Ice and snow

There are quite a few recent articles about glaciation recently. Here's just a sampling.


From the Globe and Mail, we have
Antarctic ice sheet shrinking at faster rate.

This article claims that the Antarctic ice sheet has been shrinking, while most other reports show that, other than on the peninsula (2% of the entire continent), temperatures on Antarctica have been either the same or dropping, and that there's been a net *increase* of ice mass.


From the Chicago Tribune, we have
This South Pole base uplifting.

This article describes the extra efforts made to extend the useful life of this new station so that it doesn't get buried in ice, like the first two stations.


Then there's this article, from the New York Times.
Study Says Glaciers Formed During a Very Warm Period

Here, findings show that glaciers formed 90 million years ago, during a period when alligators and tropical trees thrived in the Arctic.

And finally, from Daily Tech.
Glaciers in the Greenhouse: Polar Ice Might Have Little to do with Global Warming.

Here, they discuss data that provides evidence of glaciers *increasing* during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum.

Some interesting reading.

.

Car vs. Transit

When we first moved to our new home 2 years ago, we got rid of our car. This city has a rather good transit system. Plus the expenses of having car payments and expenses, coupled with having to pay rent again, made it impractical to keep the car.

So for the last two years, we have relied completely on public transit. That, however, may be coming to an end. We are currently borrowing, and will probably buy, a car. It's on older car, and a step down from what we had before, but we can pay for it outright, while the money for bus passes will pretty much cover the cost of insurance. It needs work, but it gets us from A to B.

There's a lot of reasons to use transit. It's less expensive than having a car, it keeps the traffic down, less pollution, etc., etc. But as time went on, it became increasingly frustrating to depend on transit. Part of it surrounds things like grocery shopping. I've found myself *not* buying things we needed because they were too soft and likely to get damaged on the way home (such as most breads, fruits) or too heavy to carry together with everything else (like potatoes, flour, canned goods), and so on. It's hard to carry a week's worth of groceries on the bus, even with all 4 of us carrying bags.

There's also the frustration of things like buses being late, or not showing up at all (that happens a lot more than I ever thought it would), standing at bus stops in inclement weather, missing connections, having a trip take an hour or more, when by car it would take 15 minutes.

We're already familiar with the pro's and con's of owning a car. Now that we have access to one again, I've found the biggest pro is the freedom having a car gives us. Just as an example, we meet with a group of people weekly at a public park. It takes us about an hour to get there by train and bus. Once we've figured out the route to get there, it takes about half an hour by car - and that included getting lost. Granted, we haven't had to do it in rush hour, but for the times we go there, we'd be missing rush hour, anyways.

Other possibilities open up. There's an annual winter event that we've been to for two years in a row now. It's held in an out of the way place, and the nearest bus stop is on the highway. We would then walk what we've since calculated out to be approximately 3 miles. It's a potluck event, so we're carrying food and drinks, as well. We'd then have to leave early, because after a while, one of the buses that go past there stops running completely, while the other goes by only once an hour. We just can't afford to miss it. Since there's 4 of us, few people have large enough vehicles that we could get rides with them, and the cost of a cab is prohibitive, to say the least. With a car, we can park right near the event, and actually be able to stay for the whole thing, if we wanted to.

There's another aspect of public transit, though, that is making the decision to buy a car again a lot easier. Today is an example of that.

Today was library day, and our usual branch is downtown. We could've gone to any library, since we now have a car, but I had a book on hold downtown. Plus, we had another place to go to and, with parking being an issue (as it is in the downtown core of every city we've lived in), the girls and I took the train. At one point, we were standing near the doors, since there was no where that all 3 of us could sit together. A man got on at one of the stops and happened to sit in a seat facing us. The seat across from him was occupied, but the gentleman there soon got up and stood beside us. He must've caught on to something we missed, because he'd moved just in time. Moments after he left, the other guy suddenly leaned forward and puked on the floor. He then straightened up and wiped the vomit off the front of his shirt with his hand. Had the guy that moved still been sitting there, he would've been "decorated."

correction: as I was recounting this to my husband, Youngest informed me that I did, indeed, miss something. The reason the one guy moved was because the other had already vomited at his feet - so he was probably already "decorated."

