Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 Next
Comments 66501 to 66550:
-
Rob Painting at 16:49 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Based on Le Quéré (2009) - just over 23 million tons of CO2 are absorbed by the oceans every day. -
Rob Painting at 16:27 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Pirate - The figure of around a million tons of CO2, per hour, being absorbed by the ocean comes from one of Corinne Le Quere's papers IIRC. See if I can track it down. -
TOP at 16:19 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
daniel1
"That is, follow the Golden Rule, and you're following all of the Bible." Compare that to James 2:10 Even what you quoted about the Golden Rule doesn't quite fit AGW because the Golden Rule has to do with clearly identifiable actions that have clearly identifiable and certain consequences. Romans 13:8,9 & 10, but especially v9. In context Romans 13 comes after Romans 1-12 which are heavily involved in theology without much application. The application follows from the theology. Although the predicted consequences of GW may be serious they are speculative as is clear in the language of the ECI manifesto. And yes, Revelation 11:8 could refer to the things you mention. It could also refer to all out nuclear war or some other yet to be devised action of man. And in keeping with the verses that Tom Curtis quoted how about Revelation 14:7? I am of the opinion that anything man touches without God being involved is going to end up a mess. And just for the record, I am not arguing against the Golden Rule as presented in the Bible, only for the correct interpretation and application thereof. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:19 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Adrian Smits, this is an extremely inappropriate comment. Any change of pH toward a lower value constitutes acidification, regardless of what the original pH is. Just as well, a change in the other direction would be alkalinization, once again regardless of the original pH. I have seen this argument before and it could be summed up as the most stupid piece of nonsense ever uttered to make a consequence of CO2 release in the atmosphere seem innocuous through use of words. Seriously, you shouldn't go there. -
Rob Painting at 16:19 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Pirate - the acidification of the ocean right along the North American Pacific coast will be discussed in detail in an upcoming post. But that will be a couple of weeks away. You're right about being short on information - but the point of this re- post was to highlight the fact that the authorities had to be dragged along to court to acknowledge the problem. Oyster larvae started dissolving and dying 6 years ago from corrosive seawater.upwelling into the sound, and so far their response has been the all too familiar "heads in the sand' approach. Quite ironically part of the problem is intensified seasonal upwelling along the coast due to global warming. The strengthening winds lead to greater upwelling of corrosive deep water. This will be moderated depending on what phase the PDO (Pacific Decadal Osciallation) is in, but the source of the upwelling is water that was last at the surface around 40 years ago. In other words it will, most likely, progressively worsen. -
apiratelooksat50 at 15:33 PM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Rob, Is there more to this than the press release? The article and the link are short on information. Also, is there any documentation to the last first sentence of the last paragraph? -
TOP at 15:33 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
@Tom Curtis
The shamah (Deut 6:5) is part of what Jesus said. And Hayhoe didn't quote it, just the second part. You have clearly put you finger on the problem. Cherry picking. You can't have one love without the other. And as you point out by quoting that, the first most important law is to love God. You can't love your neighbor without loving God. Look at Exodus 19:1-17 which covers the same ground in more detail. And it is impossible to do so. Tom, both you and amhartley are cherry picking. Why don't you put together a biblical doctrine of weather? It is a frequent theme in the Bible. Then you will really know what I am alluding to. For starters have a look at Matthew 8:27, Matthew 14:26 bearing in mind Matthew 8:26. Hayhoe sort of missed that too. It creates havoc with the first claims in the ECI manifesto for an evangelical. ex cathera??? It's a subject I have a degree in. Ps 119:11 -
Daniel Livingston at 15:10 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
