The Arctic Ice is Getting Younger

Environment • Views: 6,130

Uh oh. Arctic ice to vanish in summer.

LONDON, England (CNN) — New data released Thursday suggests that the Arctic Ocean will be “largely ice free” during summer within a decade.

The report, complied by the UK-based Catlin Arctic Survey and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), is the latest research into ice thickness in the Arctic.

Researchers predict that within 20 years ice cover will be completely gone during the warmer months.

The expedition, which was completed in May, was led by UK explorer Pen Hadow. He and his team collected data by manually drilling into the ice and noting its thickness along a 450-kilometer route across the northern part of the Beaufort Sea. They found that the area surveyed was comprised almost exclusively of first year ice.

Scientists think this is significant because traditionally the region has been made up of much older, thicker ice.

“Discovering this area of younger ice provides another body of information that supports the rapidly emerging scientific consensus that it’s going to be nearer 10 years from now that we will see roughly 80-85 percent free waters in the Arctic Ocean,” Hadow told CNN.

Measurements taken by Hadow and his team report that the ice-floes were on average 1.8 meters thick — which, according to scientists, is too thin to survive next summer’s ice melt.

Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the UK’s University of Cambridge said: “With a large part of the region now first year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable. The area is now more likely to become open water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone.”

Jump to bottom

327 comments
1 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:29:55pm

Ludwig hit this topic in the last thread, so i have to ask him:

If AGW can’t be stopped, how bad will it be?

2 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:31:29pm

But it won’t raise sea levels.

Why?

Because when water freezes into ice the volume expands, as anyone with a fridge knows.

If the ice all melts, levels should stay the same or even go down.

Not that that has any bearing on whatever else we may decide to do. Which will end up being nothing, or war, or shouting, because human beings in the aggregate can’t think ahead more than fifteen minutes.

3 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:32:26pm

Here’s a short video on the impact of ice and global climate from NASA

Youtube Video

4 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:32:45pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

I really caught the wrong entry on that and misunderstood. I am asking when the tipping point he spoke of may be.

5 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:33:20pm

There are plenty of data sources on Arctic sea ice and they show significant increases in extent in the last two years. (e.g. JAXA & NSIDC). Catlin drilled where they could drill (in the flat areas).

Come on people, think!

6 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:33:37pm

re: #2 Cato the Elder

If the ice all melts, levels should stay the same or even go down.

That assumes all the ice is now floating over water. If there is ice over land, the melt would add to sea level.

7 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:33:46pm

re: #2 Cato the Elder

But you’re not factoring in Greenland, Cato. That’s ice is on land, not in water. And this isn’t including ice from Antarctica, which is also on land.

8 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:34:41pm

One of the resident propagandists really showed up fast for this one.

9 jaunte  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:35:03pm

re: #6 Mich-again

I think that is the concern for the Greenland ice cap.
sciencedaily.com

10 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:35:11pm

re: #5 Pythagoras

There are plenty of data sources on Arctic sea ice and they show significant increases in extent in the last two years. (e.g. JAXA & NSIDC). Catlin drilled where they could drill (in the flat areas).

Come on people, think!

This is utter nonsense.

11 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:37:11pm

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

This is utter nonsense.

Exactly!

12 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:38:28pm

re: #5 Pythagoras

I’m just curious, because I see where you’re posting from — who do you work for?

13 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:38:36pm

re: #6 Mich-again

That assumes all the ice is now floating over water. If there is ice over land, the melt would add to sea level.

re: #7 Sharmuta

But you’re not factoring in Greenland, Cato. That’s ice is on land, not in water. And this isn’t including ice from Antarctica, which is also on land.

Greenland is a lot smaller than the Arctic Sea. And even if all the ice melts, maybe one would balance out the other.

As a side note, it’s October 16, 2009, and we’ve had two snows here in New England already. That’s early.

I know, I know. Climate is not weather and weather is not climate.

My main point of skepsis is not the science or the potential problems, but what the hell are we divided humans going to do about it?

I mean, c’mon. If Copenhagen brings anything concrete, I’ll eat floe ice for a month.

14 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:39:05pm

re: #11 Pythagoras

I hope your theory is better than my last one.

15 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:40:54pm

Given how long it takes to change the arc of energy consumption, oil and gasoline-Can the tip be avoided? AGW is far from my usual reading, so I’m asking from just not knowing… Links welcome.

16 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:40:59pm

re: #5 Pythagoras

There’s extent, and there is thickness. Two different dimensions, stretch your mind and think in three dimensions for a change.

17 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:41:28pm

re: #13 Cato the Elder

Now that you’re here, Cato, I’ve got some more red meat to throw at you. Sarah Palin seems to be on a writing spree as of late. What do you make of it?

18 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:42:12pm

re: #5 Pythagoras

There are plenty of data sources on Arctic sea ice and they show significant increases in extent in the last two years. (e.g. JAXA & NSIDC). Catlin drilled where they could drill (in the flat areas).

Come on people, think!

Come on, Pythagoras. Do you think we’re idiots?

Choosing a classical name to put you into Orson Scott Card territory is so last century. Whose sock are you? Which corporation are sucking c**k for?

19 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:42:49pm

re: #13 Cato the Elder

Actually- it does sound a little like you’re conflating the science and the solutions. I think most of us at LGF are of the opinion we should be working towards nuclear as far as one solution…

But- why would you nit pic about the sea level if you have no complaint about the science?

20 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:42:52pm

re: #17 Dark_Falcon

Now that you’re here, Cato, I’ve got some more red meat to throw at you. Sarah Palin seems to be on a writing spree as of late. What do you make of it?

Off the bat?

I’m thinkin’ she worked a package deal with that ghost writer chick.

21 jaunte  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:43:09pm

Some interesting numbers on ice cap volumes and sea level rise potential:
hypertextbook.com

22 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:43:56pm

I really do love Sinclair…

Here is a good video on the details.

Youtube Video

Here are a few papers…

smithpa.demon.co.uk

[1] From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of
the melt season in September has declined sharply. All
models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4)
show declining Arctic ice cover over this period. However,
depending on the time window for analysis, none or very
few individual model simulations show trends comparable
to observations.
If the multi-model ensemble mean time
series provides a true representation of forced change by
greenhouse gas (GHG) loading, 33–38% of the observed
September trend from 1953–2006 is externally forced,
growing to 47–57% from 1979–2006. Given evidence that
as a group, the models underestimate the GHG response, the
externally forced component may be larger.
While both
observed and modeled Antarctic winter trends are small,
comparisons for summer are confounded by generally poor
model performance. Citation: Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland,
W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze (2007), Arctic sea ice
decline: Faster than forecast, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L09501,
doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.

cfa.harvard.edu

iabp.apl.washington.edu

Here is up to the minute (nearly) date data from NASA…

climate.nasa.gov

And here is a quote that fits. From Benjamin Desraeli

We live in an age when to be young and to be indifferent can be no longer synonymous. We must prepare for the coming hour. The claims of the Future are represented by suffering millions; and the Youth of a Nation are the trustees of Posterity.

23 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:44:15pm

re: #13 Cato the Elder

My main point of skepsis is not the science or the potential problems, but what the hell are we divided humans going to do about it?

I think this is where the emphasis should be. In theory you can stop ANTHROPOGENIC climate change, but you cannot stop climate change. There is no “normal” climate for the earth, just a constantly changing average. The coastlines, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia, have changed radically over the last 10,000 years, sometimes rapidly; and smaller changes on smaller time scales happen all the time. The natural factors that cause this CAN’T be stopped. At least some time and energy should go into thinking about how to move populations and resources as coastlines change. And not all the changes will be negative, particularly if some thought goes into planning ahead for them.

24 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:44:35pm

re: #11 Pythagoras

Exactly!

NO what you wrote. How about you look at the multiple links I just posted on this?

25 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:44:46pm

re: #13 Cato the Elder

My main point of skepsis is not the science or the potential problems, but what the hell are we divided humans going to do about it?

I agree with that. I wish we could separate the science from the politics in this whole debate. As it is now, to doubt the effectiveness of the proposed political solutions puts you in the same camp as the anti-science crowd.

26 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:45:04pm

re: #20 Cato the Elder

Off the bat?

I’m thinkin’ she worked a package deal with that ghost writer chick.

Why do think she can’t have written any of it herself?

/just asking, but I’m inclined to agree

27 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:45:19pm

re: #5 Pythagoras

There are plenty of data sources on Arctic sea ice and they show significant increases in extent in the last two years. (e.g. JAXA & NSIDC). Catlin drilled where they could drill (in the flat areas).

Come on people, think!

You think. Increase in extent can and in this case does accompany decrease in thickness.

28 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:45:47pm

re: #19 Sharmuta

Actually- it does sound a little like you’re conflating the science and the solutions. I think most of us at LGF are of the opinion we should be working towards nuclear as far as one solution…

But- why would you nit pic about the sea level if you have no complaint about the science?

Because I think the solutions are more important than the problems? And the cure is likely to be worse than the disease?

Just speaking from over two millennia of personal experience.

29 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:46:18pm

re: #13 Cato the Elder

Cato, Losing Greenland alone means you loose Baltimore.

30 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:48:59pm

In fact, please please do look at the information I have given you in those links.

The papers are all PDFs so you can read the whole thing - that is why I chose those, I assure you there are hundreds more. The video tells it to you in quick easy pieces.

This is real. It is not going away.

31 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:49:06pm

re: #23 dentate

Without the human added factors, would the change not come far more slowly? Leaving far more time to move?

32 Ojoe  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:49:28pm

If you read about the climate history of the earth, in the Brittanica anyway, it says that for most of the time the poles were ice free. But that is no excuse for living sloppily W.R.T. carbon emissions.

I wonder if it is not mankind’s job to keep things very steady here on earth.

(At some point or set of conditions).

Good night all.

33 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:49:39pm

re: #23 dentate

I think this is where the emphasis should be. In theory you can stop ANTHROPOGENIC climate change, but you cannot stop climate change. There is no “normal” climate for the earth, just a constantly changing average. The coastlines, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia, have changed radically over the last 10,000 years, sometimes rapidly; and smaller changes on smaller time scales happen all the time. The natural factors that cause this CAN’T be stopped. At least some time and energy should go into thinking about how to move populations and resources as coastlines change. And not all the changes will be negative, particularly if some thought goes into planning ahead for them.

A little thought might disclose that it would be cheaper to build some nuclear power plants and thereby avert the need to evacuate our coastal cities, than to have to abandon all that infrastructure and rebuild miles inland, then run out of coal and oil, and then build the nuclear power plants anyhow.

34 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:50:25pm

re: #29 LudwigVanQuixote

Cato, Losing Greenland alone means you loose Baltimore.

What, it will wander off into the Chesapeake Bay?

(personal review is our friend, PIMF won’t find it)

;-)

35 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:50:51pm

re: #29 LudwigVanQuixote

Cato, Losing Greenland alone means you loose Baltimore.

I left Baltimore a week ago. It can fend for itself.

36 Ojoe  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:51:53pm

re: #33 lostlakehiker

re: #33 lostlakehiker

Also, use more solar energy. Cheaper and easier than nuclear.

Good night again.

37 prairiefire  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:52:10pm

re: #26 Dark_Falcon

I have never read another public persona’s writings and had such a sense of schizophrenia. Even her resignation speech had such a rush of words, so quickly strung together that they seemed off by just a smidge, sorta psychotic. And the level of intelligent thought between editorials and Facebook output seems out of whack as well. Strange on a lot of levels.

38 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:52:14pm

re: #28 Cato the Elder

Just speaking from over two millennia of personal experience.

If you live in Pompeii, you may be able to modify your farming habits to re: #33 lostlakehiker

A little thought might disclose that it would be cheaper to build some nuclear power plants and thereby avert the need to evacuate our coastal cities, than to have to abandon all that infrastructure and rebuild miles inland, then run out of coal and oil, and then build the nuclear power plants anyhow.

You miss the point completely. The coastline changes over the past 10,000 years have NOTHING to do with anthropogenic anything, as have any other climate changes up to now. I am suggesting that you can stop ANTHROPOGENIC change, but change is still going to happen. Nuclear power plants will not change sunspots, the Earth’s precession on its axis, volcanic eruptions, etc. You can practice green farming in Pompeii, but you’d still better have an evacuation plan.

39 Bagua  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:52:24pm

re: #18 austin_blue

Downding for vulgarity.

40 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:52:25pm

re: #33 lostlakehiker

That makes too much sense so thus it has no chance of being pursued.

41 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:53:10pm

Lets assume for a moment there is soon enough nuclear etc to eliminate human released carbon etc as a major factor. What direction of change would we have? Warmer anyway from what we already released!

42 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:54:54pm

re: #23 dentate

You don’t get it.

Here it is again in small bits.

Right now we are driving a cycly. We are driving it by carbon emissions.

ONce we get to a certain point, other things take over and then there is no turning back.

The consequences are not ones that our civilization can endure if we cross that point.

This is a global problem. There is no other place to go.

If your home on the coast is flooded out - like say NY city and such then moving inland there is not enough food anymore. If you live in the south west, not only is there not enough food, but there is not enough water.

This is a problem that will be all over the world.

If you are one of the so called “climate winners” There are not many, Canada in some parts is one, then you will have to deal with starving, thirsty homeless and well armed Americans coming across your borders.

China will get flooded on it’s coasts and have to absorb large amounts of other Asians. They will of course just kill them.

Then there is the issue of spread of contagion.

We are, seriously, without exaggeration looking at the total collapse of civilization as we know it around the world. For certain BTW, the USA.

43 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:55:12pm

I’m all for reducing our footprint as fast as we can. Planning for the consequences of our actions already cast will be nearly as important I would think.

44 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:55:27pm

re: #34 austin_blue

What, it will wander off into the Chesapeake Bay?

(personal review is our friend, PIMF won’t find it)

;-)

No, the Bay will eat it.

45 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:56:23pm

re: #40 Mich-again

That makes too much sense so thus it has no chance of being pursued.

No, it doesn’t make sense. There is a problem in this debate, and that is the mindset that there is a NORMAL climate and that if we could stop AGW, everything would go back to some pristine natural state. But that pristine natural state was never stable. We don’t have to make the problem worse, but there are parts that we CANNOT change.

46 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:56:43pm

re: #26 Dark_Falcon

Why do think she can’t have written any of it herself?

/just asking, but I’m inclined to agree

Just because she can’t name a newspaper she reads? Because she was groomed and made up and dressed and coached and TelePromTered™ into her role as the moose-huntin’ momma from Wasilla? Because she dithers and fidgets and brings in irrelevant shite whenever someone asks her a question not on the menu?

