not because descending air is colder. This casts a LOT of doubt to the validity of the rest of your arguments as well.

*Note that the adiabatic warming reference is from an education institution site, not a property development site.

Re:Temperature

[theodicey]

What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.

No, what is clear is that your understanding of atmospheric dynamics is awful. So is mine, and the average slashdotter's as well.

That's why I don't post blather about the new climate article du jour until I see what real climatologists, e.g. the folks at RealClimate, have to say. (Especially because 75% of the reaction to any new discovery will be spin by the deniers, who are always looking for that magic bullet.)

What you're doing is like reading few YouTube comments and concluding that the process of making a video is poorly understood.

Re:Temperature

[Prhean]

So you are saying that our planet has the ability to absorb some fluctuations and still be habitable. The word equilibrium comes to mind. Aw, heck. Let's devastate the global economy, anyway, so that global warming scientists (oops! I mean climate change scientists) will have plenty of business, research grants, prestige, and power.

Re:Temperature

[rtb61]

You really shouldn't confuse religious dogma with out and out greed. So the non global warming sponsors are not impervious to science, they simply don't care, the lies they spread are all about them sustaining and increasing their profits, they are completely and utterly indifferent to damage they knowingly do, don't think for a second that they don't employ their own scientists to analyse the data coming out so that they, ever so perversely, more effectively target their lies at it to obscure and taint the truth.

The most tragic thing that is going on at the moment is these same people are now using global warming and CO2 as a misdirecting focus so they can continue to pollute our environment with a whole range of other toxic substances. They are basically using the more complex science of global warming as a means by which to obfuscate the whole issue of all the pollutants created by burning various fossil fuels as well as biofuels.

While global warming is definitely an issue it is still in reality second to other the other toxic results of the 'infernal' combustion engine and the carcinogens that result which are currently basically being sequestered in our bodies.

Re:Temperature

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I second this question. There is some kind of inconsistency in this thread.

No, that's just cause you weren't reading carefully enough to note the important parts of what he was saying.

Global warming gets you colder winters at the poles because of the increased air circulation. He also claimed that the winters would become _shorter_, and I assume the summers then would also be warmer.

Thus increased ice thickness wouldn't be evidence against global warming, and the theory is disprovable if you can show that the winters aren't becoming shorter.

Re:Temperature

[tie_guy_matt]

Let's see, we have a couple of hundred years of people measuring climate scientifically. Next we have thousands of years of human history in which we can infer the climate even if it wasn't measured scientifically. Next we have things like tree rings that can map out how well a tree grew year after year for thousands of years which can tell us about rain fall and seasonal temperature. After that we have geological evidence left by the ways in which climate can alter the earth itself. Finally we have arctic ice. The thickness of a layer of ice can tell use much about average global temeperature year after year for millions of years. Not only that but the ice tends to dissolve things like co2 and aerosols that were in the atmosphere at the time the ice froze.

Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html for those that have never heard of google -- but there are many other references besides Al Gore.)

But yeah except for the ice sheets, evidence left in trees and other geological evidence, as well as measurements made by humans either scientifically or not, we don't really have a freaking clue when it comes to what our climate is and what is normal and what isn't. After all, if it is from the oil company, or if you saw it on the discovery channel then that must make you an expert and everything you think must be true!

Note, I am not trying to slam the discovery channel. They make some good programs. But tv doesn't make you an expert!

Re:Temperature

[Nutria]

Global warming gets you colder winters at the poles because of the increased air circulation. He also claimed that the winters would become _shorter_, and I assume the summers then would also be warmer.

Let us then keep an eye on this sea ice graph. The peaks and valleys should get more extreme.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

How much of the melting, though, is caused by coal and wood soot from India and China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.html>

black carbon ... recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet's warming

But the awareness of black carbon's role in climate change has come so recently that it was not even mentioned as a warming agent in the 2007 summary report by the (IPCC) that pronounced the evidence for global warming to be "unequivocal."

BTW, if 1/5 of the cause of AGW was "discovered" less than 2 years ago, what are scientists going to discover 2 years from now? That it's really 2/5 of the cause? Or something else that's totally unexpected?

While the developed world spends even more money that we don't have on projects with dubious worth?

Re:Temperature

[Rockoon]

Let me get this straight...

The AGW camp is predicting that things will be unpredictable...

..in spite of the fact that no methodology has ever shown skill at predicting the climate before.

Here is what I have observed:

A few years ago hurricanes were all the AGW rage. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy" arguement), but when that failed to happen they then predicted fewer and weaker hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy produces windsheer" arguement.)

Then, they predicted increased melting of the polar ice due to global warming (the "warmer atmosphere" arguement), but now we find out that when that didnt happen that they now predict a decrease in melting of the polar ice (the "warmer atmosphere causes greater circulation" arguement.)