To add to Tom's comment @ 23 in response to TOP @ 18. Three of the eight Bible passages referenced in the ECI statement are "Golden Rule" passages. Interestingly, both Jesus and Paul BOTH say that the Golden Rule (to love your neighbour as yourself / do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is the essence of the Bible. That is, follow the Golden Rule, and you're following all of the Bible. Jesus says just that in Matt 7:12 and Matt 22:37-40 (both already referenced). His words about the Golden Rule in those passages: "for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" and "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (one of which was the Golden Rule). Just in case there was any doubt as to the underlying theme of the Bible, Paul confirms what Jesus said (in the above passages) in Galatians 5:14: "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" The other passages in the ECI statement seem relevant and well-chosen to me. @ Estiben (21): "3. There was no measurable AGW when the Bible was written, so one wouldn't expect statements on it." Interestingly, there are statements in the Bible (albeit relatively obscure compared to those used in ECI) that suggest prescience of humankind's potential to destructively alter the physical planet on a scale only possible in modern times. Consider: “... will destroy those who destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:18). The context and language suggest that "destroy" (in both instances) is physical, extensive and far into the future from the time of writing (2000 years ago). It's hard to think of a better fit than AGW, although other pullution / resource depletion (i.e., environmental) issues could also easily fit the text. -
John Hartz at 14:46 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Suggested reading: “Canadian climate scientist finds fame, hate mail in U.S.”, Toronto Globe & Mail, Jan 10, 2011 Click here to access. -
lloyd at 14:34 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I also hope Dr. Hayhoe continues to speak the truth about climate change. As an evangelical christian I share her concerns and try to pass on what I know about climate to others who are willing to listen. Because I believe the facts of climate change and the dire consequences we face under a BAU pathway I have done everything I can to prepare myself to teach science to middle school students with climate change being one piece of that preparation. I know my students need every opportunity to personally practice measuring climate change and sharing what they find out with others to make informed choices. Perhaps if we invited people to share their knowledge and experiences they would be more willing to listen and make better choices? I certainly hope that will be the case with my students. Here in the Midwest USA people respond favorably to change when it is in their best interest to do so or they perceive their actions as helping their neighbors. After the 1993 Mississippi River flood wiped the town of Valmeyer Illinois off the map the town had to decide where to rebuild, the floodplain or the nearby bluff. One of the facts they had to take into consideration was the possibility of a worse scenario brought on by a warmer climate. Eventually, the town as a whole decided to stay together and move to the bluff. One of the reasons given was that, "It was best for us and our neighbors". Perhaps we should encourage decision makers to recast economic changes related to a warming climate as a help thy neighbor choice? -
John Hartz at 14:18 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Suggested reading: "Climate Deniers Hit New Low With Vicious Attacks on Scientists" The Huffington Post, Jan 15, 2011 Click here to access. -
colinc at 14:15 PM on 16 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
@#1[JH]... You're quite welcome. As you (and others) may note, I, too, possess the fat-finger-feature! :D -
prokaryotes at 14:10 PM on 16 January 2012Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
Are there any web widgets to transport climate change science? -
Chris G at 14:03 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Tom C, I was thinking along the same lines; a Christian should be bound to not harming their neighbor. I think that is what drives some people a little nutty. The facts are that we have all been culpable (well, most of us anyway). We can accept that, or we can choose to believe that either nothing bad will happen, or, at least, we are not responsible for it. How many people can ask themselves "How many people will die as a result of my actions?" and be expected to give a truly rational answer, even to themselves? In general, I find that it's best to put aside any feelings of guilt or blame that anyone has, and decide how to move forward from there. Tom S, Yes, acting out of fear. Switching to psychology rather than theology, fear and denial often go hand it hand. -