But what do I know, perhaps she’s the modern world’s answer to Demosthenes. That inglourious old basterd.

47 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:56:46pm

re: #28 Cato the Elder

Because I think the solutions are more important than the problems? And the cure is likely to be worse than the disease?

Just speaking from over two millennia of personal experience.

How can we work on solutions if we’re not grasping the gravity of the problem? It’s certainly an important factor to consider in forming solutions. The fact we don’t have anything meaningful to debate in terms of solutions is the fault of the party in denial there is a problem. This leaves the left in full control of the solutions dialog, and that is what your issue is with? We (the party) can’t change the dialog until we grasp reality.

At this point, I think the mentality still needs changing. We can’t base our opposition to solutions on lies and denial. Every year we spend in denial is another year the situation grows worse, and we have nothing to show for how we’re going to deal with it at all at the end of the day. This must change. The GOP has to stop being the party that rejects reality. Every one of these articles is another wake-up call.

48 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:56:48pm

re: #42 LudwigVanQuixote

What is our window of opportunity to fix this?

49 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:56:48pm

re: #39 Bagua

Downding for vulgarity.

I up dinged your comment. I was rude.

Still, I wonder…

Shouldn’t you wonder about him?

50 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:57:28pm

< … crickets … >

51 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:57:38pm

We definitely have to do something this century, and the sooner the better. My friends in Barrow tell me that the season when you can drive on the pack ice is growing shorter and shorter.

There are other concerns as well. We have seen increased vulcanism on the ocean floor beneath the ice pack, including pyroclastic events at depths scientists did not think possible. While denialists use the vulcanism to pooh pooh AGW, it has me worried for other reasons.

Increased vulcanism+AGW= a compound factor that means it could possibly be worse than anyone imagines yet.

52 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:57:54pm

re: #50 Charles

< … crickets … >

???

53 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:58:25pm

re: #52 austin_blue

littlegreenfootballs.com

54 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:58:51pm

re: #50 Charles

< … crickets … >

The crickets’ chirp frequency is a function of temperature. They are in on the conspiracy

;-)

55 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:59:28pm

re: #35 Cato the Elder

I left Baltimore a week ago. It can fend for itself.

Good job. And I live high enough and off grid enough not to worry. Lots of natural resources up here. We could use a little cleaning up of the planet, shake out the shit so to speak.
//

56 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 8:59:39pm

re: #53 Charles

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Ah, yes, absolutely. We are on the same page.

57 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:00:24pm

OK so I was digging around trying to figure out how much methane ruminants around the world emit and how that quantity contributes to overall AGW (methane by volume is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2) and I came across this snippable sentence here.

In 2003, the government of New Zealand proposed a flatulence tax, which was not adopted because of public protest.

Hmm. The possibilities..

58 Bagua  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:00:46pm

re: #49 austin_blue

I up dinged your comment. I was rude.

Still, I wonder…

Shouldn’t you wonder about him?

I do wonder, I just don’t care for the language.

59 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:01:05pm

re: #52 austin_blue
the anti-warming guy is sorta quiet

60 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:01:17pm

re: #55 Walter L. Newton

Good job. And I live high enough and off grid enough not to worry. Lots of natural resources up here. We could use a little cleaning up of the planet, shake out the shit so to speak.
//


you’d better be kidding. Here in Chicago, an event like Ludwig described might be survivable, if we could keep enough good land available, though a lot of people would still die. Those people in lands that already don’t produce crops would be toast.

61 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:01:44pm

re: #59 swamprat

the anti-warming guy is sorta quiet

No, duh.

62 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:02:38pm

Taking Ludwig’s point-A major die off would be the other “fix”. Nature has its ways. That too has happened before just not to us.

63 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:02:55pm

re: #57 Mich-again

OK so I was digging around trying to figure out how much methane ruminants around the world emit and how that quantity contributes to overall AGW (methane by volume is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2) and I came across this snippable sentence here.

Hmm. The possibilities..

I’d have to stop eating chile, potato soup, and drinking beer if that were introduced…

64 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:03:02pm

re: #60 Dark_Falcon

Ya think?
Snows melt.
Great lakes may rise.

65 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:03:07pm

re: #45 dentate

No, it doesn’t make sense. There is a problem in this debate, and that is the mindset that there is a NORMAL climate and that if we could stop AGW, everything would go back to some pristine natural state. But that pristine natural state was never stable. We don’t have to make the problem worse, but there are parts that we CANNOT change.

There are transient and steady state effects and natural correction factors as well. It wasn’t stable, true, but that doesn’t mean it was random.

66 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:03:45pm

re: #64 swamprat

Ya think?
Snows melt.
Great lakes may rise.

They will rise, the question would be how much?

67 jaunte  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:03:54pm

re: #60 Dark_Falcon

Those people in lands that already don’t produce crops would be toast.


I think food is going to be the biggest problem. According to this, most of the land suitable for crop production is already in use:
books.google.com

68 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:04:03pm

re: #51 Thanos

We definitely have to do something this century, and the sooner the better. My friends in Barrow tell me that the season when you can drive on the pack ice is growing shorter and shorter.

There are other concerns as well. We have seen increased vulcanism on the ocean floor beneath the ice pack, including pyroclastic events at depths scientists did not think possible. While denialists use the vulcanism to pooh pooh AGW, it has me worried for other reasons.

Increased vulcanism+AGW= a compound factor that means it could possibly be worse than anyone imagines yet.

Yes. There are factors that affect climate that we CAN fix, and there are some that we cannot. It would be wise to plan to deal with both, not pretend that if we fix one, the problem goes away. We have huge populations near the coasts now, a different situation than existed in times past. We can’t just walk away from Beringia as it submerges, as did the ancestors of the Native Americans

69 Athens Runaway  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:04:21pm

re: #36 Ojoe

re: #33 lostlakehiker

Also, use more solar energy. Cheaper and easier than nuclear.

Good night again.

You forget that liberals hate nuclear power with a passion. Conservatives are the only ones (except for a very small minority on the left) that are supportive or receptive to the idea of nuclear power.

70 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:05:03pm

re: #66 Dark_Falcon
Ask LVQ. Never thought about Chicago. But if the lakes should rise…

71 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:05:17pm

re: #60 Dark_Falcon

you’d better be kidding. Here in Chicago, an event like Ludwig described might be survivable, if we could keep enough good land available, though a lot of people would still die. Those people in lands that already don’t produce crops would be toast.

Well, I’m not kidding if something doesn’t get done. It the shit hits the fan, you can be well sure that I’ll be ready to fend for myself and my family. Wouldn’t you?

72 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:05:49pm

re: #63 Thanos

I’d have to stop eating chile, potato soup, and drinking beer if that were introduced…

Ha. And no corned beef and cabbage on St. Pat’s day.

73 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:06:25pm

re: #67 jaunte

I think food is going to be the biggest problem. According to this, most of the land suitable for crop production is already in use:
[Link: books.google.com…]

True, but with Genetic Modification, we might well be able to increase per-acre yields enough to make us for some of the losses.

74 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:06:45pm

re: #69 Athens Runaway

You forget that liberals hate nuclear power with a passion. Conservatives are the only ones (except for a very small minority on the left) that are supportive or receptive to the idea of nuclear power.

The Greens in Germany are very upset about the new compromise plan. Europe has come to realize that they can’t meet Kyoto goals without Nuclear, eventually we will get there too.

thelocal.de

75 Athens Runaway  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:07:06pm

re: #69 Athens Runaway

You forget that liberals hate nuclear power with a passion. Conservatives are the only ones (except for a very small minority on the left) that are supportive or receptive to the idea of nuclear power.

Oops, wrong reply. But to answer your point about solar power, do you believe that solar power is enough to meet our power demands?

The majority of Americans live in areas that don’t have enough hours of direct sunlight for solar power to be economical. But economics rarely mix with environmentalists.

76 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:07:20pm

re: #65 Mich-again

If none of this were human caused, I suspect we as a species would go for deliberate climate modification to avert the warming. I’m not excusing our footprint, but we would attack deleterious change regardless of its origin. We may be lucky its us. We can change our ways a lot easier than the natural forces in play!

77 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:07:24pm

re: #65 Mich-again

There are transient and steady state effects and natural correction factors as well. It wasn’t stable, true, but that doesn’t mean it was random.

It WAS random to a large extent. There are limits, but over geologic time the earth has varied enormously in temperature, ice cover, and rainfall patterns. On shorter time scales the variation is not as great, but read about the Younger Dryas period of the last glaciation and you will see that changes can happen fairly rapidly, with no anthropogenic element involved. Climate change is not the problem. The EFFECT of those changes on human populations is the cause for concern. Certainly, we should do what we can not to make things worse, but we should also recognize that things are going to change regardless and some advance planning would be wise.

78 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:07:50pm

re: #38 dentate

You miss the point completely. The coastline changes over the past 10,000 years have NOTHING to do with anthropogenic anything, as have any other climate changes up to now. I am suggesting that you can stop ANTHROPOGENIC change, but change is still going to happen. Nuclear power plants will not change sunspots, the Earth’s precession on its axis, volcanic eruptions, etc. You can practice green farming in Pompeii, but you’d still better have an evacuation plan.

Evacuating this or that city is easy. Evacuating Bangladesh is tougher. Half the country goes underwater if the Greenland icecap melts. Where to put 50 million rice farmers? Yes, we will face naturally occurring climate changes. But these need not come any time soon, and they will probably unfold slowly enough that we can “evacuate” a city without ever having to abandon any valuable structures.

Humanity’s entire existence as a species has unfolded during a series of ice ages and intermissions. We’re not built for carboniferous-age climates. If we create one, we’ll face stiffer competition from insects and pathogens than we’ve yet encountered.

79 Bagua  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:07:54pm

re: #74 Thanos

The Greens in Germany are very upset about the new compromise plan. Europe has come to realize that they can’t meet Kyoto goals without Nuclear, eventually we will get there too.

[Link: www.thelocal.de…]

Yes, inconvenient that.

80 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:07:59pm

re: #73 Dark_Falcon

True, but with Genetic Modification, we might well be able to increase per-acre yields enough to make us for some of the losses.

And most Americans would survive just fine with half their normal food intake.

81 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:08:01pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Ludwig hit this topic in the last thread, so i have to ask him:

If AGW can’t be stopped, how bad will it be?

OK I sort of wrote about that, But there are 4 main issues…

Let’s look at the worst case.

The worst case is we do nothing, or not enough and cross a tipping point in the bogs of Siberia and Canada. If we cross that point, the following WILL happen.

1. That will lead to a 5-7 degree centigrade average temperature increase globally.

2. The oceans will start having anoxia. That means that there will be no oxygen in them. There will be mass extinctions there - including most of the things we eat from them. The reason has to do with carbon saturation in the oceans and changing of buffers as species dies off and ocean chemistry changes.

3. 200 ft of water raise around the world. Let me repeat. 200 ft of water raise around the world. In practical terms, no Florida, NY City, Boston, Baltimore, DC, New Orleans, LA, SD, Barcelona, Tokyo, well, you get the picture… Just consider what 200 ft would be like and ask if where you are now is 200 ft above sea level. G-d help certain Island nations and most of South East Asia as well.

4. Growing patterns in the Midwest of America and much of the US are shattered. Worldwide land based food production plummets in general.

5. Places worldwide that depend on meltwaters for freshwater, dry up. Those people move or die of thirst. This is the US South West and Parts of California. THis is also large parts of SOuth America and Asia as well. G-d help you again if you are in Africa.

6. As climate and migration patterns change, some species are actually winners in such an environment. Those species include, mosquitoes, rats cockroaches and other vermin. Contagion will spread.

The end result is hundreds of millions of deaths at a minimum and the total collapse of civilization as we know it.

82 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:08:12pm

re: #71 Walter L. Newton

Well, I’m not kidding if something doesn’t get done. It the shit hits the fan, you can be well sure that I’ll be ready to fend for myself and my family. Wouldn’t you?

How do you plan to fend for yourself and your family in the event of total catastrophic breakdown? Just asking.

83 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:08:26pm

re: #12 Charles

I’m just curious, because I see where you’re posting from — who do you work for?

I registered with my work email, which I chose not to disclose publicly but I assume you can see it. I’m in Reston, VA near the office now. Normally, I post from my house, where I telecommute from. While my education covers this field, my work has no connection. My job is strictly inventory theory (AKA supply chain modeling), mainly for fleet availability optimization, though I’m getting involved in a super-cool project of forensic audio analysis.

Since I seem to have triggered a hornets nest and I have to go to bed soon, let me restate the position I’ve articulated repeatedly here. I agree that temps are rising but do not think the quantitative case for a tipping point has been made. I feel that a linear extrapolation of the recent rates is the best projection of the future. In the past this position, and my arguments for it, earned me some praise from LVQ & Coracle.

Let me now add that I followed the Catlin expedition as it was happening and the failure of their measuring equipment, and their resulting need to drill holes manually, led to a huge reduction in the amount of data they were able to gather. The size of their data set was too small to be significant. Furthermore, the fact that they could only drill to measure meant that multi-year ice was mostly off limits as it is typically too uneven to drill through.

I greatly appreciate this web-site and can even tolerate the strange/vulgar insults for the privilege of engaging the genuinely intelligent people here. However, I can’t do it for long tonight. However, I will get back to LVQ’s comments ASAP — probably tomorrow.

84 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:08:48pm

Can we start a new thread, and get this over with?

I know they want to come out and flounce.

85 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:09:00pm

re: #82 SanFranciscoZionist

How do you plan to fend for yourself and your family in the event of total catastrophic breakdown? Just asking.

My secret.

86 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:09:21pm

re: #71 Walter L. Newton

Well, I’m not kidding if something doesn’t get done. It the shit hits the fan, you can be well sure that I’ll be ready to fend for myself and my family. Wouldn’t you?

I would if I had anyone I could help in such a circumstance. In reality, however, my own chances of survival in such an event would be quite low. Mostly because I doubt I’d want to survive. I’ll be honest if the disaster is a The Good Life is Over type of thing, I’d probably kill myself rather than try to adjust.

87 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:10:08pm

re: #48 Rightwingconspirator

What is our window of opportunity to fix this?

We don’t know. There is a lot of debate. Some actual scientists believe that we are perilously close to or have already passed a tipping point. They are still in the minority.

Others place the tipping points still decades out.

Mind you we wasted an entire decade under Bush doing nothing - and so far we are still doing nothing under Obama.