Here is the way I see it:

Whatever data comes in, there is a pro-AGW arguement waiting to support it, and that tells me quite clearly that nobody has a god damn clue what the fuck is going on, but that AGW = DOLLARS FOR CLIMATOLOGISTS.

Re:Temperature

[WalksOnDirt]

You failed to understand the first sentence in your link: "1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA". If you'll check, 1938 was not close to the recent global temperatures.

And you wonder why we have no respect for those like you who ignore the science.

Re:Temperature

[Toonol]

I fear, though, that Climatology is more like Economics than it is like physics; it's modeling a chaotic system, and we can't do that very well.. I suspect that the majority of climatologists have an awful understanding of atmospheric dynamics. In some fields, we simply aren't very advanced yet. Look at psychology, for an example; we're barely past the "bloodletting and prayer" phase in that area.

Re:Temperature

[Kumiorava]

You are wrong, water increases volume when heated up. Quite significant (read: small fraction) amount of sea level rise is attributed to water expanding in higher temperature.

Re:Temperature

[Anne Thwacks]

Bloodletting and prayer are much more advanced than economics.

We know for sure that:

a) If there are N economists, there are N! explanations of what is happening, of which < 1 are probably correct.

b) The more qualified an economist, the less likely his predictions are to be right.

I would say climatology is in the same boat.

Re:Temperature

[JugglingMascot]

Climate models show a steep increase of temperature at the north pole and flat or even slight cooling at the south pole. I have never understood the reason that the poles are different in this regard. These results are no surprise to the IPCC, more sea ice at the North pole would really be surprising. The projections for the future showing high warming at the north pole and less at the south can be found at the bottom of the summary for policy makers; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf The IPCC physical science report showing a high probability of short-term warming at the south pole http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

how bout them apples

[superwiz]

inconvenient truth?

Re:how bout them apples

[synthesizerpatel]

For the record, I'd like to provider a short list of things that aren't cogent political arguments:

1) Television catch phrases

2) Proper nouns

3) Noises

5) Movie titles

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Daimanta]

"It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature."

Since IS market driven. There is a BIG BIG market for global warming and that's where the money is so climate scientists focus on global warming and not other topics or (God forbid) the heresy that is global warming denial.

Number juggling.

[the_other_chewey]

last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

So?

Re:Number juggling.

[sqrt(2)]

Shhhh! Don't let frivolous things like logic and facts get in the way of bashing the environmentalism movement. Protecting the environment is bad for business and in a truly free market there shouldn't be any restrictions on my megacorporation's right to pollute the atmosphere. After all, people are smart, rational, and think ahead so if my company pollutes they'll just take their business elsewhere and I'll go out of business. Can't you see how beautiful libertarianism and the free market is? It solves climate change better than those silly scientists and regulations ever could.

Re:Number juggling.

[thetoadwarrior]

The thing is, intelligent people realise, that being green is good for business. The middle east and a few other select areas own oil

But any place in the US, Europe, etc can become a dominate energy player by inventing new means to generate energy. The green movement, silly or not, creates jobs rather than takes jobs away.

Good data point, does not reverse slope of line

[Phat_Tony]

Great data and interesting if it proves out. But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Global warming is not a powerful enough trend to counteract all other factors- it still get colder in fall and winter in temperate zones, and it's often colder from one day to the next. While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so, some individual years buck the trend, and some resorts (like Holiday Valley in New York) have experienced the opposite trend. It's a hugely complex system with a lot of random variation and unknown factors. While the satellite data tells us that the average temperature of the earth is increasing every year, that leaves a lot of room for variation from the mean, and some parts of the world are actually getting colder. Due to the complexities of weather, some areas may experience more snowfall when the temperature rises. So don't make this out to mean more than it is.

But it is very interesting, and could force changes to models claiming rapidly rising sea levels due to global warming.

West-Antarctica

[Yokaze]

To my knowledge, it is already known, that the ice thickens in West-Antarctica (News from 2002). Davis-Station seems to be located there.

I am interested, what new findings in West-Australia lead to Dr Allison's evaluation on the development of the whole continent of Antarctica. The posted article itself is a bit sparse on facts.

Whoop de doo!

[Dyinobal]

Global warming exists, but it doesn't scare me. The earth wasn't always this temperature, and if things get hotter we will just have to deal. An Ice age would scare me but not global warming, the earth was much warmer than it is now several million years ago, if it gets that warm again it doesn't mean we are all gonna die. Sure things might get hairy for a while but seriously global warming isn't that dangerous to our survival as a race. This how ever doesn't mean we should abandon working towards more energy efficient and cleaner sources of energy. This has to happen for us to progress forward as a race and while it should happen naturally I've no problem with a bunch of alarmists freaking out and spurring the desire for better sources of energy. When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Sure things might get hairy for a while

Look at where the coastline was during warmer spochs. "Hairy" is a polite word.