JoeTheScientist at 14:00 PM on 16 January 2012Climate and Sea Level: An Emerging Hockey Stick
Bernard J - It's impossible to project meaningfully into the 22nd century. So much of the GW and SLR projections depend on 1. Population growth 2. Economic growth, and with it- energy growth 3. Shift to more GHG-intense fuels - peak oil, leading to more coal use and greater emission intensity Nobody can really predict where these drivers will go, and so the IPCC forecasts a range of possible scenarios. We have to know where these go in the 21st century before we can speak meaningfully of the 22nd. Right now there's an enormous amount of research in alternative energies. Today solar and other technologies cost much more than fossil alternatives, but in 15-30 years green technologies may wind up being cheaper, making them no-brainers to adopt. Just think of what happened with personal computers in 40 years! Unlike the 70s, when energy research was driven by fake scarcity created by OPEC, this time the scarcity is for real. This time the research won't just fade away. -
amhartley at 13:54 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
TOP, I suggest you review the following: Gen 2:15 on man’s / woman’s original purpose in the earth Isaiah 58:6 on “true fasting” Jeremiah 22:16 on “what it means to know” God Mt 25 on how to treat the Lord James 1 on “pure” or “true religion” Based on these passages, it seems to me that—if AGW is real—those Christians "from the liberal side," orthodox or not, have a pretty good handle on what God wants. -
jmsully at 13:52 PM on 16 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Also in the second paragraph "torrent of hate" sounds like John Cook generated it. After reading the post, it is clear he didn't.Moderator Response: [JH] Fixed. Thanks. -
JoeTheScientist at 13:48 PM on 16 January 2012U.S. 2011: The Wet Get Wetter, the Dry Get Drier
Martin - Perhaps nobody understands it. Climate change computer models are much better at projecting temperature than they are precipitation. (Rather like the 10-day weather forecasts. Temperature predictions tend to be more accurate than rain, which is pretty useless more than a few days out, even though they still make the 10-day forecast.) -
Colin at 13:46 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
John Hartz at 13:00 PM on 16 January, 2012 Colin: The Climate Change section of the Environment Canada website contains information about the costs of potential action steps for reducing GHGs emitted by Canadians. Thank you John. I'll spend time there and see if I can find the answers. Perhaps the info is all out there and I've simply failed to find it. As an aside, I'll try to improve my own communication skills. Thank you all. -
Tom Smerling at 13:34 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Though written for Christian audiences, Katharine's book, ,A Climate for Change is a model of clarity, simplicity and accuracy for any audience. Similarly, her slideshow for Republicans for Environmental Protection, "A Climate for Change: What is happening to our world, and what can we do about it?" has some of the clearest slides found anywhere, because they strip away all the clutter to reveal one key point. It is difficult to imagine how anybody with the slightest familiarity with Katharine's work or videos could possibly be so filled with hatred. She nails it when she says that those who heap scorn on climate science are acting out of fear, and "God is not the author of fear." -
JoeTheScientist at 13:33 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Of course she was beset with hatred. That's because it's not about facts or science. It's about ideology, and she betrayed some evangelical folks who see themselves as the true representatives of "the faith". -
colinc at 13:27 PM on 16 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #2
Not to be "picky," but perhaps a more appropriate term about the middles of the 2nd paragraph would be "solidarity." Feel free to omit/delete this remark from "publishing."Moderator Response: [JH] Typo fixed. Thank you. -
John Hartz at 13:00 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin: The Climate Change section of the Environment Canada website contains information about the costs of potential action steps for reducing GHGs emitted by Canadians. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:52 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