So even in the best case scenario, like we have 30 years - we need to get cracking NOW.

88 Killgore Trout  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:10:25pm
89 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:10:27pm

re: #50 Charles

< … crickets … >

Now I really wanna know what the IP was…

90 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:10:29pm

re: #85 Walter L. Newton

My secret.

Have fun.

91 Athens Runaway  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:10:29pm

All right peeps, I’m out for the night. Happy flouncing :)

92 Mich-again  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:10:54pm

re: #77 dentate

It WAS random to a large extent.

Uh, no. Science is not random. Sure the giant meteor strike or the big volcano eruption that caused a period of climate change seemed random at the time, but thats what I meant by “transients”. Science is not random.

93 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:11:06pm

re: #73 Dark_Falcon

True, but with Genetic Modification, we might well be able to increase per-acre yields enough to make us for some of the losses.

On top of that high energy farming uses less land more productively. We need to do that anyway to feed 9 Billion plus people in less than 42 years.

Image: tons-per-worker-by-farming.jpg
It’s not land that worries me, it’s energy. We can farm underground in tiers if we need to.

94 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:11:10pm

re: #83 Pythagoras

You’ve been praised by us when after being dragged kicking and screaming by the papers , you have softened your denier statements.

95 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:11:39pm

re: #83 Pythagoras

Mmkay. I believe you have an ulterior motive for posting your anti-AGW propaganda here. But don’t worry, I’m not going to out you.

I’ll let your continual propagandizing speak for itself.

96 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:11:50pm

re: #5 Pythagoras

There are plenty of data sources on Arctic sea ice and they show significant increases in extent in the last two years. (e.g. JAXA & NSIDC). Catlin drilled where they could drill (in the flat areas).

Come on people, think!

Here, this video directly addresses this BS, point by point so that even an idiot can understand it (not saying you are one, but just in case…). Please watch it, you might just learn something.

youtube.com

97 baier  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:12:13pm

Won’t happen. Ice will be there.

98 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:12:39pm

OK, I’m tired.

The point I keep hammering here is not the science but our ability to do anything about it without ecofascism. I’d rather go down in a blaze of heat-stroke than see the moralistic hippies and their egghead habilitators take the field. Does the word “carbon-tainted” mean anything to you? That’s anything deemed by your local greenie to cost too much to produce, transport, store, or sell. As a carbon-based life form, I take offense. And you can expect to be shamed soon, for driving a car that doesn’t qualify for the “hybrids-only” spots at the local Whole Foods.

Hubris only.

Anyway, I’m for bed. It’s a cold-ass October here in New England, my adoptive home. I like it. And October has always been my best month.

So, without further ado:

Youtube Video

October Song
by Robin Williamson and the Incredible String Band

I’ll sing you this October song,
Oh, there is no song before it.
The words and tune are none of my own,
For my joys and sorrows bore it.

Beside the sea, in the brambly briars,
In the still of evening,
Birds fly out behind the sun,
And with them I’ll be leaving.

The fallen leaves that jewel the ground,
They know the art of dying,
And leave with joy their glad gold hearts,
In scarlet shadows lying.

When hunger calls my footsteps home
The morning follows after.
I swim the seas within my mind,
And the pine trees laugh green laughter.

I used to search for happiness,
And I used to follow pleasure.
But I found a door behind my mind,
And that’s the greatest treasure.

For rulers like to lay down laws,
And rebels like to break them,
And the poor priests like to walk in chains,
And God likes to forsake them.


I met a man whose name was Time
And he said, “I must be goin’,”
But just how long that was
I have no way of knowing.

Sometimes I want to murder Time,
Sometimes when my heart’s aching,
But mostly I just stroll along,
The path that he is taking.

This was one of Bob Dylan’s favorite songs of 1966.

99 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:12:47pm

re: #78 lostlakehiker

Evacuating this or that city is easy. Evacuating Bangladesh is tougher. Half the country goes underwater if the Greenland icecap melts. Where to put 50 million rice farmers? Yes, we will face naturally occurring climate changes. But these need not come any time soon, and they will probably unfold slowly enough that we can “evacuate” a city without ever having to abandon any valuable structures.

Humanity’s entire existence as a species has unfolded during a series of ice ages and intermissions. We’re not built for carboniferous-age climates. If we create one, we’ll face stiffer competition from insects and pathogens than we’ve yet encountered.

I basically agree with everything you say. But as cities and populations grow, some thought should go into this. Exactly—where to put the population of Bangladesh, if we have a warm decade or two, or another series of earthquakes and tsunamis? With our knowledge and technological resources, we can anticipate problems in a way our ancestors could not, and my point is that some thought needs to go into that as well.

100 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:12:50pm

re: #81 LudwigVanQuixote

OK I sort of wrote about that, But there are 4 main issues…

Let’s look at the worst case.

The worst case is we do nothing, or not enough and cross a tipping point in the bogs of Siberia and Canada. If we cross that point, the following WILL happen.

1. That will lead to a 5-7 degree centigrade average temperature increase globally.

2. The oceans will start having anoxia. That means that there will be no oxygen in them. There will be mass extinctions there - including most of the things we eat from them. The reason has to do with carbon saturation in the oceans and changing of buffers as species dies off and ocean chemistry changes.

3. 200 ft of water raise around the world. Let me repeat. 200 ft of water raise around the world. In practical terms, no Florida, NY City, Boston, Baltimore, DC, New Orleans, LA, SD, Barcelona, Tokyo, well, you get the picture… Just consider what 200 ft would be like and ask if where you are now is 200 ft above sea level. G-d help certain Island nations and most of South East Asia as well.

4. Growing patterns in the Midwest of America and much of the US are shattered. Worldwide land based food production plummets in general.

5. Places worldwide that depend on meltwaters for freshwater, dry up. Those people move or die of thirst. This is the US South West and Parts of California. THis is also large parts of SOuth America and Asia as well. G-d help you again if you are in Africa.

6. As climate and migration patterns change, some species are actually winners in such an environment. Those species include, mosquitoes, rats cockroaches and other vermin. Contagion will spread.

The end result is hundreds of millions of deaths at a minimum and the total collapse of civilization as we know it.

I agree about the deaths. Civilization might survive, but it would probably be a tyrannical, survival oriented society.

101 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:13:10pm

re: #62 Rightwingconspirator

Taking Ludwig’s point-A major die off would be the other “fix”. Nature has its ways. That too has happened before just not to us.

We’ve had a couple… look at what the Plague did in Europe in the 14th c or the regression in society after the fall of Rome.

We’ve managed to outsmart our environment long enough and well enough that we’ve distributed in a way that it would be hard to kill us all at once but we suffer the consequences when we lose the ability to control the environment and store and distribute food widely.

102 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:13:31pm

re: #87 LudwigVanQuixote

Agreed and thanks. I’m hanging in here for all the links and fun. Tomorrow I have reading to do thanks to you & your links. Genuine thanks not the wry kind. As mentioned I follow Hydrogen tech closely, I hope it has potential to add to whatever nuclear power can provide. BTW, I happen to think all that nuclear waste will be fuel for processes yet undiscovered.

103 dentate  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:15:15pm

re: #92 Mich-again

Uh, no. Science is not random. Sure the giant meteor strike or the big volcano eruption that caused a period of climate change seemed random at the time, but thats what I meant by “transients”. Science is not random.

Huh? Exactly what do you mean by an asteroid strike or volanic eruption not being random??? You mean it was planned, predestined, predictable??

104 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:16:02pm

re: #69 Athens Runaway

You forget that liberals hate nuclear power with a passion. Conservatives are the only ones (except for a very small minority on the left) that are supportive or receptive to the idea of nuclear power.

I call bullshit. There is a very vocal group on the far left that is against nukes, but as a Life Member of the Sierra Club, I can state that I am totally in favor of replacing every coal fired powered power plant in the US with a nuclear power station.

Can I be any more clear?

105 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:16:09pm

re: #90 SanFranciscoZionist

Have fun.

My answer was sarcastic, but really. What do you think I would do? You know, I got fire, I got water, I got guns, I got dogs, I got shelter, I got smarts, I got survival skills, I would put to use my best skills I know about living wild (I have skills) and duke it out as I can, as long as I can, and it may or may not work out.

I guess I found the question to be self-evident. You take care of your family and yourself… and kumbaya gets put on the back burner.

106 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:16:50pm

re: #104 austin_blue

Would you have said that ten years ago however?

107 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:17:00pm

re: #101 ~Fianna

We’ve had a couple… look at what the Plague did in Europe in the 14th c or the regression in society after the fall of Rome.

We’ve managed to outsmart our environment long enough and well enough that we’ve distributed in a way that it would be hard to kill us all at once but we suffer the consequences when we lose the ability to control the environment and store and distribute food widely.

Well sure… Nature will correct, and the species of man will likely survive, assuming that nuclear weapons are not released in the impending eco collapse, however, you do not want to be around for the correction.

We could be looking at half of the people dying.

We could be looking at more than that dying.

Perhaps as the collapse approaches, a worldwide spirit of good will takes root globally and all nations pull their resources to help their fellows… Then only hundreds of millions would die. But I am not betting on that.

108 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:17:45pm

re: #100 Dark_Falcon

I agree about the deaths. Civilization might survive, but it would probably be a tyrannical, survival oriented society.

Civilization has such striking military advantages that it would be bound to survive in some form.

109 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:18:42pm

re: #80 Mich-again

And most Americans would survive just fine with half their normal food intake.

But we probably wouldn’t like it so much.

From a purely selfish perspective, global warming worries me because there are a lot of wines and foods that I really enjoy that I may not be able to get anymore in 20 years. will I die, no, probably not. Will it really upset me and cause me to feel that I have reduced my quality of life, absolutely.

Part of the problem with the 1st world handling this problem is that we’re insulated from it to a large extent. In Indonesia, a Katrina-level storm would have killed scores. Here it hurt and killed a lot of people, but many people were able to evacuate, and we could count on swift relief from our highly organized and wealthy society. There will definitely be casualties of AGW in the first world, but not nearly as many as there will be in Micronesia, South East Asia and Africa.

110 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:18:52pm

re: #98 Cato the Elder

OK, I’m tired.

The point I keep hammering here is not the science but our ability to do anything about it without ecofascism. I’d rather go down in a blaze of heat-stroke than see the moralistic hippies and their egghead habilitators take the field. Does the word “carbon-tainted” mean anything to you? That’s anything deemed by your local greenie to cost too much to produce, transport, store, or sell. As a carbon-based life form, I take offense. And you can expect to be shamed soon, for driving a car that doesn’t qualify for the “hybrids-only” spots at the local Whole Foods.

Hubris only.

Anyway, I’m for bed. It’s a cold-ass October here in New England, my adoptive home. I like it. And October has always been my best month.

Cato, I agree that I don’t want to live in the “watermelons” world (the reference is to leftist, not race). But we do have to take action, and that means finding ways to lower the carbon levels in the atmosphere.

111 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:19:38pm

re: #108 lostlakehiker

Civilization has such striking military advantages that it would be bound to survive in some form.

Yes, a fascist state hoards remaining resources and decides who lives and who starves.

Or perhaps there will be Mad Max types in the deserts… There will be some civilization somewhere, just not one you want to be a part of.

112 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:20:14pm

re: #101 ~Fianna

We’ve had a couple… look at what the Plague did in Europe in the 14th c or the regression in society after the fall of Rome.

We’ve managed to outsmart our environment long enough and well enough that we’ve distributed in a way that it would be hard to kill us all at once but we suffer the consequences when we lose the ability to control the environment and store and distribute food widely.

The Black Death was ultimately rather beneficial to Europe, but it left the land intact.

113 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:20:16pm

re: #102 Rightwingconspirator

Agreed and thanks. I’m hanging in here for all the links and fun. Tomorrow I have reading to do thanks to you & your links. Genuine thanks not the wry kind. As mentioned I follow Hydrogen tech closely, I hope it has potential to add to whatever nuclear power can provide. BTW, I happen to think all that nuclear waste will be fuel for processes yet undiscovered.

You are very welcome.

114 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:20:58pm

re: #112 SanFranciscoZionist

The Black Death was ultimately rather beneficial to Europe, but it left the land intact.

Yeah it was great if you weren’t one of the one in three that died… Or those slaughtered in the riots and the panics… It was party times.

115 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:21:31pm

re: #104 austin_blue

Fair to point out each technology has its critics. Often the liberal AGW advocate is up against the liberal endangered species advocate. Case in point-opposition to wind farms as they do slam down some migrating birds. Solar farms will reduce certain habitats. The left is constantly trying to halt the big nuclear waste storage facility. Electric car? expect to hear all about your long tailpipe. The left certainly knows how to make perfect the enemy of the good. Care to file an EIR for a fusion plant? good luck with that. This is a point of real delay to some good ways to cut our footprint. that won’yt happen with “two left feet”.

116 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:21:45pm

re: #104 austin_blue

I call bullshit. There is a very vocal group on the far left that is against nukes, but as a Life Member of the Sierra Club, I can state that I am totally in favor of replacing every coal fired powered power plant in the US with a nuclear power station.

Can I be any more clear?

Good for you, that you support nuclear power. You’re in with Amory Lovins on that—-both reasoning that this issue is so important that it’s impermissible to get the vapors over the dangers of radiation. Unfortunately, the political liberal of today is generally unwilling to even vote rights of way for solar and wind-produced electricity, and absolutely opposed to nuclear power.

117 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:21:58pm

re: #111 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually your scenario is the extreme case, and even in that case these changes will not happen overnight. I have immense faith in humanity’s ability to muddle its way through to solutions.
The one caveat I always make with that statement: in an scarce energy scenario our options become extremely limited.

118 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:22:00pm

re: #5 Pythagoras

oh, and now that I have more than 50 posts and have access to the dinger again, you just earned a down ding from me for repeating the Idiotarian line and not doing any research into this.

119 Bagua  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:22:06pm

re: #112 SanFranciscoZionist

The Black Death was ultimately rather beneficial to Europe, but it left the land intact.

Do explain.

120 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:22:12pm

re: #106 Thanos

Would you have said that ten years ago however?

Actually, yes. Well, maybe five, to be honest. The 3g and 4g designs that are coming on board make it much easier, don’t they?

The problem of generated waste remains, but you know what? let’s deal, with that later. I know I’m kicking that can down the road, but we need to take action *now*. Time’s a wastin’.

121 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:23:28pm

re: #110 Dark_Falcon

Cato, I agree that I don’t want to live in the “watermelons” world (the reference is to leftist, not race). But we do have to take action, and that means finding ways to lower the carbon levels in the atmosphere.