We also weren't trying to feed six billion humans last time it was seriously warm.

Re:Whoop de doo!

[physicsphairy]

We also weren't trying to feed six billion humans last time it was seriously warm.

I would like to point out that if it gets warm enough we will have an entire extra continent to farm and live in, not to mention all the other land that is currently locked away under ice sheets.

And as has been pointed out extensively in the 'arctic snowfall' discussion here, atmospheric water content is related to temperature. Generally speaking, higher temperature == more rain.

I think increases in technology are more than capable of handling our food supply problem for the foreseeable feature, but in a desperate situation, perhaps increased global warming would be our best investment.

Oh boy!

[Virak]

Time for a mature, enlightened debate on climate change, by people with thorough knowledge of the field who don't parrot long-discredited bullshit at all! I do so enjoy these discussions. They're almost as intelligent as Slashdot discussions on economics.

People don't seem to understand

[93 Escort Wagon]

People hear "climate change" and "global warming" and think all the ice is going away. Thing is, while there are certain large ice masses that are almost certainly going to melt - the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, for instance - it's an open question how the bulk of Antarctica and Greenland is going to respond to a warmer climate. There will certainly be increased summer melting around the periphery, but there is some speculation that the total ice volume in these places will increase due to warmer (but still below freezing) temperatures. Thing is, for much of the year the air is so cold there that it just doesn't have the carrying capacity for much total water volume. Warmer air can simply carry more water than colder air, which can mean more snow and more ice pack. I say "can mean" because climate change can also affect weather patterns, which can alter the amount of precipitation that falls or even alter the source region for the precipitation that eventually reaches a given location.

However when it comes to smaller glaciers and ice fields, where the average annual temperature was significantly closer to freezing to begin with, it's more obvious that they're shrinking or completely going away.

FWIW up until a few years ago I worked in a climate research lab where we studied the climate records in ice from Greenland and Antarctica.
 

Re:People don't seem to understand

[Idiomatick]

Wait you actually worked in a research lab. I'm pretty sure here on /. that makes you biased. Since if you worked in a climate research lab you are pro-climate change. All them researchers are pro climate change so clearly your opinion is worthless.

Re:People don't seem to understand

[GryMor]

You are taking things out of context. The specific contexts you are ignoring right now are:

Local vs Global
Summer vs Winter
Annual Maximum vs Annual Minimum

Stop being an idiot and learn the nuances of what you are talking about. Maybe then you can productively attack the topic without sounding like an idiot.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Weedhopper]

That's not a bad point.

For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?

Re:Separation of Science and States

[causality]

> he general public apparently has no idea how incredibly dogmatic, religious, > and un-scientific much of modern science has become.

and

> I think the real issue here is that scientists have become another authority.

Or put more simply:

"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." - Max Planck

And he said that before the politics and money factors entered into science.

I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Especially when he said it doesn't happen as often as it should because change is sometimes painful. I will add one observation to that: what really makes change so painful is when your ego is invested in a particular outcome. When that ego need is replaced by a sense of awe derived from the mystery (and sometimes the absurdity) of the universe, which unfortunately seems rare these days, change can be something you welcome.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[ivan256]

s/ego/reputation/g

Where is that data?

[SuperKendall]

While the majority of ski resorts have reported a trend of less annual snowfall per year for the past twenty years or so,

Really? Where is that info from?

Because the data I can see says otherwise - like the SNOTEL Precipitation Data Table from Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado. Or Squaw Valley in California. Or Daisy Peak in Montana.

We've had dry years in Colorado over the past decade, but also some banner snow years. Similarly for other places in other states.

So where does the data validating that generally ski resorts have lower snowpack over the last twenty years come from? Or is it just something everyone "knows".

In reality I think that's a data point too variable to indicate anything one way or the other.

You are confused.

[Jane Q. Public]

Like many people, you have confused Libertarianism with lassez-faire government, or even Conservatism. They are NOT the same things at all.

Libertarians believe in the least amount of regulation that is necessary to do the job. That is not even close to the same as no regulation.

For example, either of last year's Libertarian candidates for President would have regulated the "financial industry" more, not less. Smart Libertarians support reasonable antitrust laws, not unbridled corporatism as they have so often been accused of advocating. And so on.

It might pay to learn something about a philosophy before you go around publicly insulting it.

Re:You are confused.

[Jane Q. Public]

And just as seriously: you don't have to believe me, you can just look at their public statements on the subject.

"Seriously, there are some rational Libertarians, but they are few and far-between."

Really? Considering that Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution (their two primary principles), what do you find irrational about that? Because that is what you are saying.

Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[thetoadwarrior]

Let's pretend that human activity has no effect on the environment.

With that in mind there is still no reason not to be more green.