@ Colin Thank you for sharing your opinion, Colin. But as you admit & the others have already pointed out, it is one lacking in substance and foundation. To aver that there are "sides" in the rational science vs the fake-skeptic "debate" is to lend a false equivalency where there is none. One "side" has science, the scientific method, robust theory and centuries of supportive physics and empirical evidence. The other "side" has just the opposite. You then pile-on to that foundationless gimcrackery with (what amounts to) substanceless tone-trolling (in that you very likely have not read beyond the names of the series in question to the posts themselves). The website is for those seeking to understand what the actual science has to say vs what the fake-skeptics would like for you to believe. There is much for you to learn here, should your mind not already be closed to learning. -
Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I find TOP's (@ 18) claim that "The use of the Bible in the ECI manifesto is "cherry picking"..." intriguing. The most prominent use of the Bible in that manifesto is to assert that Christian's have an obligation to "love their neighbour as themselves". The clear ethical consequence of "loving your neighbour as yourself" is that harm to your neighbours should figure as prominently, and with the same weight in your considerations, as harm to yourself; and that benefit to yourself should figure no more prominently, and with no more weight than benefit to others. This most onerous, and consequently most ignored, of Jesus teaching is recounted by Matthew as follows:“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
As Luke's account makes clear, in Jesus' view your neighbour is anybody on whom your actions can have an impact, regardless of traditions of animisoty (if any), and regardlessof the existence of any prior personal relationship. In a world of global consequences, this means that for a Christian their "neighbour" is everyone in the world. Of this centrality of love, as Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats makes clear, failure to satisfy the commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself is equivalent to failing to love Jesus himself. John makes it clear that if you do not love your neighbour, you do not love God. And Paul makes it clear love is the most central aspect of Christian teaching. I could go on, but I believe that I have established the point. TOP's claim that the use of this passage is "cherry picking" is flat out false. So false, in fact, that nobody who has read and understood the Bible could honestly make it. Of course, most evangelical Christian's do ignore this passage for all intents and purposes. When they read Jesus' primary exposition of what it would actually mean to follow this central command, they say its all figurative, because they certainly recognize that it is onerous. Indeed, what is noteworthy about TOP's claim of cherry picking is backed by nothing but his own word. Apparently, it is a key part of TOP's theology that when TOP speaks ex cathedra he is infallible. -
Colin at 12:24 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
skywatcher at 11:50 AM on 16 January, 2012 Colin #116: This web site ... is solely focused on promoting a particular view. Yes, it is, the view of rational science. What alternative did you have in mind? I wasn't suggesting an alternative... I think the rest of the quoted post explains my point. -
Colin at 12:14 PM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Rob Painting at 10:34 AM on 16 January, 2012 Colin -"Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data" That is tone-trolling nonsense and completely false. I'm sorry you found my statement offensive. However, I don't think it's fair to summarily state that it is false. I made the statement from my own perspective as a non-scientific person. I was approaching the subject of "...obstacle to action..." from the perspective of someone who agrees with the need for action. I sincerely believe that more needs to be done to communicate the true cost of co2 reduction. Right now, that void is serving well the forces who oppose action by allowing them to make whatever outlandish claims they like to bolster their status-quo position. Our own federal environment minister recently stated that for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets in 2012, it would require removing every motor vehicle from the roads. That doesn't sound like a reasonable statement to me... but I don't have the facts to know. You can bet that a lot of people read that statement and without contradictory evidence were thankful we withdrew from Kyoto. -
skywatcher at 11:50 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin #116:This web site ... is solely focused on promoting a particular view.