You figure it out and then come and tell me what it’ll cost.

Sound cynical?

That’s how the human aggregate will judge it.

Many people still gather wood to cook food. (Sentence with three almost consecutive words with double “O’s” - ten updings.) Tell them that’s unecological and bad!

Figure that shite out and get back to me. It’s not going to happen in København.

122 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:23:33pm

re: #117 Thanos

Actually your scenario is the extreme case, and even in that case these changes will not happen overnight. I have immense faith in humanity’s ability to muddle its way through to solutions.
The one caveat I always make with that statement: in an scarce energy scenario our options become extremely limited.

Very true. Ultimately, we need fusion power. That’s probably the best power sourse we could get.

123 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:23:42pm

re: #120 austin_blue

Actually, yes. Well, maybe five, to be honest. The 3g and 4g designs that are coming on board make it much easier, don’t they?

The problem of generated waste remains, but you know what? let’s deal, with that later. I know I’m kicking that can down the road, but we need to take action *now*. Time’s a wastin’.

Well good for you then. I’ve been campaigning for Nuclear for twenty + years now, even in the times when everyone would try to shout me down.

124 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:23:55pm

re: #81 LudwigVanQuixote


4. Growing patterns in the Midwest of America and much of the US are shattered. Worldwide land based food production plummets in general.

We can see how that might play out by looking at Australia’s problems over the last decade. Their persistant drought is caused by a disruption in the El Nino Southern Oscillation, which is thought to be a function of carbon matter in the atmosphere.


PDF: mssanz.org.au

125 rurality  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:24:05pm

re: #69 Athens Runaway

Interesting contrast, liberals fear nuclear power in their back yards and conservatives fear prisoners from Guantanemo in theirs. I think if both sides did a better job educating the moderates and middle dwellers of each group and marginalized the strident fringe we could accomodate both in our vicinity.

126 [deleted]  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:24:14pm
127 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:25:14pm

re: #105 Walter L. Newton

My answer was sarcastic, but really. What do you think I would do? You know, I got fire, I got water, I got guns, I got dogs, I got shelter, I got smarts, I got survival skills, I would put to use my best skills I know about living wild (I have skills) and duke it out as I can, as long as I can, and it may or may not work out.

I guess I found the question to be self-evident. You take care of your family and yourself… and kumbaya gets put on the back burner.

I’m just skeptical of anyone’s survival plan for ‘total fucking breakdown of both society and nature’. I agree with you, but in both our cases, I think we’re probably kidding ourselves we last out the week.

128 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:25:20pm

re: #121 Cato the Elder

You figure it out and then come and tell me what it’ll cost.

Sound cynical?

That’s how the human aggregate will judge it.

Many people still gather wood to cook food. (Sentence with three almost consecutive words with double “O’s” - ten updings.) Tell them that’s unecological and bad!

Figure that shite out and get back to me. It’s not going to happen in København.

They will judge it that way, you’re right. It’ll be up to people like Ludwig to show them way they need to change. Once they’ve got the plans, I’ll put in the effort to push it through.

129 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:25:32pm

re: #117 Thanos

Actually your scenario is the extreme case, and even in that case these changes will not happen overnight. I have immense faith in humanity’s ability to muddle its way through to solutions.
The one caveat I always make with that statement: in an scarce energy scenario our options become extremely limited.

Ohh yes, admittedly it is the worst case projection.

More middle of the road, is we get between 2 and 3 meter rise by the end of the century.

With the accompanying loss of glaciers, shifts in migratory patterns and loss of food production. That would be catastrophic enough. Also do not forget the whole nuclear blackmail angle as people get desperate.

As to the scenario in teh worst case - teh bogs go - understand that right now, right this minute we are marching towards that. If we cross that line by doing too little too late then what I was writing about, the worst case, will happen. It is not a might happen, it is a will happen. Understand we are making it happen now.

130 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:25:55pm

re: #125 rurality

If only detainees could run a power plant… LOL That would b wilder than Carville and his s republican wife agreeing on a talk show. Seriously the shrill are killing us.

131 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:26:01pm

re: #121 Cato the Elder

You figure it out and then come and tell me what it’ll cost.

Sound cynical?

That’s how the human aggregate will judge it.

Many people still gather wood to cook food. (Sentence with three almost consecutive words with double “O’s” - ten updings.) Tell them that’s unecological and bad!

Figure that shite out and get back to me. It’s not going to happen in København.

People are talking a few percent reduction in gross world product. That’s all it would cost, if we got going now and did it steadily and carefully. Go over to wind, solar, nuclear, and improved efficiency.

In the meantime, burning wood is, after all, carbon neutral if you replant.

132 AlexRogan  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:26:32pm

re: #125 rurality

Interesting contrast, liberals fear nuclear power in their back yards and conservatives fear prisoners from Guantanemo in theirs. I think if both sides did a better job educating the moderates and middle dwellers of each group and marginalized the strident fringe we could accomodate both in our vicinity.

How about we make nuclear power plants out of Gitmo prisoners?

///

133 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:26:46pm

re: #126 MikeySDCA

Pace Charles, I find the science doubtful. I deeply suspect the motives of the AllBore types. As to catastrophic scenarios in Bangladesh or wherever, I’m reluctant to panic now. Let’s burn that bridge when we come to it.

If we come to that bridge, it’ll be too late to do anything but try to survive the disaster. I’d rather set to work on the task now, thank you very much.

134 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:26:52pm

re: #121 Cato the Elder

You figure it out and then come and tell me what it’ll cost.

Sound cynical?

That’s how the human aggregate will judge it.

Many people still gather wood to cook food. (Sentence with three almost consecutive words with double “O’s” - ten updings.) Tell them that’s unecological and bad!

Figure that shite out and get back to me. It’s not going to happen in København.

That all may well be true. If it does not happen somewhere soon though, the bogs are still waiting - and warming.

135 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:27:28pm

re: #127 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m just skeptical of anyone’s survival plan for ‘total fucking breakdown of both society and nature’. I agree with you, but in both our cases, I think we’re probably kidding ourselves we last out the week.

Guns and survival gear are not worthless, but what a man needs most in a survival scenario is the good will and respect of his neighbors.

136 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:27:33pm

re: #114 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah it was great if you weren’t one of the one in three that died… Or those slaughtered in the riots and the panics… It was party times.

Oh, I wouldn’t have wanted to be there. But the difference is what I’m focused on—when the survivors picked themselves back up, the land was still fertile, the air still breathable, the coastline the same…

137 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:27:40pm

re: #108 lostlakehiker

Civilization has such striking military advantages that it would be bound to survive in some form.

Humans are social creatures and there are obvious advantages to living in groups. Some form of social organisation will always survive, but not every form of social organisation can be called ‘civilised’ or merits the term of ‘civilisation’. We’d be looking at a long period of social collapse for certain.

138 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:28:10pm

re: #104 austin_blue

I call bullshit. There is a very vocal group on the far left that is against nukes, but as a Life Member of the Sierra Club, I can state that I am totally in favor of replacing every coal fired powered power plant in the US with a nuclear power station.

Can I be any more clear?

Same here.

I’d also like to see some of the paranoid laws against reuse of spent rods in pebble-bed reactors, too. That would reduce the storage and shipping problem and also decrease the need to mine uranium.

Nuclear as currently designed and developed is exceptionally safe and while not perfect or fully “clean”, it beats the hell out of what we’re doing now and only a fool would deny that.

139 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:28:51pm

re: #136 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, I wouldn’t have wanted to be there. But the difference is what I’m focused on—when the survivors picked themselves back up, the land was still fertile, the air still breathable, the coastline the same…

That is true. The survivors of this eco-collapse will have barren oceans - made worse by having cities under them and polluting them… different coastlines and lots of deserts.

140 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:28:57pm

re: #116 lostlakehiker

Good for you, that you support nuclear power. You’re in with Amory Lovins on that—-both reasoning that this issue is so important that it’s impermissible to get the vapors over the dangers of radiation. Unfortunately, the political liberal of today is generally unwilling to even vote rights of way for solar and wind-produced electricity, and absolutely opposed to nuclear power.

I hear this repeatedly. I’m not sure it’s true anymore. And the right has sure not been talking nuclear power recently.

141 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:29:49pm

re: #134 LudwigVanQuixote

That all may well be true. If it does not happen somewhere soon though, the bogs are still waiting - and warming.

And we will adapt.

I’d rather adapt than be forced into some kind of carbon reeducation camp.

142 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:29:52pm

re: #140 SanFranciscoZionist

I hear this repeatedly. I’m not sure it’s true anymore. And the right has sure not been talking nuclear power recently.

Nope. They too busy defending Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

143 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:30:11pm

re: #127 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m just skeptical of anyone’s survival plan for ‘total fucking breakdown of both society and nature’. I agree with you, but in both our cases, I think we’re probably kidding ourselves we last out the week.

Look, my girlfriend and I live at 8200 feet, even before I moved here, she’s gone a week without electricity in the winter, with 4 feet of snow keeping anyone from going any where, and I wasn’t even living here at the time.

I have a lot of “outdoor” skills. Most people who live where I live do, and they are already stocked and ready for problems, year round.

No, we could go months on just what we have prepared right now, and if it was evident that it was going to be long term, we have the resources to go native if need be.

144 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:30:12pm

re: #107 LudwigVanQuixote

Well sure… Nature will correct, and the species of man will likely survive, assuming that nuclear weapons are not released in the impending eco collapse, however, you do not want to be around for the correction.

We could be looking at half of the people dying.

We could be looking at more than that dying.

Perhaps as the collapse approaches, a worldwide spirit of good will takes root globally and all nations pull their resources to help their fellows… Then only hundreds of millions would die. But I am not betting on that.

Me either. Resource wars are second only to religious wars in their level of violence.

We dont’ talk about the resource aspect of Rwanda much, but underlying all the Hutu/Tutsi simplification, resources and land were at the root of the massacres. People get VERY unhappy when they see their kids starving.

145 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:30:23pm

re: #135 lostlakehiker
A good well and some solar panels would certainlt help.

146 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:30:53pm

re: #141 Cato the Elder

And we will adapt.

I’d rather adapt than be forced into some kind of carbon reeducation camp.

That’s a false choice, Cato. If you don’t like what the Greens are up to, build a better alternative.

147 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:32:14pm

re: #22 LudwigVanQuixote

I really do love Sinclair…
Here are a few papers…

[Link: www.smithpa.demon.co.uk…]

[Link: www.cfa.harvard.edu…]

[Link: iabp.apl.washington.edu…]

Here is up to the minute (nearly) date data from NASA…

[Link: climate.nasa.gov…]

As usual, I have virtually no disagreement with any of these papers — though the extreme rhetoric of Peter Sinclair is not to my liking. We agree; Arctic Sea Ice is declining. My favorite reference on Arctic Sea Ice Extent is the National Snow and Ice Data Center and this is the latest long term trend graph:

Image: n_plot_hires.png

Each new data point seems to dash the hopes of one side or the other by just regressing back to the trend line and this one is almost too perfect. Those who say the ice is on he brink of disappearing have taken a hit but those who think it’s really going to recover need a lot more that this. Everything just seems to plod along with random variations around a simple trend line.

My point on this thread is that the Catlin data is not a significant contribution. They made a heroic effort — way beyond anything most of us could ever even approach, but the effort was hammered by the failure of an essential piece of equipment. There are other ways to measure thickness. This one gathered much more extensive data and their results do not agree with Catlin’s:

radiobremen.de

148 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:32:15pm

re: #137 iceweasel

Humans are social creatures and there are obvious advantages to living in groups. Some form of social organisation will always survive, but not every form of social organisation can be called ‘civilised’ or merits the term of ‘civilisation’. We’d be looking at a long period of social collapse for certain.

Suddenly Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium might not look so far fetched to certain reality deniers. This will certainly put an evolutionary pressure on species, and give rise to survival of the fittest indeed.

149 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:32:48pm

We crossed another tipping point long ago. The point at which it’s possible to sustain the world’s population without cheap energy. I agree with the AGW crowd that it must be stopped, however - we can’t make people starving part of the equation or you will surely get the fail.

In order to combat AGW we must make energy clean, but we must also keep it cheap and plentiful. That goes against conventional wisdom of the greenpeace crowd, who thinks energy use in itself is evil.

If we make it too expensive to cook with electric, people will burn wood. If we make it too expensive to heat with gas, people will burn coal.

This is part of the sad equation that has kept coal not just in use, but in increased demand the latter half of this century.

So clean+cheap+plentiful is the only sure path.

150 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:33:00pm

re: #140 SanFranciscoZionist

I hear this repeatedly. I’m not sure it’s true anymore. And the right has sure not been talking nuclear power recently.


Yeah. That is odd. But I know there is activity in the nuclear arena.

151 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:33:06pm

re: #143 Walter L. Newton

Okay good for you. Globally how many can match your situation? Saving one in one hundred is going to make the stone age advanced by comparison.

152 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:33:48pm

re: #119 Bagua

Do explain.

It essentially ended feudalism is where SFZ is probably going with that, and she’s absolutely right on that score.

It was hard to tie peasants to the land when the person you were counting on to return your people is paying them to move.

153 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:34:08pm

re: #141 Cato the Elder

And we will adapt.

I’d rather adapt than be forced into some kind of carbon reeducation camp.

You take your carbon re-education now and learn to love nuclear, solar and wind, or you would die.

No, you would die.

Assuming you are immune to the various spreads of contagion and you are not killed in any food riots…

Do you think you could make it in a Mad Max world?

Or do you think you would be better off in the sort of society that hoarded its food and water used guns to keep it rationed?

Perhaps you would make a good Fremen?

You just don’t get it if you think that the vast bulk of people will just adapt.

154 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:35:31pm

re: #153 LudwigVanQuixote

You take your carbon re-education now and learn to love nuclear, solar and wind, or you would die.

No, you would die.

Assuming you are immune to the various spreads of contagion and you are not killed in any food riots…

Do you think you could make it in a Mad Max world?

Or do you think you would be better off in the sort of society that hoarded its food and water used guns to keep it rationed?

Perhaps you would make a good Fremen?

You just don’t get it if you think that the vast bulk of people will just adapt.

I don’t think making them adapt will look any prettier.

155 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:36:19pm

re: #117 Thanos

Actually your scenario is the extreme case, and even in that case these changes will not happen overnight. I have immense faith in humanity’s ability to muddle its way through to solutions.
The one caveat I always make with that statement: in an scarce energy scenario our options become extremely limited.