Pollution shortens your life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7946838.stm
Pollutionis linked to Pneumonia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7347065.stm
Pollution affects birth weight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7988619.stm
Pollution alters brain function: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7288176.stm

So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?

Installing solar panels and using water butts and various other green things can save money so why wouldn't people want to save money?

You can't (shouldn't) drive while intoxicated so increased public transportation makes it better for me when I want to socialise with my friend with alcohol and what not. Riding on buses and trains I can sleep, read or use my laptop while going to work rather than just sitting behind the wheel stressing out. Those who insist on driving get the benefit of less traffic when more people use the train or bus So it's nothing but a benefit all around

My main concern is looking out for number one and looking out for the environment results in nothing but benefits for me as it does for most people. Ignorant people should realise this and stop focusing on just the planet. This isn't about tree huggers. This is about saving money and improving your life. So even if you have a "fuck the planet" attitude making certain change benefits yourself as well as the tree huggers.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[novakyu]

Well, reducing armaments globally would also solve world hunger several times over.

Wrong. The existing armaments can destroy the world many times over. The cost of producing them is peanuts compared to what we already spend on foreign aids and welfare.

Just look at United States. Right now, even with all the expenditures related to the war in Iraq, the military budget of United States (which outstrips military budget of any other country) is less than $700 billion. That sounds like a lot, but compared to the welfare budget (this is for a different year, and without all the "stimulus" funding), we spent $600 billion on Social Security, $380 billion on Medicare, $200 billion for Medicaid, and $320 for unemployment for total of at least $1500 billion on welfare programs federally.

This is how much we are spending to "feed the poor" in the United States and that's crippling our nation. Can you imagine what would happen if we tried to do that for, what, 1, 2, or 3 billion more people?

The liberal media would have you believe that we spend too much for military and armaments. Maybe we do—we sure spend much, much more than before the world wars. But compared to other spendings like those on social programs, it's really peanuts, and before we talk about removing our only defense from our enemies, we should talk about letting each person take responsibility for his action and not burdening the society for his (or his father's) laziness.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[im_thatoneguy]

And what happens when those millions of starving children can no longer grow crops because of climate change?

The amount of "money" you have doesn't mean jack squat if the price of food were to rise for some reaso--oh wait. That's already happening.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[im_thatoneguy]

Yes but SS, Medicare and Unemployment are all supposed to be payed out of their own incomes. Much like a forced savings fund. I don't know that I would call those "welfare" programs in the sense you're implying.

If we're talking about "Feeding the poor" then we shouldn't include SS, Unemployment *insurance* or much of medicare.

Medicaid and foodstamps being the two big programs to look at. At that point you see your 1600 billion shrink dramatically to less than 500 billion.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Jane Q. Public]

You did not read the whole thing, did you? That was already accounted for in the calculations. And I am not just talking out my ass here. The one to do the calculations was renowned economist Bjorn Lomborg (that is the closest you can get to the spelling in English), not just some clueless newspaper reporter. You can find his Ted talk on Youtube if you want to look. Take the short version or the full hour... your choice.

Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet...

[Jeeeb]

Yes because all welfare recipients are lazy, don't want to work and are happy to have the government take your hard earned dollars and give it to them....

I'm not American and I don't live in America. I do however receive welfare payments from my own government (Australian government). My family is lower-middle class, living in a regional town. The closest university is 1.5 hours drive away, which meant that in order to go to uni I had to leave home. My family couldn't afford to support me living on my own, but thanks to government support I've been able to go to a very good uni. On top of the support for living expenses I also receive a low-interest, deferred payment loan from the government to pay my tuition fees. Once I start working I'll of course pay that back. Personally I believe that making sure that the quality of education available to people depends not on their family background but on the ability of the individual is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society.

I can think of plenty of other examples of reasons why people might receive welfare other than being lazy. We don't live in a fair world and people do fall on hard times, irrespective of whether they're hard working or lazy, and I can't see why it's such a bad thing that the government does support these people through hard times.

Oh and American spends about 4% of GDP on its military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States). Most western countries spend about 2%. Take the EU for example at roughly half the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union) while having a larger GDP than the US. If American military spending was in line with the rest of the western world you could have the bailout paid for in a few years. Then plenty of money left for infrastructure upgrades, genuine nation building and further paying down the deficit before the interest repayments seriously weigh down the US governments spending ability. Also I know it sounds pretty left wing, but you know, maybe people would hate you less if you weren't bombing their countries? Maybe these countries could reach stability if you weren't propping up dictatorships and toppling unfavorable governments... Call me crazy but I think you'd be a lot more secure if you spent less on your military and kept to yourselves.

Re:Climate Change - not global warming

[thetoadwarrior]

People don't realise that global warming never meant that the whole world turns into the tropics but that weather patterns shift (ie cold places get warmer but other areas could very well get colder) and that it's still a negative thing because everything in those environments depend on certain temperatures.