Yes, it is, the view of rational science. What alternative did you have in mind? -
JosHagelaars at 11:27 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
@muoncounter #14 "The Dutch are hardly standing still on climate change" The Washington Post has beautiful photographs of some places of my country, but I don't know where the phrase "spending billions of euros on floating communities" is based upon. I couldn't trace any data in Holland, but I'm quite sure it is not true. People who like to live in the neighborhood of water can built such houses on their own expense and only when it is allowed by regulations. The last sentence of your quote seems correct to me. In the 90's we had some threats of flooding in the Netherlands caused by high water levels of our rivers, like the Rhine. The government decided to deal with this and with future estimates of even higher amounts of water being transported by the rivers because of climate change. Part of the measures taken is directed at improving the riverdikes and another part is directed to give more room to the rivers when necessary. Maybe the "billions of euros" are related to this protection program, I checked the budget for this project (it is public) and it is estimated to be 2.2 billion euros. -
Riccardo at 10:43 AM on 16 January 20129 Months After McLean
12 months after McLean:
credit: Hot Topic
-
Rob Painting at 10:34 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin -"Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data" That is tone-trolling nonsense and completely false. Now you may lack the background knowledge to distinguish between science and pseudo-science (the fake-skeptics), but that lack of information does not make the two sides equivalent. I hope you see the logic here. 97% of publishing climate scientists accept that global warming is real, based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence, and only 1% disagree. That should tell you something, even if you cannot distinguish between climate science and climate quackery. -
michael sweet at 10:30 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin, A quick check with the search function at the top of the page gave this article on Skeptical Science about costs. Perhaps if you read the article there it will answer your questions. If not, it is a better place to ask the questions you have. The short answer is that economic studies show it is much cheaper to reduce CO2 than to deal with the problems afterward. It is also much cheaper the sooner you start to reduce CO2. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:23 AM on 16 January 2012CO2 lags temperature
@ 129CBRider If I understand you correctly, you are of the persuasion that believes in cycles, and that the next cycle of an ice age is imminent. Of course, that would be ignoring a very great deal of established physics, based on centuries of research, by many thousands of scientists. Not to mention that these are the same physics that underpins the technology of today. So I recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture, plus The Big Picture Look at Global Warming. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. As an FYI, assertions lacking support in the science and the literature tend to get ignored. Failure to back up repeated assertions with source citations tends to get comments moderated or deleted. -
adelady at 10:00 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin "As an average citizen, with a vote, I think it is only reasonable that I learn the cost before I accept the prescription." But being (un)willing to pay certain costs for particular prescriptions has nothing to do with the diagnosis. Surely our personal or social willingness to pay costs is related entirely to how seriously we take the diagnosis we've been given and the prognosis if we don't take appropriate action. Most of this site is about diagnoses and prognoses. -
Riccardo at 09:25 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Colin discussing the best cure and its costs is what we all would love to do. But how can we if one side of the political arena still deny the need of any cure? -
Estiben at 09:23 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
TOP, 1. There clearly is consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real. I would venture to guess that you are correct that the ECI statement does not reflect the mainstream view among evangelicals. 2. The signers' position on biblical inerrancy is irrelevant. 3. There was no measurable AGW when the Bible was written, so one wouldn't expect statements on it. 4. The biblical passages used in the ECI statement were ones that support the ideas of caring for the poor and practicing good stewardship of Earth's resources. These principles are widely accepted as being in accord with the Bible as a whole, and with orthodox Christianity. -
JosHagelaars at 09:14 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
I have just read the RTCC interview, the level of intolerance is unbelievable. The national anthem of the USA speaks of "land of the free and home of the brave". For me Hayhoe is clearly the brave one and it seems to me that a lot of people in the USA think that the "free" part is only applicable to others having exactly the same ideas as they have. This looks like the return of the Spanish Inquisition, another era of Enlightenment is needed. I'm not a believer myself, but it is good to hear that science and a personal religious belief don't have to exclude each other. I hope that Katharine Hayhoe doesn't give up and also will be able to enjoy her climate-work. -