It’s not about energy. Ultimately, it’s about water. As climate changes, water patterns will shift. Population density has always been about available water. When water accessibility changes, what do you think will happen?

156 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:36:27pm

re: #119 Bagua

Do explain.

The population of Europe dropped drastically. Hence, labor became scarce, and better paid, leading to a rise in the rights and living standard of workers, and new technology evolved. The economy shifted to an emphasis in pasturing that boosted the wool trade, thereby eventually leading to the beginnings of a modern economy. The Black Death boosted the rise of a European middle class. May have also undermined the power of the Church—you can see the effects of that as both positive and negative. Thorough shakedown of society.

I can expand, although I’d have to look a lot of it up. Early Modern Europe was my thing in college, but it’s been a while.

157 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:36:28pm

re: #154 Cato the Elder

I don’t think making them adapt will look any prettier.

Yeah damn it… Buying less crap at wallmart and driving an electric car is such suffering compared to Mad Max world…

158 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:36:41pm

I’m trying to figure out how survivalism relates to AGW mitigation. I guess that means not calling the medivac helicopter when the time comes.

159 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:37:32pm

re: #151 Rightwingconspirator

Okay good for you. Globally how many can match your situation? Saving one in one hundred is going to make the stone age advanced by comparison.

My scenario up tread was what I would do, what I would have to do if the shit hit the fan, if the advance of AGW was not changed, or changes made, and we actually had to contend with some of the stuff outlined by Ludwig and others.

And what I am saying, at that point, if it came to that. My concern is no longer with “Globally how many can match your situation.” At that point, like I said, kumbaya goes on the back burner. At that point, my personal goal is not to advance anything but my family and mine survival. At that point, I’m off the board of directors.

I’m not being crude, rude or crazy, I’m being real.

160 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:37:45pm

re: #157 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah damn it… Buying less crap at wallmart and driving an electric car is such suffering compared to Mad Max world…

You just don’t get it.

That’s fine.

161 ~Fianna  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:37:56pm

re: #155 austin_blue

It’s not about energy. Ultimately, it’s about water. As climate changes, water patterns will shift. Population density has always been about available water. When water accessibility changes, what do you think will happen?

Canada becomes the next Saudi Arabia, to be honest.

Canada, overall, is one of the few winners post-tipping point.

162 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:37:58pm

The other part of this that has me worried is that someone might try geoengineering on a large scale. I suspect we could poke things into worse state if we attempted that. (e.g. one of the solutions calls for dumping iron at sea. Do that large scale and you could get some Ocean killing oxygen depletion that Ludwig mentions above.)

163 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:38:55pm

re: #157 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah damn it… Buying less crap at wallmart and driving an electric car is such suffering compared to Mad Max world…

Ludwig, Cato is not hostile to the science. He just does not want to it be used for coercion. I know that you don’t have such intentions, but much of the left does and it worries him (and me too).

164 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:39:17pm

re: #143 Walter L. Newton

Look, my girlfriend and I live at 8200 feet, even before I moved here, she’s gone a week without electricity in the winter, with 4 feet of snow keeping anyone from going any where, and I wasn’t even living here at the time.

I have a lot of “outdoor” skills. Most people who live where I live do, and they are already stocked and ready for problems, year round.

No, we could go months on just what we have prepared right now, and if it was evident that it was going to be long term, we have the resources to go native if need be.

OK, but you do realize that we’re not just talking about the power going out, here, right?

165 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:39:19pm

re: #148 Sharmuta

Suddenly Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium might not look so far fetched to certain reality deniers. This will certainly put an evolutionary pressure on species, and give rise to survival of the fittest indeed.

NO, it would give rise to those best suited to living in a harsh survival situation or under a truly authoritarian regime. That does not necessarily mean fittest. It means the most brutish.

166 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:40:03pm

re: #158 Gus 802

I’m trying to figure out how survivalism relates to AGW mitigation. I guess that means not calling the medivac helicopter when the time comes.

It means not having a whole damn lot of “services” if the time comes. But, if it does, there are going to be people that are prepared, or will become prepared, and they may or may not survive, but certainly some will and there will be many who will simply be able to do nothing but piss in their pants. That’s reality.

167 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:40:12pm

re: #160 Cato the Elder

You just don’t get it.

That’s fine.

Well if enough people listen to people like me, and we do all the terrible things you are afraid of, you will be alive to bitch at me. Since I like you, I think I can live with that.

168 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:40:45pm

Charles-

In the spy I just noticed that everyone’s user name on the comments they’ve rated has now gone from black to a blue link, and these links all go to the LGF home page. I wasn’t sure if it was a bug or a new feature.

169 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:41:04pm

re: #162 Thanos

The other part of this that has me worried is that someone might try geoengineering on a large scale. I suspect we could poke things into worse state if we attempted that. (e.g. one of the solutions calls for dumping iron at sea. Do that large scale and you could get some Ocean killing oxygen depletion that Ludwig mentions above.)

Geo-engineering is what is being proposed right now.
We are trying to change the world climate and modify the trend it is, or will be, undergoing.

170 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:41:26pm

re: #163 Dark_Falcon

Ludwig, Cato is not hostile to the science. He just does not want to it be used for coercion. I know that you don’t have such intentions, but much of the left does and it worries him (and me too).

Ohh I get that… I am down with Cato. I am just certain that he has not done the analysis correctly of how bad the option of doing nothing is.

171 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:41:31pm

re: #166 Walter L. Newton

It means not having a whole damn lot of “services” if the time comes. But, if it does, there are going to be people that are prepared, or will become prepared, and they may or may not survive, but certainly some will and there will be many who will simply be able to do nothing but piss in their pants. That’s reality.

Quite Concur.

172 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:41:58pm

re: #168 Sharmuta
not me

173 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:42:01pm

re: #148 Sharmuta

The thread is so rife with dismal scenarios! Whew I think I’ll go watch some Battlestar Galactica final season and cheer up. ;)

Or an LGF music link for a break.

174 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:42:18pm

re: #155 austin_blue

It’s not about energy. Ultimately, it’s about water. As climate changes, water patterns will shift. Population density has always been about available water. When water accessibility changes, what do you think will happen?

With energy water is not a problem. Civilization followed the water early on because it was a source of energy (food was the first source of energy btw) Civilization has always followed energy, and I can show that to you in pretty much any period of history you care to point at.
The cleanest streams in California are not high in the Sierras, they come out of the outflow pipes of some of the sewage treatment plants. It takes high energy to make that water nearly atomically pure. With energy desalination is not a problem.

175 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:42:23pm

re: #166 Walter L. Newton

It means not having a whole damn lot of “services” if the time comes. But, if it does, there are going to be people that are prepared, or will become prepared, and they may or may not survive, but certainly some will and there will be many who will simply be able to do nothing but piss in their pants. That’s reality.

I think we’re a very longs ways away from loss of services in some apocalyptic scenario.

176 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:43:03pm

re: #172 swamprat


spy; all users in blue

177 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:43:07pm

re: #166 Walter L. Newton

It means not having a whole damn lot of “services” if the time comes. But, if it does, there are going to be people that are prepared, or will become prepared, and they may or may not survive, but certainly some will and there will be many who will simply be able to do nothing but piss in their pants. That’s reality.

Yeah, fuck all those other people… jus shoot em if they come for help… Question Walter, where do you get your water from? If it is melt waters, you are actually one of the first fucked by this, not the last…

Perhaps others with your views will happily let you die…

179 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:43:51pm

re: #164 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, but you do realize that we’re not just talking about the power going out, here, right?

What makes you think I don’t realize the size and scale of what can happen. Evidently I have been reading this thread. Evidently I have seen comment after comment by knowledgeable people like Ludwig.

Why is is so hard for you to believe that I both understand the seriousness of this, and I have a good idea what I would have to attempt to do to survive?

180 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:44:08pm

re: #176 swamprat

spy; all users in blue

In the master spy. On the ratted comments. Nics weren’t links to the LGF home page before.

181 astronmr20  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:44:26pm

Late to this thread, but the Catlin survey was an utter joke, laughed at by even scientists.

It was a publicity stunt with something like 43 data points from the entire expedition.

Meanwhile, the Germans did it better, by flying overhead with better equipment and getting mountains more data— which seem to suggest the ice is getting THICKER.

Here’s the text from an article about the simultaneous survey, which directly contradicts the Catlin “survey:”

The research aircraft Polar 5 “ended today in Canada’s recent Arctic expedition. During the flight, researchers have measured the current Eisstärke measured at the North Pole, and in areas that have never before been overflown. Result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than the researchers had suspected.

Normally, ice is newly formed after two years, over two meters thick. “Here were Eisdicken up to four meters,” said a spokesman of Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. For scientists, this result is still in contradiction to the warming of the seawater.

Here’s teh translated article in it’s entirety:

radiobremen.de

If you want to know more, look for the “polar 5” expedition.

182 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:44:50pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, fuck all those other people… jus shoot em if they come for help… Question Walter, where do you get your water from? If it is melt waters, you are actually one of the first fucked by this, not the last…

Perhaps others with your views will happily let you die…

Good point. That I had not thought of. A lot of mountain ares depend on snow melt for water. Those places would be finished in the event that those snows ceased to fall.

183 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:45:07pm

re: #178 goddamnedfrank

Oh Damn straight. Don’t even get me started on how the Bush administration did its very best to kill the science in this country.

To this day if you say Hansen, the RW goes apeshit because of a very effective smear propaganda campaign.

184 astronmr20  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:45:12pm

re: #173 Rightwingconspirator

The thread is so rife with dismal scenarios! Whew I think I’ll go watch some Battlestar Galactica final season and cheer up. ;)

Or an LGF music link for a break.

That’s not really a “cheery” season, FYI… (:

185 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:45:27pm

re: #161 ~Fianna

Canada becomes the next Saudi Arabia, to be honest.

Canada, overall, is one of the few winners post-tipping point.

Maybe. They have huge fresh water supplies, but what good is it to the rest of the world that can’t get at it?

The Israeli/Palestinian stand-off is fundamentally about water. This is what happens when you live in a freaking desert. The old Texas saying is relevant:

Whiskey’s for drinkin’, water’s for fightin’.

186 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:46:12pm

I also think I would be a lot more comfortable driving an electric car, using compact fluorescent bulbs, recycling, and so on then living near Dillon in cold yurt using candles and having to hunt for my food using a musket and lead projectiles.

187 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:46:51pm

re: #181 astronmr20

Late to this thread, but the Catlin survey was an utter joke, laughed at by even scientists.

It was a publicity stunt with something like 43 data points from the entire expedition.

Meanwhile, the Germans did it better, by flying overhead with better equipment and getting mountains more data— which seem to suggest the ice is getting THICKER.

Here’s the text from an article about the simultaneous survey, which directly contradicts the Catlin “survey:”

Here’s teh translated article in it’s entirety:

[Link: www.radiobremen.de…]

If you want to know more, look for the “polar 5” expedition.

Utter crap and distortions.

Do me the favor of refuting the links in My #22. And then lets talk science.

188 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:08pm

re: #179 Walter L. Newton

What makes you think I don’t realize the size and scale of what can happen. Evidently I have been reading this thread. Evidently I have seen comment after comment by knowledgeable people like Ludwig.

Why is is so hard for you to believe that I both understand the seriousness of this, and I have a good idea what I would have to attempt to do to survive?

I think I’ve made my position pretty clear. I agree with you. I would do something similar. But I think that if it comes to that, we’re both screwed. I do hope not.

I’m rooting for your survival Walter, I just happen to know that none of us are gonna make it out of this world alive.

/A little Hank Williams is always a good thing.

189 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:24pm

re: #178 goddamnedfrank

Hey, I can see Eskimo inc. and the sewage treatment lagoon, along with Pepe’s North of the Border in those photos…

190 astronmr20  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:26pm

re: #186 Gus 802

I also think I would be a lot more comfortable driving an electric car, using compact fluorescent bulbs, recycling, and so on then living near Dillon in cold yurt using candles and having to hunt for my food using a musket and lead projectiles.

If compact fluorescent bulbs are the alternative, I’ll take hunting for my food with a musket instead, thanks.

191 swamprat  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:28pm

Good night all.

Stay reptilian.

192 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:37pm

re: #168 Sharmuta

Reload the Spy page, grasshopper. And all will be revealed.

193 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:38pm

re: #95 Charles

Mmkay. I believe you have an ulterior motive for posting your anti-AGW propaganda here. But don’t worry, I’m not going to out you.

I’ll let your continual propagandizing speak for itself.

My only argument with the AGW theory is one of quantity/speed. I just don’t see it being any faster than it already is. Frankly, a linear extrapolation of, say, the sea level rise is within the range of the current IPCC projections.

I do expect the Arctic Sea Ice to keep declining but only at the rate of the long term trend line. I don’t expect a reversal. I don’t expect an acceleration.

194 astronmr20  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:52pm

re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote

What crap? The Polar 5 expedition was crap? Why?

195 cliffster  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:47:54pm

One thing is for certain - nature will be the final arbitrator of this discussion.

196 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:48:30pm

re: #190 astronmr20

If compact fluorescent bulbs are the alternative, I’ll take hunting for my food with a musket instead, thanks.

Uh huh. That’s what they said about the “horseless carriage.”

197 astronmr20  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:48:41pm

I REALLY want to stick around on this one, but the wife calls…


Goodnight, lizards.

198 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:48:50pm

re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote

Utter crap and distortions.

Do me the favor of refuting the links in My #22. And then lets talk science.

Ludwig, how is his article crap? Please elaborate, as that would help me understand.

199 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:49:29pm

re: #193 Pythagoras

My only argument with the AGW theory is one of quantity/speed. I just don’t see it being any faster than it already is. Frankly, a linear extrapolation of, say, the sea level rise is within the range of the current IPCC projections.

I do expect the Arctic Sea Ice to keep declining but only at the rate of the long term trend line. I don’t expect a reversal. I don’t expect an acceleration.

Ummm how many different papers - that you claim to agree with, that show accelerating rates of melts do you need to see , before you stop blathering about linearities. It is not linear. It never was linear. You have seen dozens of papers brought to you that show you this. You claim to agree with them. If so, why do you keep bringing this foolishness?

200 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:49:37pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, fuck all those other people… jus shoot em if they come for help… Question Walter, where do you get your water from? If it is melt waters, you are actually one of the first fucked by this, not the last…

Perhaps others with your views will happily let you die…

More than likely. That’s reality. And what’s your problem. I agree with most of what you profess about AGW, and I want to see something done about it as much as you do, but, I am also paying close attention to your predictions about what will happen if it’s not stopped.