Not that it really matters. it's fact that pollution has a very negative impact on human beings so we should care even if there is no negative effects on the environment.

You have to HAVE a line...

[Jane Q. Public]

... before you can reverse its slope. Can you point me to one? Not the lines presented in "An Inconvenient Truth", because inconveniently for Al Gore, those have already been thoroughly discredited.

So, where does your line come from? Show it to me, please. Credible data from one or more credible sources clearly showing this trend you claim.

By the way, according to your pet satellite data, the upper atmosphere has not been warming in the way predicted by any of the greenhouse-gas warming models.

When it was warmer in the past

[Jane Q. Public]

it also tended to be wetter. The amount of arable land that could be used for growing crops was larger, not smaller.

Praise FSM for increased piracy

[Ranger]

It's scientifically proven that there is a direct inverse correspondence between the number of pirates and global warming. As the number of pirates decreased global warming increased. Now that piracy in Somalia has gone up the ice in that one tiny spot in Antarctica. It'll surely compensate for the rapid flow of glaciers in the West Antarctic icesheet as they flow unimpeded into the sea now that more of the iceshelfs are gone. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his infinite wisdom for making that happen. He was none to happy about Obama killing those pirates.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

I bet a climate scientist could have gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for arguing that manmade CO2 wasn't causing climate change. Exxon Mobil has plenty of money for anyone who can sow doubt about the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.

Why not more scientific criticism of the hypothesis, then?

Because scientists went into science instead of law school because they care about reality.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[causality]

The Electric Universe people were completely discredited when the NASA probe spawned from Deep Impact collided with the comet Tempel 1. If the Universe were -- as they claim -- made up of anti-matter, the resulting explosion of the probe and comet would have vaporized a fair chunk of the solar system.

Of course, this didn't stop them from saying that the collision actually proved their theory since there was a little explosion.

I believe you're proving my point for me when I say that the people who vehemently oppose the Electric Universe (EU) theory tend not to be familiar with it. I have read their works extensively and have never, ever seen the EU folks make the claim that the Universe is made up of antimatter. If you want to see what they had to say about the Deep Impact collison with Tempel 1, look here and you will find something entirely different from what you just described.

You can also find more on the Deep Impact event in this category of the Thunderbolts site.

To date, I have never once seen an opponent of the EU theory who was thoroughly familiar with it. There is no substitute for your own inquiry.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[causality]

s/ego/reputation/g

The good reputation should go towards those who are willing to go wherever the facts lead them. A scientist who can say "I have discovered that I was mistaken and here is why" is the real article. Any of them who won't let facts get in the way of their pet beliefs/theories are not scientists at all; they are priests who wear a different sort of robe.

Where did you learn this crap?

[Jane Q. Public]

If I had thought that laissez-faire were synonymous with anarchy, then would have just written "anarchy". What makes you think I did? Assumptions?

Your assertions about Libertarianism (at least in the U.S.) are just plain false. Of course there are anarcho-libertarians. There are also anarcho-Republicans. That does not mean that either form a significant percentage of their respective parties. Trying to divide Libertarianism into two separate groups in this fashion is as fallacious as it would be to divide the Republican party the same way.

I have been around Libertarians for many years, and I am intimately familiar with their philosophy and their literature. It is nothing like what you portray at all. If in fact they wanted "the least amount of regulation, period" then they would indeed be anarchists, and there would be no point in even having a Libertarian party!

So when did you stop beating your wife?

[SuperKendall]

So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?

Because we are the purest form of evil! Anyone who thinks slightly differently from you, must be the spawn of Satan.

You see, no-one wants to "pollute the planet". None of us like it because of the reasons you list. But in the real world it's a complex relationship between people living and the impact they have. Your edict to "reduce pollution" is all well and good, but in what ways? If the way you choose means a 10% increase in job loss, is that really OK? Disallowing all car travel in a state forever and ever would be a great way to reduce pollution - and to really screw over a lot of people.

There are ways to reduce pollution and/or save the environment that are less impactful on people's lives. So rather than claiming everyone really wants to pollute, help people to understand how they can pollute less without losing much in return.

Headline more accurate than article?!

[Greg Lindahl]

This must be a first.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[jmorris42]

> I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:

Except Dr. Sagan was an almost canonical example of a politicized scientist toward the end of his life. His greatest work, Cosmos (which I have a DVD set of on my shelf) was greatly flawed by his growing political leanings (which were garden variety peacenik/green of the most naive uneducated sort) instead of focusing on the science which he was an actual authority on.

> In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,'

That has probably never happened. The other guy having really good (and repeatable) RESULTS can change opponents into supporters in science. Hell, scientists would probably still be debating relativity and quantum theory had not the Trinity Test not settled the matter in such dramatic fashion.