Later on, after we'd finished in the library, the girls and I waited at the bus stop to go home. It's almost a waste to take the bus from there, as it's only about a mile/mile and a half, to our home, but we were loaded down with books and starting to feel pretty tired from the walking around we'd already been doing, so the bus it was.

While we were waiting, a group of youths gathered nearby. One of the women began yelling at one of the men who was walking away - she was swearing a blue streak and was soon heading towards the man, ready to beat him up (from what she was shouting, he'd apparently had sex with her sister, though she was a lot cruder in her terms). She'd gone after the guy and the group of them were standing around in the middle of the street before one of her companions dragged her back to the sidewalk. They continued to stand in a group not far from us, loudly swearing, with the one young woman continuing her threats to the young man, who was apparently part of the group, since he kept coming back.

These sorts of incidents are just two of many. We are frequently accosted by aggressive panhandlers (both on and off the buses), have witnessed inappropriate behavior of various levels, but have actually been lucky. We haven't been robbed or assaulted, as many others have been. Well, there was that one murder my husband missed witnessing by about a minute, but so far, that's still exceptional.

In the end, our move to or from public transit is less about being environmentally responsible, or saving money, etc., but more about safety and protecting our children and ourselves.



.

An interesting chart of the Arctic sea ice.

Click on this image to see it full size. Then take a close look at the start and end points of the red line, 2007.

By the end of 2007, the Arctic ice cap had not only recovered, but exceeded it's coverage prior to summer melt.

Original source.

Looks like it's official

It seems like solar cycle 24 has finally started.

Link

Link

In a few years, we should start being able to see how this will effect us here on Earth.

Book Review: Conservative Environmentalism

Conservative Environmentalism: Reassessing the Means, Redefining the Ends

Authors: James R. Dunn and John E. Kinney

Although I’ve been focusing on anthropogenic global warming and climate change in my last reviews, this book is far more general. Published in 1996, AGW wasn’t the big panic it is today.

The entire book is actually available online to Questia members. You can find the entire contents list and the first few pages here.

First, the basics of the book, with a look at who the two authors are. James R. Dunn is (was?) a geologic consultant to Behre Dolbear, New York City and a former professor of geology/environmental geology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He’s also a former President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists. From their website, I see that he served as their VP in 1969, and president in 1980. I’ve tried searching for him online but, other than listings at Greenwood Publishing Group, I can’t even find if he’s still alive. :-/ At the time of publication, Dr. Dunn has over 140 publications to his credit.

John E. Kinney is listed as a Registered Professional Environmental Engineering Consultant, and a Diplomate, American Academy of Environmental Engineers. Water and natural resources around the world seem to be a specialty of his, and he’s been a consultant on those regards for the US government. Greenwood has a short blurb on him as well. He has over 200 publications to his credit, plus presentations, and has acted as a consultant to many others besides the US government. Like Dr. Dunn, I’m not finding much about him online, other than papers and books he has published.

The next step for me before reading the book was to check out the references. The book had only a “selected bibliography” in the back. They make a point of listing books from both sides of environmental philosophy, as they define it (more on that later). It took me a while of back flipping to realize why I didn’t find a more extensive list. Every chapter ends with its own list of references and footnotes, some several pages long. They were very thorough.

In the Preface, the authors are very clear on where they stand. They are environmentalists. They count themselves among the “environmentally concerned” that they dedicate the book to. “… the people who, to the best of their ability, strive to leave a better world for their children.” They then make a quick run-through on how, throughout our history, humans have caused a great deal of environmental damage over the millennia. They then go on to claim that, as humans and nations become freer, wealthier and more industrial, we have taken the initiative to repair our damage and improve on our environment to an extent never before achieved.