So, there is something wrong with me considering what you are saying and having a good idea of what I would be up against, and the possibilities of surviving or not surviving?

But no Ludwig, if it became necessary to survive, then it becomes very personal, for anyone who is smart enough to make it personal and do what needs to be done.

Those who don’t, they will die. That’s cold hard reality, and I have no problem with understanding that.

What will you be doing if the shit hits the fan and you are forced with the decision of doing something to survive. What’s Ludwig’s plan?

201 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:49:38pm

re: #157 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah damn it… Buying less crap at wallmart and driving an electric car is such suffering compared to Mad Max world…

The eco-shaming is already here. Years ago, already, I had a friend’s wife in Germany call me to my face an Umweltsau (eco-pig) because my shirts were white, as opposed to the urine-gray stuff she let her family run about in, and I confessed that I used bleach.

By all means, bring on the new technology. And the old, e.g. nuclear.

Just don’t tell me you think there’s no danger of czars coming along and telling me and you what to wear, eat, drink, drive, or do.

I already have one FB friend bitching at me because I’m not enough of a locavore. When I point out that there are no decent olives from New England and no real wine, either, she tells me that people in the desert would be better off anyway if they ate only their “indigenous” diet.

If you see no danger of ecofascism, it’s because you’ve decided the problem is so great that any solution must be better.

Good luck with that.

202 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:49:59pm

re: #181 astronmr20

Late to this thread, but the Catlin survey was an utter joke, laughed at by even scientists.

It was a publicity stunt with something like 43 data points from the entire expedition.

This is simply false.

203 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:50:59pm

re: #192 Charles

Reload the Spy page, grasshopper. And all will be revealed.

Ah! Nice. Very handy.

204 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:51:09pm

There’s no way I’m going to use compact fluorescents! I would rather live in a cave!

Two weeks later…

//

205 Pavlovian Hive Mind  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:51:44pm

re: #190 astronmr20

If compact fluorescent bulbs are the alternative, I’ll take hunting for my food with a musket instead, thanks.

Really?! You really, seriously, believe that??!…

206 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:51:54pm

re: #174 Thanos

With energy water is not a problem. Civilization followed the water early on because it was a source of energy (food was the first source of energy btw) Civilization has always followed energy, and I can show that to you in pretty much any period of history you care to point at.
The cleanest streams in California are not high in the Sierras, they come out of the outflow pipes of some of the sewage treatment plants. It takes high energy to make that water nearly atomically pure. With energy desalination is not a problem.

Sadly, I must disagree. Many millions of people have ephemeral water supplies, and for them, it is death.

Climate change means more displacement. Given the governments in those most vulnerable areas, you know, in your heart of hearts, what this means.

207 SnowdenBaggerVance  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:52:01pm

Hey where’s Salamantis and Capitalist Piglet?

208 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:52:59pm

re: #204 Gus 802

There’s no way I’m going to use compact fluorescents! I would rather live in a cave!

Two weeks later…

//

How about a cave with compact fluorescents?

209 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:53:25pm

re: #207 BigPapa

Hey where’s Salamantis and Capitalist Piglet?

I’ve been wondering about Sal myself. I think I’ll drop him a line and check.

Capitalist Piglet now runs the gateway stalker blog.

210 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:53:37pm

re: #207 BigPapa

Hey where’s Salamantis and Capitalist Piglet?

I think Piglet left. Haven’t seen Sal in a while.

211 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:53:39pm

re: #181 astronmr20

Uh, 6000 data points… Unless I misread

catlinarcticsurvey.com

212 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:53:48pm

It’s really interesting to see the tactics of global warming deniers on display in this thread. They make assertions about these stories that are completely out of left field.

213 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:54:04pm

re: #192 Charles

Check your email, Charles. I just sent you something I found.

214 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:54:14pm

re: #199 LudwigVanQuixote

Ummm how many different papers - that you claim to agree with, that show accelerating rates of melts do you need to see , before you stop blathering about linearities. It is not linear. It never was linear. You have seen dozens of papers brought to you that show you this. You claim to agree with them. If so, why do you keep bringing this foolishness?

The data since those papers were published has put us right back to the linear trend line.

215 cliffster  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:54:22pm

re: #207 BigPapa

Hey where’s Salamantis and Capitalist Piglet?

Good question, I haven’t heard from that pontificating mofo Salamantis in awhile. Wonder why.

216 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:54:59pm

re: #211 Rightwingconspirator

Uh, 6000 data points… Unless I misread

[Link: www.catlinarcticsurvey.com…]

You didn’t misread anything. You’re right — there are at least 6,000 data points.

This is why we call them “deniers.”

217 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:55:00pm

re: #208 SanFranciscoZionist

How about a cave with compact fluorescents?

That might work but you would need a dehumidifier. Imagine the mold infections.

I’m trying to understand the logic behind this. My guess thus far is something like, “if any of these climate change laws go into effect I’m dropping out of society!”

218 avanti  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:55:30pm

re: #205 Varek Raith

Really?! You really, seriously, believe that??!…

I’m confused too, I other than some appliance bulbs I haven’t had a incandescent in the house for over a year. What’s the issue ?’

219 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:56:45pm

re: #207 BigPapa

Sal got into a major fight with Ludwig over AGW, and hasn’t been back since. He didn’t flounce and hasn’t shown up on the stalker blogs though.

220 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:56:51pm

re: #214 Pythagoras

The data since those papers were published has put us right back to the linear trend line.

Oh, my goodness, you are a relentless harridan, aren’t you?

221 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:56:55pm

re: #206 austin_blue

Sadly, I must disagree. Many millions of people have ephemeral water supplies, and for them, it is death.

Climate change means more displacement. Given the governments in those most vulnerable areas, you know, in your heart of hearts, what this means.

Given cheap, plentiful energy you can get water anywhere in the world. If Ludwig’s scenario were to happen, water wouldn’t be the worry in most places anyway (some would feel a pinch) Precipitation in a greenhouse effect that extreme would if anything be too plentiful.

222 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:56:57pm

re: #194 astronmr20

What crap? The Polar 5 expedition was crap? Why?

re: #198 Dark_Falcon

Ludwig, how is his article crap? Please elaborate, as that would help me understand.

Well the issue is one of cherry picking. First off, certain regions of the poles are predicted to get thicker by the models as weather patterns change. This is a local phenomena and on average, nope they are going. This is not the mark of there is no problem, this is the mark of shifting currents in water and wind.

The denier sphere lives to point to that and make noise as if this is some evidence against the science, when in reality is supports it - and verifies certain models… Ohhh they hate that part…

Once again, Sinclair has a video.

youtube.com

223 jaunte  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:57:16pm

Links to Catlin survey final results
catlinarcticsurvey.com

224 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:57:52pm

re: #218 avanti

I’m confused too, I other than some appliance bulbs I haven’t had a incandescent in the house for over a year. What’s the issue ?’

Liberals!

/

225 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:57:52pm

re: #216 Charles

awww
I was hoping to draw him into the link and see if I did… Does that ever work?

226 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:59:01pm

re: #214 Pythagoras

The data since those papers were published has put us right back to the linear trend line.

Bullshit. Back that up. Care to look at the real data? I’ve even put the NASA and the NOAA link on this very thread.

227 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 9:59:12pm

Luddite

The Luddites were a social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested—often by destroying mechanized looms—against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their entire way of life.

This English historical movement should be seen in the context of the era’s harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars, and the degrading working conditions in the new textile factories. Since then, however, the term Luddite has been used derisively to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change.

The Luddite movement, which began in 1811 and 1812 when mills and pieces of factory machinery were burned by handloom weavers, took its name from the fictive Ned Ludd. For a short time the movement was so strong that it clashed in battles with the British Army. Measures taken by the government included a mass trial at York in 1812 that resulted in many executions and penal transportation.

The principal objection of the Luddites was against the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers.

228 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:01:13pm

re: #222 LudwigVanQuixote

Well the issue is one of cherry picking. First off, certain regions of the poles are predicted to get thicker by the models as weather patterns change. This is a local phenomena and on average, nope they are going. This is not the mark of there is no problem, this is the mark of shifting currents in water and wind.

The denier sphere lives to point to that and make noise as if this is some evidence against the science, when in reality is supports it - and verifies certain models… Ohhh they hate that part…

Once again, Sinclair has a video.

[Link: www.youtube.com…]

Thank you for the reminder. I’ve seen that vid but had forgotten. That knocked that argument on the head. You’re in top form tonight, Ludwig.

229 jaunte  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:01:20pm

re: #227 Gus 802

Youtube Video

230 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:02:01pm

re: #226 LudwigVanQuixote

Bullshit. Back that up. Care to look at the real data? I’ve even put the NASA and the NOAA link on this very thread.

Image: n_plot_hires.png

231 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:02:31pm

re: #211 Rightwingconspirator

Uh, 6000 data points… Unless I misread

[Link: www.catlinarcticsurvey.com…]

Good link. You see, one of the first rules of Deniers is make shit up. One of the second things they do is try to cherry pick lines to say the opposite of papers they have not read. You will find, when pressed, the papers they bring to support themselves are either not papers at all, just opinion pieces by non-scientists, or if an actual paper, one that had one sentence in it that if taken out of context sorta sounds like a problem, but then they never did manage to look at the rest of the paper or even the abstract they are pointing at, or that had they done so, the very paper they brought contradicts them.

232 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:03:19pm

re: #218 avanti

I’m confused too, I other than some appliance bulbs I haven’t had a incandescent in the house for over a year. What’s the issue ?’

You have to get the kind that don’t give off the hideous arctic glare. The other kind. They’re OK.

My only problem with the fluorescents is that I have some lampshades that are supposed to fit down over the bulb shape of an incandescent, and I haven’t quite figured out how to adapt them. But the fluoros last for ages, and work fine. I was told there’d be savings on the electric bill, haven’t seen that, but they definately pay for that little bit extra they cost in how long they last.

233 freetoken  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:03:31pm

I’ve reached the point where, whenever I see climate discussions at current events / politics blogs that I find myself just sighing…

My head hurts from all the banging against the wall.

Here there is a strong blog culture that incorporates an appreciation for modernism, and especially science. However, that is extremely rare, in my experience, outside of the science blogs.

I can go to any “right” blog and find a list of their favorite blogs… and if I visit each one of them the story (wrt) is the same: AGW is a hoax.

I can go to any “left” blog and while there is plenty of mental ascending to the idea of AGW, it is way too common to find a real detachment from reality, in the way of economics.

So I’ve become a doomer… of a sort, anyway. I really don’t like how the body politic in America has devolved over the past decade or so… it is nearly impossible to get anything done that is constructive.

234 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:03:47pm

re: #221 Thanos

Given cheap, plentiful energy you can get water anywhere in the world. If Ludwig’s scenario were to happen, water wouldn’t be the worry in most places anyway (some would feel a pinch) Precipitation in a greenhouse effect that extreme would if anything be too plentiful.

Um. No. Let’s take a look at your first line.

Where is that happening in the third world? Where do you think the water wars will be fought?

235 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:05:28pm

re: #181 astronmr20

Late to this thread, but the Catlin survey was an utter joke, laughed at by even scientists.

It was a publicity stunt with something like 43 data points from the entire expedition.

This was an outright lie. I don’t like liars. Your account is history.

236 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:05:30pm

re: #234 austin_blue

Um. No. Let’s take a look at your first line.

Where is that happening in the third world? Where do you think the water wars will be fought?

It’s not happening Steve because energy is not cheap and plentiful. You add cheap, clean, and plentiful energy and that problem goes away. I didn’t say it existed now.

237 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:05:40pm

re: #229 jaunte

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Ah the good old days before climate change laws came into effect. Boy, life was so much easier then.

238 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:05:47pm

re: #230 Pythagoras

[Link: nsidc.org…]

What is that graph supposed to represent?

239 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:06:38pm

re: #230 Pythagoras

[Link: nsidc.org…]

Ohh dear Lord, we’ve been through this before…

You do know it is possible to fit a line to anything… that fact does not mean the trend is liner, that means that there was a line fit to the data!

look at this paper, page 2 which you claimed was something you agree with. Tell me if things look linear or not.

240 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:06:43pm

re: #181 astronmr20

And so are your other two sock puppet accounts.

241 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:07:18pm

I found this link and shared it this morning, but it’s relevant again here:

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Harry Bradley was a Bircher. And the link gives a list of the organizations to which his foundation gives funding, among them: Heartland Institute- one of the main “think tanks” behind the AGW anti-science agenda.

242 Bob with one O  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:07:21pm

And even in a group that largely agrees about a problem, no consensus can be found.
Human nature.
“We has met met the enemy and he is us.”

243 SnowdenBaggerVance  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:07:26pm

re: #240 Charles

And so are your other two sock puppet accounts.

BUSTED!

244 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:07:27pm

re: #233 freetoken

It’s difficult. You know that their climate expert is Andrew Breitbart and other wingbat bloggers.

245 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:07:37pm

re: #240 Charles

And so are your other two sock puppet accounts.

How long till he shows up at the village?

246 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:07:38pm

OT: I am really loving the Barrett Brown archive at True/Slant, especially his pieces on RSM. Check this out:

anyone familiar with people like McCain will be similarly not-so-astonished to learn that he does indeed worry about teen pregnancy rates when it is black and Hispanic mothers who are getting pregnant, having scolded the New York Times for not sufficiently highlighting the “demographics” of a study on the subject done just last year. Of course, there are “demographics,” and then there are “demographics.” Likewise, there are “respectable commentators,” and then there are “people who used to serve as editors at the shittiest national paper in the country.”

Robert McCain Fine With Teen Pregnancy Among Religious, But Not Minorities

247 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:07:56pm

Hate mail coming in tonight:

Charles, I read online the other night you are a registered sex
offender. Little boys or little girls?? Is this true douche nozzle?

I’ll bet your mother was so proud!

248 avanti  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:08:25pm

re: #232 SanFranciscoZionist

You have to get the kind that don’t give off the hideous arctic glare. The other kind. They’re OK.

My only problem with the fluorescents is that I have some lampshades that are supposed to fit down over the bulb shape of an incandescent, and I haven’t quite figured out how to adapt them. But the fluoros last for ages, and work fine. I was told there’d be savings on the electric bill, haven’t seen that, but they definately pay for that little bit extra they cost in how long they last.

Buy the “A” shaped
bulb.

249 freetoken  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:08:37pm

Regarding domestic policies, the last major positive accomplishment that I can remember getting meaningful constructive dialog across the aisle was Welfare Reform, and while not everybody was on board with it Clinton still pulled it off.