But that not the same as the the problems when scientists get into political affairs, they expect the decisions to be made on purely rational arguments that can be solved as a math problem. But they often can't. Political decisions aremore often cases of competing interests or weighing risk/rewards. Then we get to AGW and the usefuless of the scientific method is really called into question. AGW has almost zero actual numbers, it's all computer models and measurements close to the error bars where both sides can make good arguments, thus both sides now field Nobel Prize Winners in attempts to win by appeal to authority. But one side has Al Gore and James Hansen and that settles it as far as this non-scientist is concerned. Gore isn't a scientist but is treated as one and Hansen might have been a scientist once but has been nothing but a fraud since his antics with the hockey stick chart were debunked and he escaped all consequences.

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

To anyone who actually has done a bit of looking into Antarctica in climatic terms, this won't be surprising.

Start with a good map of Antarctica: Wikipedia has an excellent picture. You can see the Transantarctic Mountains pretty easily on the picture--it's the line roughly in the center. To the right is East Antarctica; to the left West Antarctica.

Now, you see those two patches of rather gray ice just west of the mountains? That's the part of the sheet that isn't on land. Much of West Antarctica is sitting on ice shelves. East Antarctica is basically a giant sheet of ice a few kilometers thick sitting on land.

For climatic reasons, East Antarctica is colder than West, and it simply doesn't snow that much. The massive cyclone that appears each winter doesn't help.

Gaining mass means you're getting more snow, which means that the temperature is, you know, getting warmer. The annual mean temperature is -57ÂC at the South Pole...

Now, many of you will say "this debunks global warming", etc., but you're missing a key part of the equation. West Antarctica may be 10% of the ice sheet of Antarctica, but when you compare that the entire Antarctic ice sheet comprises the majority of freshwater on Earth, a collapse of its ice sheet would result in significant rise of sea levels. And what's preventing its collapse? The Ross and Ronne Ice Shelves. And yep, they're shrinking.

Re:But what kind of crops?

[Jane Q. Public]

And yet NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, probably the most capable agency of its kind in the world, has itself released a paper stating that even if the global-warming alarmist's worst-case scenario were to happen, the oceans would rise an average of four inches worldwide over the next hundred years.

Who should I believe, do you think?

Re:So

[CarpetShark]

Will Al Gore and others who pronounced elevated ocean levels and other disasters due to melting ice now go on national television and admit that they were wrong? Somehow I doubt it

What makes you think they're wrong? The Earth is not a constant temperature throughout. I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler. That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[CarpetShark]

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Actually, this happens often in religion, once you reach a certain level, just like it happens in science once you reach a certain level. Like science, which has those to claim to follow it yet know little, and defend that knowledge incorrectly, you also get people raised with a religion who claim to follow it, defend it illogically because it's all they know, yet fail to understand what real religion is all about.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[moosesocks]

The climate in Antarctica is shifting all over the place.

It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on these things, and try to figure out what's causing it, and determine if it has any ramifications for the rest of us "up north"

Given that temperatures, weather patterns, and sea levels are extremely important to human activity, we need to get a bearing on what's going on, given that we're observing phenomena that have never been recorded.

If the climate really is changing, we need to know as far in advance as possible so that we can start planning for it, even if we're not causing it.

I've been in research groups who have (successfully) justified funding for research that they knew was a likely dead-end. I don't believe for an instant that climate science is one of those areas.

Re:Read the AC post below

[Jane Q. Public]

Nope. Missed by a mile.

The post you mention proves nothing. We know the earth is getting warmer. The question is whether people have been causing any of it.

And the charts at that link are all about surface temperature. The temperature measurements I mentioned were for the upper atmosphere. Two completely different things.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[wealthychef]

This one article is going to get lots and lots of attention, which makes the gp post's point. There is a HUGE market for evidence AGAINST global warming, just as there is a huge market for evidence FOR. How about if we not rush to conclusions from one data point? I would like to know how this fits into global warming, or if it disproves it. It's not like scientists are going to ignore it, don't worry.

Nothing unexpected

[Brandybuck]

The climate changes, because that is what climates do. Not only that, climates do not change in an orderly and expected fashion! The politicians and media pretend that all change is uniform. That if the climate is changing then it will change uniformly warmer and warmer until we all roast to death. Or that it will get cooler and cooler until glaciers roll over the continents. Neither view is correct, yet that is what we are told to believe. It is inconceivable to the politico-media complex that some places my get cooler and others warmer. Inconceivable that the climate has a balancing mechanism that prevents runaway change. Inconceivable that human beings are a part of nature and not an external contagion.

This constant cry that we are "destroying the planet" must stop. It is an absurd claim. Certainly we human beings should be good caretakers of our planet. We should seek to reduce pollution and other environmental externalities. But the fear mongering is not helping, and must stop.