Chris G at 09:09 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Interesting discussion. Regarding the use of "cognitive dissonance", I think it is being used incorrectly. I believe it more accurately means that feeling of confusion and discomfort when you have distinct bits of information in your head, you believe them to all be true, and yet they conflict with each other. It is a feeling associated with conflicting information, but is not the information itself, and it only makes itself evident when the conflict is recognised. For instance, if someone you trust tells you that a good friend has done something awful. It can be identified with statements to the effect that, "I just don't know what to believe." or, "There must be some other explanation." (Hmm, all of a sudden Merchants of Doubt comes to mind.) It provokes a response based on emotion; as Rob Painting has noted, an easy way out of the dissonance is to reject part of the information. I think Gingerbaker exemplifies the tendency to think in Us and Them terms. It is important to break the habit of doing this; otherwise, it the division only widens. Then you end up with irrational scenarios where whatever the other side says must be wrong because the other side said it. My guess is that Gingrich's views on other issues are compatible with Hayhoe's, and so she felt no compunction against helping him. In her mind, I'm guessing, religious faith, party affiliation, and belief in science are independent; that appears not to be the case for many people. -
dana1981 at 08:55 AM on 16 January 2012Gillett et al. Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
MMM - we're considering doing an analysis of Michaels 2002. It's a relatively low-impact paper though - only Michaels ever seems to cite it, so it's just a question about whether it's worth the effort. It might be interesting though. Paul Magnus - there could be a small natural contribution to the warming (solar and/or volcanic). Gillett found a very small natural contribution from 1961 to 2010. -
Colin at 08:44 AM on 16 January 2012Climate Solutions by dana1981
Fair enough John, I stand corrected. But I think you've missed my point... This web site, and every other site I've seen is solely focused on promoting a particular view. Each side continues to present seemingly endless amounts of scientific data, bolstered by it's own interpretation, to convince the reader. Each side ridicules the other as being uninformed, biased, unqualified etc etc. This very web site has sunk to the adolescent level of name calling... "Baked Curry", "Christy Crocks", "Lindzen Illusions". However, my point is simply that nobody seems to want to discuss the cost of the cure. As an average citizen, with a vote, I think it is only reasonable that I learn the cost before I accept the prescription. I can't understand why that concept seems so difficult... -
TOP at 08:26 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
In regard to her manifesto and the signatories:- The same standard regarding a Biblical position to GW should be applied as is presented here: There is no consensus. It obviously isn't settled in the evangelical community that one can hold to a Biblical position and the position presented in ECI Statement is certainly not mainstream.
- While there are 500 signatories, a few of which are well known, many come from the liberal side of evangelical Christianity which doesn't necessarily hold to the Bible being inerrant and inspired.That there are 500 isn not indicative of any kind of shift in thinking. 500 or 5000 signatures could probabably be obtained objecting to the manifesto and Hayhoe's position.
- The Bible itself makes no statements about AGW one way or the other.
- The use of the Bible in the ECI manifesto is "cherry picking" and not acceptible in the Biblical hermeneutics or science.
If the canon of Scripture is considered as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.Biblical Hermeneutics
-
129CBRider at 08:18 AM on 16 January 2012CO2 lags temperature
Which causes what it kinda irrelevant if you consider the direct relationship between average global atmospheric temperatures and atmospheric CO2 content tells us that the next glacerization will be as extreme as the current rise in CO2 content, throwing us into an Ice Age the likes of which history has never seen, possibly only leaving a band around the equator without ice. -
Rob Painting at 08:01 AM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Manwichstick - Tatoosh Island (at the entrance to the estuary containing Puget Sound) has seen a drop in pH much lower than fossil fuel emissions would suggest, so clearly there is some other aspect which is not yet understood. It happens to be a region of strong natural upwelling (of highly acidified deep water), but not just the 'imported' Pacific oyster is struggling there - wild mussel populations are poised upon the brink too. This is indeed very,very serious, and it's disappointing that an agency tasked with protecting the environment has to be taken to court to even acknowledge the damage being done. -
r.pauli at 07:14 AM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
Yum oysters. We excel in denial. No problem here. We just ignore inconvenient facts. And that pesky EPA will soon be gone. The Puget Sound region is the land of falling bridge engineering failures and ignored science. Seattle is digging a below sea level traffic tunnel right on the waterfront and across an active fault. We are home to the Gates Foundation that heavily invests in coal. And Boeing is happily building planes for decades into the future - even tho US airports are starting to ground planes in summer heat. And remember it was a good thing Mt St Helens erupted on a Sunday - the very day that denialists like the sleep in. Move along. We call Seattle the Emerald City. Nothing to see here. No problems. Nothing to worry about. Pay no attention to that EPA behind the curtain. -