The authors break environmentalists into two camps. One is the left-leaning “liability culture,” while the other tends to be the more conservative “asset culture.” From the beginning, they state that they don’t have to room to delve too far into certain aspects, and leave it to their readers to inform themselves to make their own decisions. They also clearly describe their views as being “primarily anthropocentric.” That is, they “… view the world first in terms of human needs.” This position immediately sets them apart from many environmental leaders, who openly state that they view humans as a disease, and that human needs should be secondary to the needs of the planet. The authors, however, proceed to demonstrate in the book that meeting the needs of humans will also meet the needs of the planet, while proposals to restrict or devolve human activity will damage the environment. They describe their focus as two things. “…(1) the impact of humans on the natural environment, including forests, wildlife, water quality (as related to human bodily wastes) and quantity, and soil; and (2) the impact of nature and humans on human health.” They then state, “We relate all data to wealth and the wealth-creating process.”

They are also clear on their stand. “While we see the environmental benefit industry brings to our world, we are critical of some activities of industry. Similarly, while we find no fault with some ideals expressed by environmental leaders, we are critical of much of the current direction of environmentalism.” Their purpose has been to investigate the claims by many environmentalists that we in the First World, through our use of industry and resources, are damaging the earth, and that we should turn away from these practices to live in a more “sustainable” way, and demonstrate if these claims are true or not.

The layout of the book is very logical and precise – which seems totally in keeping with their particular backgrounds. ;-) The book is divided into 4 parts: The Natural and Human Environments, Wealth and Resources, Politics and the Environment, and finally, Toward a Better Environment. Each part begins with its conclusions listed. The following chapters then demonstrate how and why they reached those conclusions.

Now, on to reviewing the book itself.

The authors proceed to demonstrate how humans have long been responsible for the degradation of our environment. Such actions have primarily been the result of trying to survive - we've been trying to protect ourselves from the environment, not the environment from us. They point out the flaws in our tendency to romanticize simpler times and earlier cultures. One example is how many paint North America’s First Nations as being ecologically wise and living in harmony with nature, when in reality, they actively controlled and modified their environment, primarily through the use of fire. The prairies, it turns out, were created and maintained for about 5000 years with fire by those who wanted to encourage the large herds they depended on. Reforestation didn’t (unintentionally) begin to occur until Europeans arrived and completely disrupted the pattern. Many other examples are given, in the process reminding us that every habitat exists at the expense of another.

The authors also demonstrate how, especially in the last 70 (now 80) years, First World nations have been able to greatly improve our environment as our industry and technology increase - improvements to an extent we were not capable of previously. These claims are amply demonstrated with charts showing how we’ve been able to increase food production while decreasing land used for agriculture, and how reduction in air, water and land pollution were made only when our society became stable and wealthy enough that we could divert our attention away from the basics of survival, to cleaning, improving and restoring the natural world around us. They then compare our achievements with Second and Third World nations, and how poverty and illness has lead to increased environmental devastation. Simply put, people don’t care about the environment when their lives are focused on surviving from one day to the next. Perhaps most damning of all, they clearly demonstrate how First World environmentalists actively increase human misery and environmental damage by preventing Third World nations from using the very tools we used to improve our own lives and our local environments. They expose the fallacy behind trying to impose First World regulations and ideals on Second and Third World people. They argue that only through industrialization, wealth creation (particularly through free market systems) and individual freedoms (namely, democracy) can those in the Third World improve their lot to the point where they can also improve their environment. They also argue that, having already gone through the painful learning curve of industrialization that first lead to massive pollution before we improved our technology and became wealthy enough to clean it back up again, we can help Second and Third World nations reduce or avoid many aspects of that stage.

The authors are especially blunt when it comes to describing the damage caused by leaders in the environmental movement, and demonstrate how their real motives cannot possibly be the actual improvement of the environment, when they actively pursue actions that cause more, not less, damage. They provide evidence to show that some of these leaders are more interested in destroying western style democracy and the reduction, if not elimination, of the human population. They “credit” much of this damage to Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, the claims in which they demonstrate as having been completely false. Silent Spring claimed that pesticides were killing off bird populations at a time when these populations had been increasing dramatically – in some cases (robins), by over 1000%! They lay the blame to much earlier than Silent Spring, but single Carson’s book out as having galvanized people into taking actions that have since led to the misery and deaths of millions of people, virtually all in Third World nations, which they also demonstrate as being completely in keeping with the goals of certain environmentalist leaders.

They go on to demonstrate the flaws behind the notion of “sustainability” and show how First World nations have been able to multiply resources. They also remind us that the assumption behind “sustainable” behavior is that our current needs will stay the same. This is demonstrate-ably false. Many materials we use today, we didn’t even know about 100 years ago. Items we use today, we couldn’t have imagined only 50 years ago. Even since the time this book was published, our resource needs have changed, while improving on the efficiency of materials we’ve been using for many years. Technology and the materials it depends on, is changing at staggering speeds. As a speaker in a business seminar I went to some months ago said, 10 years from now we won’t be able to live without things that haven’t yet been invented today.

The last part of the book deals with a look to the future - what we can do to improve, and how. I noticed a significant difference between their assessment of the future, and those in books like AIT and The Idiot's Guide to Global Warming. The suggestions in these other books were short and tepid, to say the least - recycle, switch to CFL bulbs, take public transportation, etc., while leaving the reader with a decidedly negative, almost hopeless, frame of mind. The authors of Conservative Environmentalism view things much more optimistically, and their much meatier suggestions will actually make real, positive differences in peoples lives; our own and those in Third World nations, who would suffer the most under a world dominated by the "liability culture." In the process of improving our lives, they assert, we will also improve our environment.

In reading the book, I found myself catching some knee-jerk reactions towards many of their claims and statements. After all, I grew up being told that industry is causing massive environmental damage; that we are using up our resources at ever increasing rates, and that things are getting constantly worse, unless we put a stop to greedy, rich capitalists and giant corporations that take advantage of the poor and downtrodden. Even as the years passed and I began to see for myself that much of this is false, I still found myself internally jumping at some of their statements and conclusions. It’s hard to justify such reactions when 1) I’ve seen otherwise for myself and 2) all their claims are promptly backed up with proof.

In conclusion, I found this book to be an enlightening read, even with the older information. I’ve already seen from other sources that many of the trends they describe have continued. This is especially true in increases in forestation in both Canada and the US, and their subsequent increases in wildlife. While the authors are blunt in their negative assessments of today’s environmental leaders, they are clear in stating that most people are just trying to do the right thing, to the best of their knowledge and ability. This book would be, in my opinion, the most difficult for these people to read. The consequences of actions taken by various groups, has lead to incredible hardship, damage and loss of life. To find out one has played a part in supporting those actions, even in a nominal way, would be very difficult. I believe this book amply proves that this is exactly what has happened, and I know it continues to happen today.

Seven points

This is Al Gore's 7 point pledge that he wants us all to take.

The seven-point pledge announced by Al Gore to rally support against global warming:

I pledge

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

Wow. A lot of open ended stuff here.

What, exactly, is "global warming pollution?"
How, exactly, would cutting this "pollution" by 90% be accomplished, and at what cost?
What, precisely, would cutting this "pollution" actually accomplish towards creating a "healthy earth?"
For those who live in First World nations, our children are already inheriting a healthier earth (unless we screw it up for them by implementing some of the more drastic suggestions to battle global warming). For those who live in Second and Third World nations, these treaties are more likely to increase environmental damage than reduce them.
I could go on, but that's fodder for another post.

2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become ''carbon neutral'';

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has a limited ability to effect climate. Cutting our personal CO2 "pollution" will have no effect at all on climate, because we are responsible for such a tiny fraction of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, anyhow.

3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the C02;

From what I understand, this technology does not yet exist. Therefore, this point is actually a pledge to fight *all* new generating facilities. Considering the costs of such action (and I don' t mean just in dollars and cents), I would much rather have new plants with scrubbers, as well as scrubbers being added to existing plants, that will remove or reduce the *real* pollutants they emit.

4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

Just what, exactly, would that be? How would we accomplish this? Who will pay for it? Who decides what these changes entails? What unexpected consequences might there be? I'm all for increasing energy efficiency, so long as it actually *is* an improvement. A prime example of unexpected consequences is the switch to CFL bulbs, which may be more energy efficient, but are much more expensive, have limited functionality, and have greater environmental risks associated with them. Oh, and I just recently learned that when they do burn out, they can become extremely hot and start smoking. I wonder what's in that smoke, considering what's in the bulbs themselves.

5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

These are things that should be part of a free market - supply and demand. If customers demand other energy sources, suppliers will meet those demands. I would be willing to accept reasonable regulatory controls (with limitations placed on them, as regulations seem to breed excessively in dark corners, when we're not noticing. *L*). I'm also all for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels - actually, I am all for reducing our dependence an a whole lot of things, but especially governments. I have serious reservations to instituting laws. What if these "renewable energy sources" turn out to be a cure worse than the disease? The more I learn about large scale solar and wind generation, the more I disagree with going that route. The environmental costs are incredibly high, while at the same time, they are unreliable and incapable of meeting our energy needs *now,* never mind in the future.

6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

I'm all for planting trees! Growing up on the prairies, planting trees went a long way to protect our homes from the winds, reducing soil loss, and as a side benefit, increasing local wildlife. Many of us took advantage of the free seedlings given out by the government and using them to plant shelter belts. One of my brothers alone has planted over 400 trees on his property through this program. I can't even guess at how many trees my parents have planted in the almost 50 years they've lived on our farm.

Keeping in mind, though, that encouraging one type of habitat will always be at the cost of another. The First Nations created and maintained the prairies through the use of fire for over 5000 years, preventing the growth of forests for a reason. By planting trees, we're encouraging one type of ecosystem at the cost of another.

Industrial nations have been steadily increasing their total forests quite dramatically, some for over 300 years! Where my alarm bells start to go off is with the words "preserving and protecting." What would that entail? Who decides which forests need to be preserved and protected? Why? How?

7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crises and building a sustainable, just and prosperous world for the 21st century.

I'm all for supporting good businesses and community leaders. However, since I think "solving the climate crisis" is a massive diversion of funds and resources away from real problems that need solving, to a problem we have little to no control over (and a problem that is largely exaggerated and falsified in the first place), other things will influence my decision to support a business. Any business or leader that has jumped on the climate crisis bandwagon will *not* be getting my support. Any business or leader that is trying to solve actual problems in regards to pollution controls (real pollution, not CO2), waste reduction, efficiency, etc. will have my full support. These are among the reasons I like our local grocery store. They have a public recycling bin for plastic bags (though most customers use it as a garbage bin), as well as recycling their own waste products, from cardboard and plastic, to composting vegetable wastes. They are also supporters of the local community, providing sponsorship and volunteers for numerous local events.

Aside from all this, following Gore's pledge will accomplish nothing when it comes to affecting global warming, one way or the other. While we have some influence and control over our regional environment, the globe will do what it does, regardless of our actions. We have no control over the sun, our magnetic field, the Earth's path around the sun, and cosmic events, many of which we were just learning about now. We have no control over our oceans, and little ability to effect them, though some proposals to fight global warming have the potential to dramatically damage them. We can control what we put into our atmosphere to a pretty good extent, but we can't control how the atmosphere behaves - again, we're still just learning how it works, and there's still huge gaps in our knowledge.

In the end, about the only thing Gore's pledge will do is deceive a few good people into believing they're actually making a difference, and provide more publicity and accolades for himself.

.

Guest post

Thanks, Bill, for letting me post this here. :-)
note: the charts are from here.

The 60-Second Climate Skeptic

I was trying to think about what I wanted to do for first post in the new year versus my recent orgy of global warming writing. My original compilation has ballooned into 80+ pages, so there may be many people who rationally just have no desire to tackle that much material. So I decided for this post to try to select the one argument I would use if I had only 60 seconds to make the climate skeptic's case. But how do you boil down 80 pages to a few simple statements?

Anyway, here goes, in a logic chain of 8 steps.

1. CO2 does indeed absorb reflected sunlight returning to space from earth, having a warming effect. However, this effect is a diminishing return -- each successive increment of CO2 concentrations will have a much smaller effect on temperatures than the previous increment. Eventually, CO2 becomes nearly saturated in its ability to absorb radiation. The effect is much like painting a red room with white paint. The first coat covers a lot of red but some still shows through. Each additional coat will make the room progressively whiter, but each successive coat will have a less noticeable effects than the previous coat, until the room is just white and can't get any whiter.

2. In the 20th century, the UN IPCC claims Earth's surface temperatures have increased by about a 0.6 degree Celsius (though there are some good reasons to think that biases in the installation of temperature instruments have exaggerated this apparent increase). To be simple (and generous), let's assume all this 0.6C increase is due to man-made greenhouse gasses. Some may in fact have been due to natural effects, but some may also have been masked by man-made sulfate aerosols, so lets just call man-made warming to be 0.6C.

3. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is thought that man has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.038% of the atmosphere. Since scientists often talk about the effect of a doubling of CO2, this historic rise in CO2 is 36% of a doubling.

4. Using simple math, we see that if temperatures have risen 0.6C due to 36% of a doubling, we might expect them to rise by 1.67C for a full doubling to 0.056% of the atmosphere. But this assumes that the rise is linear -- and we already said (and no one denies) that it is in fact a diminishing return relationship. Using a truer form of the curve, a 0.6C historic rise for 36% of a doubling implies a full doubling would raise temperatures by about 1.2C, or about 0.6C more than we have seen to date (see chart below). This means that the magnitude of global warming in the next century might be about what we have seen (and apparently survived) since 1900.

5. Obviously, there is some kind of disconnect here. The IPCC predicts temperature increases in the next century of 4-8 degrees C. Big difference. In fact, the IPCC predicts we will get a 0.5C rise in just 20 years, not 70-100. Whereas we derived a climate sensitivity of 1.2 from empirical data, they arrive at numbers between 3 and 4 or even higher for sensitivity. The chart below shows that to believe sensitivity is 3, we would have to have seen temperature rises due to man historically of 1.5C, which nobody believes.

So how do they get accelerating temperatures from what they admit to be a diminishing return relation between CO2 concentration and temperature? And for which there is no empirical evidence? Answer: Positive feedback.

6. Almost every process you can think of in nature operates by negative feedback. Roll a ball, and eventually friction and wind resistance bring it to a stop. Negative feedback is a ball in the bottom of a bowl; positive feedback is a ball perched precariously at the time of a mountain. Positive feedback breeds instability, and processes that operate by positive feedback are dangerous, and usually end up in extreme states -- these processes tend to "run away" like the ball rolling down the hill. Nuclear fission, for example, is a positive feedback process. We should be happy there are not more positive feedback processes on our planet. Current man-made global warming theory, however, asserts that our climate is dominated by positive feedback. The IPCC posits that a small increase in temperature from CO2 is multiplied 2,3,4 times or more by positive feedbacks like humidity and ice albedo.

7. There are three problems with these assumptions about positive feedback. One, there is no empirical evidence at all that positive feedbacks in climate dominate negative feedbacks. The 20th century temperature numbers we discussed above show no evidence of these feedbacks. Two, the long-term temperature record demonstrates that positive feedbacks can't dominate, because past increases in temperature and CO2 have not run away. And three, characterizations of stable natural processes as being dominated by positive feedback should offend the intuition and common sense of any scientist.

8. An expected 21st century increase of 0.5 or even 1 degree C does not justify the massive imposed government interventions that will be costly both in dollars and lost freedoms. In particular, the developing world will be far better off hotter by a degree and richer than it would be cooler and poorer. This is particularly true since sources like an Inconvenient Truth wildly exaggerate the negative effects of global warming. There is no evidence tornadoes or hurricanes or disease or extinction are increasing as the world warms, and man-made warming advocates generally ignore any potential positive effects of warming. As to rising sea levels, the IPCC predicts only a foot and a half of sea level rise even with 4 or more degrees of warming. Sea level rise from a half to one degree of warming would be measured at most in inches.

OK, so that was more than 60 seconds. But it is a lot less than the whole discussion. There is a lot of complexity and if you refuse the irrational politics, I’ll be more than happy to explain all these issues and much more (yes, including tree rings and cosmic rays) are discussed in more depth.