Re:Nothing unexpected

[Turzyx]

The whole attitude regarding climate change is totally bizarre, with pseudo scientists cropping up all over the place to give their opinions which virtually never corroborate one another.

1."Climate change will result in more extreme temperatures" is a classic one. Every time there is freak weather the reports say "it's the coldest it's been since 18XX" and so on. What the hell? Our carbon footprint must have been massive before the industrial revolution then. It was all those windmills I reckon... Hold on a minute...

2."The gulf stream being diluted with fresh water from melting ice" being used as an excuse why the summers aren't as hot in the UK. Umm, see number 1?

With all due respect to the scientific community, if it's as good at predicting the weather (which it isn't) as the financial community is at predicting the economy, then how the hell do we even know reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing? It could be causing more problems.

We need more data. Too bad there's too much money in renewable energy sources and forcing Asia to seek expensive energy alternatives via Kyoto for people to change their minds now.

Summary...

[TheNetAvenger]

Interesting about a regions ice thinkness; however, this has nothing to do with CO2 levels, or global warming...

Maybe the politics and religion of SlashDot can for once leave the science to let's say the 'scientists'?

---

There are so many factors in 'global warming' from desalination and currents to polar winds just to top off a couple of important things that makes this report have nothing to do with overall climate status/change.

There is also the effect of mankind's pollution in opacity, as just the increases the Bush administration allowed in the past eight years would have once again decreased the amount of sunlight that gets to the surface, giving the earth a temporary cooling, that when stabalized could mean the global warming effects would hit many times faster than even the most extreme left alarmist would argue.

I love the goofs that want to tell everyone the Global Warming is in effect on a hot summer day and the other goofs that tell us it doesn't exist on a cold day.

Climate disturbance caused by man's contribution to enviornmental factors are not so easy to understand, but is something that needs to be taken seriously, as the science does show humans DO impact the climate. If it is more than expected, then watch as Europe and the north coast of America freezes over, which would be 'Global Warming'.

Do people honestly think that Global climates changes are 'not' important to mankind? History shows that natural changes nearly caused the demise of the human race several times.

It is something we should study as much as we can and prevent as much as we can, and with the 'chaotic' variable called man affecting the climate, the study and monitoring is needed now more than ever.

Molecular weight of oxygen

[Blancmange]

I did. I also checked out the molecular weight of oxygen, nitrogen and argon. There's no way oxygen can exist anywhere near ground level. There, the air is made entirely of argon.

If you want to breathe oxygen, you'll have to go up several hundred metres. Unfortunately, it will be relatively pure, highly corrosive even to organic materials and a terrible fire risk. To be safe, you'll have to go up much higher in the atmospheric layer cake to the boundary between the oxygen and nitrogen layers.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[doshell]

It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature.

That would essentially amount to enslaving all scientists to the desires of big corporations. No research would take place unless it led to an immediate big buck.

Science is not about making money or inventing ways to make money. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge, even when it gets you no tangible gain.

If you think that's a pointless goal, you should think how much of today's technology would have been possible if we hadn't researched "pointless science" decades or centuries ago. Would the "free market" be willing to invest in that science by then, when no one could see the potential applications?

But honestly, I for one don't think the pursuit of knowledge (with no strings attached) is a pointless goal. I think it is a rather worthwhile one.

The Planet is Fine

[chill]

A bit from George Carlin, the Big Electron rest his soul...

* * *

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet? I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn'

About the same time

[Quila]

The same time as Stallman becomes Microsoft's leading evangelist.

Al Gore will NEVER be wrong. Does a Christian think Christ could have been wrong? You don't question the prophet of your religion. Remember that cult psychological phenomenon where when the prediction of the cult is proven wrong people just redouble their belief? The same will happen here because GW/GC/CC is being followed as a religion, not as a science.

Case in Point

[DesScorp]

That's not a bad point.

For the last few years, guys with the slightest connection to anything even remotely connected to the climate and weather are being called "climate scientists" or "climate change expert." Huh?

Case in point: David Suzuki, a Canadian zoologist who has done all his professional work in genetics. Somehow, he became a climate scientist in the press. This is also the guy that said " climate change deniers", especially ones in politics, should be jailed for their "crimes".

Blasphemer!

[mrmeval]

Heretic!
Earth killer!
LIES!

Re:So

[Paltin]

Except that this doesn't disagree with the predictions made by scientists.

Let me explain:

First, ice thickness in Antarctica isn't controlled by temperature... as long as the temperature stay below freezing, which it does. Instead, the control on thickness is the amount of precipitation.

The IPCC predicts increased precipitation in the Antarctic to the tune of 25%. Just look up the IPCC report on climate change on confirm this.

Secondly, you should understand that the predictions are that there is an increase in average temperature; but not a uniform increase in temperature everywhere. Some places will see an increase, and some places a decrease, in temperature, precipitation, and other climatic variables.