Today… even NOAA is struggling to get Congress to fund a new flight of satellites to replace the aging ones they currently have. One would think everybody would be on board that the NWS is worth investing in an maintaining or increasing its capabilities. Yet that is not true.

250 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:08:51pm

re: #247 Charles

Hate mail coming in tonight:

I can not believe that they would stoop that low. Well yes I can believe it, I am just simply appalled.

251 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:09:42pm

re: #247 Charles

Jeez. My sympathy.

252 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:09:51pm

re: #247 Charles

Hate mail coming in tonight:

Consider the source. Probably came by way of Dan Collins, RS McCain, or Jim Treacher.

253 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:09:52pm

re: #245 LudwigVanQuixote

How long till he shows up at the village?

He’s been there for a while.

254 cliffster  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:10:26pm

re: #247 Charles

that’s jacked up

255 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:10:30pm

re: #245 LudwigVanQuixote

How long till he shows up at the village?

What’s the village?

256 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:10:38pm

re: #250 LudwigVanQuixote

I can not believe that they would stoop that low. Well yes I can believe it, I am just simply appalled.

This is very typical of the kind of hate mail I’ve been getting from right wing crazies.

257 Political Atheist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:10:39pm

Its been illuminating. I’m out to bed. Thanks Ludwig!

258 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:11:49pm

Another Sweat lodge death

google.com

259 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:12:25pm

re: #252 Gus 802

Consider the source. Probably came by way of Dan Collins, RS McCain, or Jim Treacher.

Or Realwest, or Goddess, or TFK, or OR, or…

260 austin_blue  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:12:48pm

Good evening Lizards, have a lovely and peacefully scaly night!

261 ryannon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:13:15pm

re: #60 Dark_Falcon

you’d better be kidding. Here in Chicago, an event like Ludwig described might be survivable, if we could keep enough good land available, though a lot of people would still die. Those people in lands that already don’t produce crops would be toast.

A lot of Illinois and most of Iowa would make a lovely inland sea.

262 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:13:23pm

re: #252 Gus 802

Consider the source. Probably came by way of Dan Collins, RS McCain, or Jim Treacher.

You know what, I swear some of the hate mail has the same (small) subset of authors, just like some of the same loons repeatedly register sockpuppets. I’m sure I’ve seen someone on one of the haterblogs write exactly that as a comment, even spelling ‘douchenozzle’ as two words and not one.

BTW, that Barrett Brown archive at True/Slant does also feature some smackdowns of PW. Not enough, IMO. Still good though.

263 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:13:51pm

re: #258 Thanos

Anyone who would pay $10k for a weekend retreat cum fancy Indian sauna shouldn’t complain about the outcome…

264 Randall Gross  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:14:27pm

re: #258 Thanos

Another Sweat lodge death

[Link: www.google.com…]

Woah… wondering it it’s the same Liz Neuman that we have here:

encyclopedia.com

265 Bob with one O  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:14:30pm

It used to be the left wing crazies.
Times change.

266 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:14:56pm

There is no truth to the rumor that Charles, Ludwig, and Cato are really Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, and Keith Olbermann respectively. On the other hand, SpaceJesus really is Space Jesus.

267 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:15:52pm

re: #265 Bob with one O

It used to be the left wing crazies.
Times change.

The hate mail I got from leftists and Islamists was never even close to the level of viciousness I’m seeing from the right wing.

268 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:16:28pm

re: #262 iceweasel

You know what, I swear some of the hate mail has the same (small) subset of authors, just like some of the same loons repeatedly register sockpuppets. I’m sure I’ve seen someone on one of the haterblogs write exactly that as a comment, even spelling ‘douchenozzle’ as two words and not one.

BTW, that Barrett Brown archive at True/Slant does also feature some smackdowns of PW. Not enough, IMO. Still good though.

PW?

Yeah, I notice the similarities. I’m going by the Twitter gossip clique. There’s several that are a always setting the tone. Dan Collins is actually up there with the wingnut Tweets. The others follow. Jim Treacher is also up there with the obsession.

269 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:17:13pm

re: #253 Charles

He’s been there for a while.

He calls himself ‘dude’ there. He was dumb enough to post that he was going in before trying his stunt. He clearly cares nothing for science, he only cares about his petty little vendetta against Charles. It’s people like that who make Ludwig’s bad-case scenarios more likely. They spread lies to discredit people they don’t like. Scum.

270 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:18:24pm

re: #238 Dark_Falcon

What is that graph supposed to represent?

The graph in #230 is NSIDC’s plot of the September Arctic Sea Ice Extent. It represents area, not volume (or thickness), but it is a very reliable data set, produced by painstaking analysis of satellite photos. I realize that thickness can be different but when sea ice increases for two years in a row, there’s going to be more 2nd & 3rd year ice than before — thus it should be thicker.

I do think that this aircraft based data is better than the Catlin data and it shows an increase.

radiobremen.de

271 Bob with one O  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:19:28pm

Charles,
As one of the right wing (hopefully not crazed),
I apologize.

272 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:19:40pm

re: #239 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh dear Lord, we’ve been through this before…

You do know it is possible to fit a line to anything… that fact does not mean the trend is liner, that means that there was a line fit to the data!

look at this paper, page 2 which you claimed was something you agree with. Tell me if things look linear or not.

I assume you mean one of the papers that you linked earlier. Which one?

273 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:21:00pm

re: #271 Bob with one O

Charles,
As one of the right wing (hopefully not crazed),
I apologize.

My “favorite” flounces have been the ones telling Charles he was going to burn in hell, and they’d sign off “God bless”. I think they may have rather missed the point…

274 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:21:42pm

re: #255 Walter L. Newton

What’s the village?

That would be the stalker blog where sork posted this just tonight about me…

First he edits out the important scientific points and then he gets a distortion in. Then he bitches about me… I am curious Charles which of the odious ones there is astronomer?

Oh, crikey:

217 LudwigVanQuixote Sun, Oct 18, 2009 5:27:33pm

[blah, blah, blah…]

In addition to terrible changes in growing patterns and shortages of fresh water, that also means a 200 ft. rise in sea level.

Furry, you got it right. Nutter. Complete crackpot. Nobody, not even Hansen, is saying that.

Ohhh and Snork thinks I am a lesbian psychology student too…

Not that there is anything wrong with that.. . but alas…

I am so glad those fools were banned.

275 ryannon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:22:39pm

re: #100 Dark_Falcon

I agree about the deaths. Civilization might survive, but it would probably be a tyrannical, survival oriented society.

Led by Walter and the Gaza Seagull.

276 Shiplord Kirel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:22:51pm

For my own part, I have finally been outed as a closet lib. All those years of bashing commies, boosting Goldwater, and defending Nixon don’t count for much with what passes for the right these days.

277 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:23:07pm

re: #272 Pythagoras

I assume you mean one of the papers that you linked earlier. Which one?

Sorry I thought I had reposted the link. Really any of them will do..
smithpa.demon.co.uk

278 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:23:41pm

re: #274 LudwigVanQuixote

That would be the stalker blog where sork posted this just tonight about me…

First he edits out the important scientific points and then he gets a distortion in. Then he bitches about me… I am curious Charles which of the odious ones there is astronomer?

Oh, crikey:

217 LudwigVanQuixote Sun, Oct 18, 2009 5:27:33pm

[blah, blah, blah…]

In addition to terrible changes in growing patterns and shortages of fresh water, that also means a 200 ft. rise in sea level.

Furry, you got it right. Nutter. Complete crackpot. Nobody, not even Hansen, is saying that.

Ohhh and Snork thinks I am a lesbian psychology student too…

Not that there is anything wrong with that.. . but alas…

I am so glad those fools were banned.

re: #269 Dark_Falcon

He calls himself ‘dude’ there. He was dumb enough to post that he was going in before trying his stunt. He clearly cares nothing for science, he only cares about his petty little vendetta against Charles. It’s people like that who make Ludwig’s bad-case scenarios more likely. They spread lies to discredit people they don’t like. Scum.

279 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:24:06pm

re: #267 Charles

The hate mail I got from leftists and Islamists was never even close to the level of viciousness I’m seeing from the right wing.

And remember: They’re the ones with the guns.

But
From what
I know of hate
I think that ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

There is a reason the Fascists (nomen proprium) won for a time.

It was because they had the Church (mine, alas) and the army and the guns behind them. There is no evil like old evil.

Let them be banished. Let them not come again. Let their names vanish.

Amen. Sit. So sei es.

280 Bob with one O  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:24:28pm

Sharmuta,
There is a big tendency to think that once you get your “I’m going to heaven” ticket punched that one can act in any way one desires.

281 SnowdenBaggerVance  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:24:33pm

I actually had to look up douche nozzle. Learn something new every day!

282 Pavlovian Hive Mind  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:24:36pm

re: #270 Pythagoras

The graph in #230 is NSIDC’s plot of the September Arctic Sea Ice Extent. It represents area, not volume (or thickness), but it is a very reliable data set, produced by painstaking analysis of satellite photos. I realize that thickness can be different but when sea ice increases for two years in a row, there’s going to be more 2nd & 3rd year ice than before — thus it should be thicker.

I do think that this aircraft based data is better than the Catlin data and it shows an increase.

[Link: www.radiobremen.de…]

Why should it be thicker? Just because it expanded, doesn’t mean it got thicker. I admit, I’m a layman in this area, but come on!

283 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:25:16pm

re: #268 Gus 802

PW?

Yeah, I notice the similarities. I’m going by the Twitter gossip clique. There’s several that are a always setting the tone. Dan Collins is actually up there with the wingnut Tweets. The others follow. Jim Treacher is also up there with the obsession.

PW= Protein Wisdom. Jeff Goldstein is IMO a psychopath, and Dan Collins…well, remember when he posted the personal info of a girlfriend from 20 years ago and was urging people to get in touch with her? Even JG thought that was over the line.

Pretty revolting stuff.

Here is a scathing indictment of Jeff’s…uh, state of mind. lots of links, too. (Language warning!)

284 lostlakehiker  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:25:16pm

re: #111 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes, a fascist state hoards remaining resources and decides who lives and who starves.

Or perhaps there will be Mad Max types in the deserts… There will be some civilization somewhere, just not one you want to be a part of.

Well, as opposed to being a barbarian trying to charge machine guns with a lance? There are no happy endings if we get to the AGW tipping point. Just lousy endings and wretched endings.

285 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:25:17pm

re: #271 Bob with one O

Charles,
As one of the right wing (hopefully not crazed),
I apologize.

If you’re not crazed, these folks aren’t your fault. Your problem, maybe, but not your fault.

286 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:25:20pm

re: #276 Shiplord Kirel

For my own part, I have finally been outed as a closet lib. All those years of bashing commies, boosting Goldwater, and defending Nixon don’t count for much with what passes for the right these days.

Is that according to the idiots at Blogmocracy?

287 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:27:07pm

re: #284 lostlakehiker

Well, as opposed to being a barbarian trying to charge machine guns with a lance? There are no happy endings if we get to the AGW tipping point. Just lousy endings and wretched endings.

Yes absolutely. However, we can still do things to prevent that if we start acting responsibly now.

288 Sharmuta  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:27:29pm

re: #276 Shiplord Kirel

For my own part, I have finally been outed as a closet lib. All those years of bashing commies, boosting Goldwater, and defending Nixon don’t count for much with what passes for the right these days.

Everyone is a RINO!, so we should for a RINO! party. What do we have to lose? We can draw the Reagan democrats, not the theo-cons. A third party that panders to the independents stands a strong chance of becoming viable at this time. Independents make up more of the electorate than either party. The GOP needs to get a clue. Pushing out RINOs! doesn’t win elections.

289 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:27:49pm

re: #263 Cato the Elder

Anyone who would pay $10k for a weekend retreat cum fancy Indian sauna shouldn’t complain about the outcome…

Not that that New Age (rhymes with sewage) shyster shouldn’t be run out of town on a rail - along with half the population of those “vortex” towns.

Imagine, for a moment, what Mark Twain would say.

290 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:28:26pm

re: #279 Cato the Elder

And remember: They’re the ones with the guns.

But
From what
I know of hate
I think that ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

There is a reason the Fascists (nomen proprium) won for a time.

It was because they had the Church (mine, alas) and the army and the guns behind them. There is no evil like old evil.

Let them be banished. Let them not come again. Let their names vanish.

Amen. Sit. So sei es.

Beautiful, but,

I think I know enough of hate,
To say that for destruction, ice
is also great, and would suffice.

291 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:30:18pm

re: #283 iceweasel

PW= Protein Wisdom. Jeff Goldstein is IMO a psychopath, and Dan Collins…well, remember when he posted the personal info of a girlfriend from 20 years ago and was urging people to get in touch with her? Even JG thought that was over the line.

Pretty revolting stuff.

Here is a scathing indictment of Jeff’s…uh, state of mind. lots of links, too. (Language warning!)

Right. Yeah, they’re all nuts. Forgot about Protein Wisdom Wingnuts.

I’m going to post an excerpt from that link:

He Shall Overcome

(Since Jeff Goldstein’s anti-fans have been clumsily psychoanalysed by Ace of Debased — an effort since punctured by Brad, Roy and TBOGG — consider this my reply in kind, and well worth the effort since Goldstein and his commenters have recently started outing anonymous liberals.)

Jeff Goldstein is a real piece of work, a posterchild for the inferiority complex and resultant over-compensation issues delineated in Adlerian psychology. As is so often the case, the inferiorities he feels are both real and, simply, perceived. There’s nothing wrong with being a Mr. Mom or failed academic, yet Goldstein’s behavior indicates he feels differently — he’s so very touchy about it. On the other hand, there is something wrong with being a chickenhawk coward, a paste-eating cretin, and a talentless hack. Hence his overcompensation in the form of obnoxious aggression (often to the point of violent threats), pseudo-intellectual windbaggery, atrociously banal “short-fictions”.

To the casual observer, Goldstein might seem to be a garden-variety internet wingnut, a suburban douchebag whose sad and petty hatreds, frustrations over stagnated ambitions and innate cowardice lead him to adopt a sort of Walter-Mitty-As-Rambo-As-Whackjob-Blogger schtick, whereby all his fantasies of action and genocidal crusade and manly-man aggression are sated through internet jackassery. Of course if Goldstein really wanted some adventure, he could go to the recruiting office, but — hahahahaha — everyone knows that ain’t gonna happen. And yeah, all of this is common enough on the WingNet, although Goldstein has a curiously ambitious drive to be the biggest jerk of them all, and he very nearly succeeds. Added to this drive and his deep, abiding fear that he might be a weenie is his status as “Literature Wingnut” and the unique salad of sex and violence issues which reside in his otherwise empty brainpan; Goldstein’s a hell of a case study.