amhartley at 07:12 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Maybe some of you are aware of this effort http://creationcare.org/blog.php?blog=19 to "engage" with global warming, motivated by Christian concern for the earth & for the "least of these my brethren." -
william5331 at 07:00 AM on 16 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 1 - the background
Spikes in methane at the end of the last an previous ice periods withing the present 2.5m year ice age were not observed but spikes in Carbon dioxide were. Since the end of these ice periods was in sinc with Milankovitch obliquity, it is unlikely that the rise in CO2 was the cause of the start of the interglacials but rather the result. Since methane, on a geological time scale, is instantly converted to CO2, we would be unlikely to pick up a methane spike (in ice cores) but rater to observe it as a Carbon dioxide spike. The likely source of this methane would be the accumulation of methane clathrate under the continental ice sheets with the methane, over the 100,000 year life of the ice sheet coming from underground shale, coal and oil plus the anaerobic break down of organic material This would be "0ld" carbon and so carbon dating from the end of the most recent ice period might show some carbon dating anomalies. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/08/end-of-ice-ages.html -
Manwichstick at 06:48 AM on 16 January 2012Puget Sound, Under Threat From Ocean Acidification, Put on "Waters of Concern" List
I believe a .1 change in pH is equivalent to a 30% increase in concentration. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:25 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Gingerbaker... Actually, I think it makes total sense that she would write a chapter on climate change for Gingrich's book. Gingrich is also very religious and I think it's with the religious that she wants to convey the science of climate change. It's just sad that it's turned into yet another scene of hate-mongering from extremists. -
Manwichstick at 06:14 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Katherine has been fighting the good climate fight for a long time. She voluntarily spoke at the Ontario Association of Physics Teachers conference and did not ask for any money in return. Along with her parents, she has been in the science education business for her whole life as far as I can tell. She has been working "from the inside". Years ago she addressed the REP (Republicans for Environmental Protection) - I didn't such a thing existed - . Her lecture may still be available online somewhere. I'm not sure how religious she was before marrying her minister husband, but none-the-less she helps those in Texas to reflect on what the moral course of action ought to be. I am saddened to hear about her getting the hate mail. I think she is awesome and approaching this very nobly. I also think she maybe credited for the expression "climate weirding" in her efforts to help increase the climate literacy of those she tries to inform. I predict that she will keep doing what she has been doing and not slow down because of the personal attacks. -
muoncounter at 06:12 AM on 16 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
Dr. Hayhoe might have been impressed by Newt's own words on the environment in "A Contract with the Earth," Gingrich and Maple, 2007: I am convinced, however, that the environment is an issue that transcends politics. Americans deserve candor on this subject: why the environment is so important to all of us, and why the time has come to act on what we know. But he was sitting squarely on the fence at that time: We recognize that global climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data ... However we still cannot be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities. Should human behavior be a cause, to any extent, it wouldn't be surprising, given the role that human beings have played in other environmental events ... He was, once upon a time, almost a radical green: The greatest dangers to biodiversity on the planet today are poor people cutting down tropical forests for money and killing endangered species for meat. Wealthy people can afford to protect the forests and protect endangered species. Only to find that this particular Newt could switch from green to red in a heartbeat: The candidate immediately stated that global warming “hasn’t been totally proven” and even if it were, he would still oppose a cap-and-trade solution to combat carbon emissions which, as Gingrich argued, would “turn over the entire economy to the EPA.” He offered the following analogy to explain his position. “The Dutch face the problem of oceans. They decided to build dikes instead of lowering the sea.” Poor choice of examples, as the Dutch are hardly standing still on climate change: As sea levels swell and storms intensify, the Dutch are spending billions of euros on "floating communities" that can rise with surging flood waters, on cavernous garages that double as urban floodplains and on re-engineering parts of a coastline as long as North Carolina's. The government is engaging in "selective relocation" of farmers from flood-prone areas and expanding rivers and canals to contain anticipated swells. Perhaps not being included in Newt's book will, in the long run, work out as a good thing for Dr. Hayhoe.
Prev 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 Next