You are right that we shouldn't believe people just because they have a powerful media presence. I personally recommend my alternative: knowing the facts.

polar region climate change

[phossie]

The thing a lot of people seem to be missing here is that the two poles are very different. Yes, they are poles, and have some similarity in the style of their extremes. But Antarctica is a continent surrounded by oceans. The Arctic is primarily ocean.

There are two really obvious related factors in the Arctic. One factor is, oddly enough, the melting point of sea ice. And the frequently overlooked part of that is that *it's a state change*. At a threshold temperature, the stuff changes state. So subtle changes in the central tendency of an oscillation around the melting point can bring the system suddenly out of apparent equilibrium and into... feedback. One factor is albedo. With less reflection from the sea ice, there's more thermal absorption, which leads to less reflection... feedback.

The *real* problem with the global warming evidence is that it's more and more frequently explained in simplistic terms by people who don't understand it, resulting in backlash. There are also a ton of advocacy people out there who lack actual scientific background. These are really complicated systems, and one of the reasons we model them is that they're too complicated for any one person to understand every single aspect; models are a sane way to integrate the results of studies requiring disparate expertise (or at least different people).

And yes, colder winters, longer summers, whatever... as you've pointed out, talking about this is useless without at least a clear and common reference. This story pulls one very interesting result out of context and into casual conversation. So I suppose I'll be going now. I would highly recommend a literature search to you. It's not difficult stuff to understand, experiment by experiment, it's just an incredibly complex set of interactions combined with frustrating (i.e. real-world) experimental conditions.

Re:polar region climate change

[Illserve]

These are really complicated systems, and one of the reasons we model them is that they're too complicated for any one person to understand every single aspect; models are a sane way to integrate the results of studies requiring disparate expertise (or at least different people).

I am a modeller, and I simulate the brain a system which is also mind bogglegingly complicated.

The secret ingredient that makes modelling work as an enterprise is the ability to make predictions, and then test them through experimental manipulations. The reasoning is that if your model captures a gem of truth, then it should be able to accurately predict data that you as the experimenter haven't seen yet.

Or at least, that's the theory. The ugly truth is that even in brain science that's a standard which is rarely lived up to.

And the situation is bound to be worse with modelling in climate science. One cannot even perform experiments because we don't have multiple earths to play around with.

So, while modelling is a way for scientists to explore theories and communicate, as you indicate, I fear that the climate modelling process is fundamentally bankrupt because it's impossible to run experiments for the purpose of testing models.

They do make pretty pictures though. A video of a virtual earth turning from blue to orange is extremely compelling!

expected

[speedtux]

I'm not sure what people are trying to prove here. Global warming leads to increased evaporation and so you expect some areas of the Antarctic to accumulate more snow and ice for a while. Furthermore, at the current levels of warming, you wouldn't expect anything to melt in the interior of Antarctica yet. None of that tells us anything about whether global warming is a threat or not. By the time the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica would start to melt, we'd already have much bigger problems on our hands elsewhere.

Re:Separation of Science and States

[ignavus]

I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

I suppose he is not quite old enough to remember the Reformation.

Different Gandhi

[mangu]

I love Gandhi

Are you aware that Indira Gandhi is not the same person one usually refers to as simply "Gandhi"?

But I must say I agree with the rest of your comment, the US is the biggest polluter and owes the rest of the world some respect. We all share the same planet.

And going back to the article, this shows the typical tactics of people who don't want to do their part in fighting global warming. They try to imply that the enormous amount of evidence that has been collected demonstrating the anthropogenic influence in global warming is just a bunch of isolated data. Yet they want to use one single measurement as evidence that there really isn't something like a sudden raise in temperatures over the last few hundred years that's more abrupt than anything ever seen on earth.

We are all confused

[Slur]

Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution

Well that's good, because that's what we have.

Of course, "free" doesn't mean "unregulated." If you have a 500 foot man living next door, you've just got to set a few ground rules about where he steps and where he shits.

As for the Constitution, well some would say "the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid dog fighting, so get off my back!" Gotta watch out for those folks who think it embodies the whole of the law. It may form the root principles, but the whole of the law is a living thing, constantly evolving through precedent and experience.

And there is nothing inherently laissez-faire Capitalist about the Constitution either, nor should it be. If Capitalism turns out to be yet another avenue for tyranny, the Constitution would suggest we cut it off, since its primary aim is to establish protection for the powerless from the powerful, the have-nots from the haves, the minority from the majority, and to keep any emerging power from monopolizing the government, which is by, for, and of the people.

If anything, the Constitution points towards anarchist syndicalism or some form of socialism. Unfortunately it's easier and more lucrative for the programmers of culture to harness our fears and vices than to motivate our hopes and virtues.