292 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:30:21pm

re: #290 SanFranciscoZionist

Thank you. I was quoting from a memory of Frost reading live.

293 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:30:38pm

re: #288 Sharmuta

Everyone is a RINO!, so we should for a RINO! party. What do we have to lose? We can draw the Reagan democrats, not the theo-cons. A third party that panders to the independents stands a strong chance of becoming viable at this time. Independents make up more of the electorate than either party. The GOP needs to get a clue. Pushing out RINOs! doesn’t win elections.

AND no party can win now without pulling a sizeable number of those independents. A lesson the GOP ought to be bearing in mind.

294 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:31:28pm
295 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:31:42pm

re: #292 Cato the Elder

Thank you. I was quoting from a memory of Frost reading live.

Jealous Ooooh noise. When was this?

296 Cato the Elder  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:33:22pm

re: #295 SanFranciscoZionist

Jealous Ooooh noise. When was this?

New England. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

297 Bob with one O  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:33:32pm

re: #285 SanFranciscoZionist

We all have our cross to bear.

298 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:34:51pm

re: #291 Gus 802

Added to this drive and his deep, abiding fear that he might be a weenie is his status as “Literature Wingnut” and the unique salad of sex and violence issues which reside in his otherwise empty brainpan; Goldstein’s a hell of a case study.

Yep. I’m not going to go on and paste in what comes after that, but I would urge people to check it out. It’s a devastatingly detailed dissertation of all the many, many times JG has felt compelled to issue weird sexualized violent threats. It’s quite something to see.

BTW, he and his insane posters went beserk over that piece, tracked down and outed the liberal blogger who wrote it. Not the first time JG was involved in outing or threatening liberal bloggers, either.

299 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:35:46pm

A lot of these guys aren’t even conservative nor liberal. For the most part they’re bullshit artists. The short list of bullshit artists:

1. Andrew Breitbart
2. Pat Dollard
3. Andrew Levy
4. Greg Gutfeld

300 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:36:48pm

re: #293 iceweasel

AND no party can win now without pulling a sizeable number of those independents. A lesson the GOP ought to be bearing in mind.

No they really do think that the rest of America is as hateful and backwards as their party is lurching towards.

301 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:38:19pm

re: #298 iceweasel

Yep. I’m not going to go on and paste in what comes after that, but I would urge people to check it out. It’s a devastatingly detailed dissertation of all the many, many times JG has felt compelled to issue weird sexualized violent threats. It’s quite something to see.

BTW, he and his insane posters went beserk over that piece, tracked down and outed the liberal blogger who wrote it. Not the first time JG was involved in outing or threatening liberal bloggers, either.

Last night I was looking at the old archive from Pajamas Media. Saw that John Cole was a part of it early on. I can see why he departed. These people are crazy. Not only crazy but evil.

302 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:41:03pm

re: #301 Gus 802

Last night I was looking at the old archive from Pajamas Media. Saw that John Cole was a part of it early on. I can see why he departed. These people are crazy. Not only crazy but evil.

I think Cole stayed nominally part of it until the advertising consortium folded last year. That is, he was still deriving income from the ad network or whatever. He’d given up on the Republican party though and was developing a healthy distaste for the wingnuttery.

BTW, did you see that John Cole featured one of Jimmah-Ice’s butthurt videos? hee.

303 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:41:51pm

There is nothing to worry about, when the planet starts to get too warm we will just fire up the inertia-less drive motors and move the planet farther away from the sun where it is cooler like the Pierson’s Puppeteers did in “Ringworld.”

Oh wait…we don’t have inertia-less drive motors do we?

304 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:42:30pm

re: #282 Varek Raith

Why should it be thicker? Just because it expanded, doesn’t mean it got thicker. I admit, I’m a layman in this area, but come on!

You are correct. But the link was specifically about thickness.

radiobremen.de

305 cenotaphium  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:44:27pm

From what I’ve read, the main point is not that the ice melts. As Cato pointed out, the sea ice won’t make the sea level rise. However, losing the ice cap will reduce albedo (the white snow reflects light very well, dark ocean absorbs light very well), and that will act as an accelerant for any global warming trend.

I think losing the northern ice cap will be a good thing in the end. We need an utterly visible change for people to understand that something is going on. Arguing about data is always susceptible to people flipping charts upside down and saying “problem solved” (spreading FUD, that is). Visible changes, like growth zones and habitats expanding (both have been noted in Sweden) are things that people seem to react to more. It’s tangible. I think a change to the image people have of the Earth will have an impact, and one that’s hard to spin away.

306 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:45:42pm

re: #302 iceweasel

I think Cole stayed nominally part of it until the advertising consortium folded last year. That is, he was still deriving income from the ad network or whatever. He’d given up on the Republican party though and was developing a healthy distaste for the wingnuttery.

BTW, did you see that John Cole featured one of Jimmah-Ice’s butthurt videos? hee.

Balloon Juice - The Nobel :

balloon-juice.com

307 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:45:48pm

re: #302 iceweasel

I think Cole stayed nominally part of it until the advertising consortium folded last year. That is, he was still deriving income from the ad network or whatever. He’d given up on the Republican party though and was developing a healthy distaste for the wingnuttery.

BTW, did you see that John Cole featured one of Jimmah-Ice’s butthurt videos? hee.

For my part I “signed up” for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn’t sign up for the rest of this crap. This includes the homophobia, the anti atheism, the anti immigration, the anti-science, etc. Heck I wouldn’t be surprised to see PJM going full tilt on the intelligent design craziness soon. I’ve been holding back on this for a time now. I hate to say this, but, they’re just a bunch of dumb rednecks.

308 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:47:19pm

re: #283 iceweasel

PW= Protein Wisdom. Jeff Goldstein is IMO a psychopath, and Dan Collins…well, remember when he posted the personal info of a girlfriend from 20 years ago and was urging people to get in touch with her? Even JG thought that was over the line.

Pretty revolting stuff.

Here is a scathing indictment of Jeff’s…uh, state of mind. lots of links, too. (Language warning!)

OK that made me laugh out loud.

309 lastlaugh  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:47:51pm

re: #270 Pythagoras

The graph in #230 is NSIDC’s plot of the September Arctic Sea Ice Extent. It represents area, not volume (or thickness), but it is a very reliable data set, produced by painstaking analysis of satellite photos. I realize that thickness can be different but when sea ice increases for two years in a row, there’s going to be more 2nd & 3rd year ice than before — thus it should be thicker.

This is From the site you linked to:

In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. In the spring of 2009, Arctic sea ice was even thinner than in 2008.

nsidc.org

310 iceweasel  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:51:52pm

re: #307 Gus 802

For my part I “signed up” for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I didn’t sign up for the rest of this crap. This includes the homophobia, the anti atheism, the anti immigration, the anti-science, etc. Heck I wouldn’t be surprised to see PJM going full tilt on the intelligent design craziness soon. I’ve been holding back on this for a time now. I hate to say this, but, they’re just a bunch of dumb rednecks.

That’s exactly the sort of thing John Cole would say. He was a staunch Bush supporter and completely behind the war in Iraq. He grew disgusted with the GOP and especially the insanity in the rightwing blogosphere. Next to LGF he’s probably my favourite (general) blog, probably for similar reasons: he’s anti-idiotarian, not partisan, and calls out idiocy wherever he sees it. I much prefer commenting here though— I don’t feel any need to over there.

Agree with you on PJM and creationism. I think it’s just a matter of time. And I endorse your final sentence fully.

311 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:53:01pm

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

Sorry I thought I had reposted the link. Really any of them will do..
[Link: www.smithpa.demon.co.uk…]

Thanks. I’m getting tired and will print the paper tomorrow and take a closer look (if no fire-drills at work). However, if the graph on page 2 is what I think it is the title should be, “Arctic Ice Loss Faster than Hindcast” The forecasts were made later than the date of the data.

I need to think about whether that matters or not. More tomorrow.

Thanks.

312 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:58:56pm

re: #310 iceweasel

That’s exactly the sort of thing John Cole would say. He was a staunch Bush supporter and completely behind the war in Iraq. He grew disgusted with the GOP and especially the insanity in the rightwing blogosphere. Next to LGF he’s probably my favourite (general) blog, probably for similar reasons: he’s anti-idiotarian, not partisan, and calls out idiocy wherever he sees it. I much prefer commenting here though— I don’t feel any need to over there.

Agree with you on PJM and creationism. I think it’s just a matter of time. And I endorse your final sentence fully.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the GOP has morphed into a neo-Confederate party. The demographics play that out and I won’t ever give them a red cent again. I just lost interest in the party of the white rednecks.

313 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 11:05:54pm

re: #307 Gus 802

re: #310 iceweasel

You know they will call that racist… After all, you know that dumb rednecks consider themselves a race.

314 Pythagoras  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 11:06:53pm

re: #309 lastlaugh

[Link: nsidc.org…]

This is a very good point and one I had not seen. I don’t know how they can measure ice thickness from space but I’m not going to just reject the NSIDC data. It needs to be updated from the spring preliminary to the summer minimum though. I expect they will post a slight increase (for 2009 vs. 2008). This was, by the way, only due to a decrease in the arctic ocean current — it has nothing to do with global warming. The current normally runs from the Bearing Strait toward Scandinavia, pushing the ice out into the North Atlantic and melting it. This year that current slowed and thus the ice recovered a lot. In 2007, the current was very fast and the ice dropped a lot. These are just fluctuations about the long term trend.

But I fully expect a decrease next year. The trend is relentlessly downward and I see no change in that.

I cannot reconcile the NSIDC thickness data with the aircraft data (unless they revise it). One of them must be wrong. I do not know which one. However, my understanding of the Catlin expedition and its data is such that I do not give it any weight in the comparison between the other two data sets.

315 Gus  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 11:12:40pm

re: #314 Pythagoras

And you spent how much time in the Arctic?

Zero.

And you studied this science for how many hours?

Zero.

I mean other than designed retaining walls or whatever it is that you do.

316 lastlaugh  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 11:19:36pm

re: #314 Pythagoras

It might be because of my poor googling skills, or the fact that everything came up in German, but I couldn’t find a good analysis of the aircraft data that was more than the little blurb.

317 freetoken  Sun, Oct 18, 2009 11:26:00pm

re: #314 Pythagoras

If you read the English version of the report on the original website, versus a German to English automatic translation, they mention the ice being thicker at the locations measured. The plane did not sample the entire arctic, only a particular flight plan. It is quite possible that the NSIDC is giving an average or median for the entire arctic, not just the sections that were measured by the plane.

Furthermore, if you go to the NSIDC charts on ice thickness after this years melt you can see that there is more 2nd year ice remaining than after the previous summer. However, ice older than that is still less.

318 AllanHateMe  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 5:22:29am

I can’t believe people are still buying this crap.

319 dwells38  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:23:11am

Ya know where I work we’re in the investment business. We sell mutual funds and brokerage products. We’re huge and we’re pros. We didn’t get hit with the credit default swaps and the risky exotic mortgage stuff. At least not enough to even come close to bringing us down. We have 7 times cash on hand to cover our asses. We didn’t have any funds fed from Madoff because we saw that sh*t coming. Our analysts have computer models too and they knew there’s only 3 ways Madoff could get those returns and one of them is a Ponzi scheme. Another is luck and the last is luck and uncanny shrewdness maybe. Conclusion: stay away.

How is it that these climate experts that built these models didn’t see the solar minimum spots coming and have some alternate models on hand to explain? They didn’t think the sun is important???!!!

Please answer that and I’ll stop with the annoying skepticism.

320 cloud48  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:51:03am

First year ice indicates that Artic ice is INCREASING not the opposite. If the Artic ice were melting there would be very little, if any, first year ice. The conclusion suggested is illogical and indicates blind faith to pre-conceived notions regardless of the facts.

321 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:11:09am

re: #320 cloud48

First year ice indicates that Artic ice is INCREASING not the opposite. If the Artic ice were melting there would be very little, if any, first year ice. The conclusion suggested is illogical and indicates blind faith to pre-conceived notions regardless of the facts.

This is simply not true.

322 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:33:14am

re: #319 dwells38

Ya know where I work we’re in the investment business. We sell mutual funds and brokerage products. We’re huge and we’re pros.

Great! So you can tell the difference between what is relevant to a problem and not relevant, and you have the idea that doing research thoroughly is important!

We didn’t get hit with the credit default swaps and the risky exotic mortgage stuff…

Yeah, blah blah blah… What does your Madoff stuff have to do with AGW?I had such hopes you would understand the notion of doing your research well and knowing what is relevant.

How is it that these climate experts that built these models didn’t see the solar minimum spots coming and have some alternate models on hand to explain? They didn’t think the sun is important???!!!

Well because the effect of sunspots is very very small on total solar irradiance. In other words, solar variation is not driving the system. Also, the people doing climate modeling are busy modeling the earth and not the sun. Now, if you were the sort who actually cared about doing research before shooting his mouth off, you wold know this. However, you are so shockingly and pathetically stupid that you feel you have just made some slam dunk argument, when in reality you have only displayed your ignorance.

If you are actually in the financial sector it is no wonder the economy is so messed up - given that idiots like you run it.


Please answer that and I’ll stop with the annoying skepticism.

Well, that’s not skepticism, that was simply talking points from propaganda sites that you do not understand. You don’t get to call yourself a skeptic, you do not get to place your ignorance on an equal plane with the science.

Hope that clears that all up!

323 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:34:48am

re: #320 cloud48

First year ice indicates that Artic ice is INCREASING not the opposite. If the Artic ice were melting there would be very little, if any, first year ice. The conclusion suggested is illogical and indicates blind faith to pre-conceived notions regardless of the facts.

Uhh that is an utter lie. It means that the old ice that had stayed frozen for more than one year is no longer there because it melted. It did that because it got warmer. How can you be that stupid?

324 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:35:35am

re: #318 AllanHateMe

Yeah yeah yeah, how creative.

I can;t believe people think Palin was clever too.

325 Buck  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:38:03pm

20 years? Actually this is good news.

Gore’s Davos warning that ”North Pole ice caps “could” disappear during summer within 5 years”

326 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 2:40:23pm

re: #325 Buck

It was a study done at the Naval Post Graduate school, that estimated that the Arctic sea could be ice free (summers) by 2012. This was done in 2007.

It was the nearest estimate… others ranging out to the 2030’s.

327 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:14:30am

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh