Slab of Antarctic ice shelf collapses amid warming

Reuters ^ | March 26, 2008 | Will Dunham

[pfony1]

ERF,

Thanks for the “ping”, the compliments and the introduction to ModelBreaker.

I hope to be able to add a comment to the discussion this evening.

[ModelBreaker]

Thank you very much! That was perhaps one of the most intelligent, even-handed and rational overviews I have ever read on the subject.

I appreciate your kind words. I wish I had the time to look at this issue more carefully. But I don't. So I kibbitz from the sideline about just modeling issues.

[pfony1]

ERF,

I apologize for this late reply. We have houseguests this weekend.

Anyway, I think you have raised two interesting questions.

The first question relates to whether Science tells us that “AGW” is a hoax— a hoax based on the “convenient” coincidence of an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere and an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.

The science of Botany provides all the proof I need that “AGW” is a hoax. That proof is provided by the evolution of photosynthesis in plants. C-4 photosynthesis evolved to allow plants to survive in an atmosphere where CO2 was relatively SCARCE.

Scarce?

Well, what else but scarcity could result when peat bogs “sequester” atmospheric CO2 in deposits that turn into coal, year after year for eons? What else could occut when algae “sequester” CO2 dissolved in the sea to make deposits that turn into petroleum over eons? From a “Botanical” point of view, increasing CO2 concentrations signals a return to a more normal atmosphere than we have now.

And simple Logic provides just one answer to this question:

“Which would have a greater impact in the temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth:

(1) A small change in the temperature of the Sun, which provides 99.99% of the heat of the Earth’s atmosphere or

(2) A large change in the concentration of CO2, an inefficient greenhouse gas, from 0.0350% of the atmosphere to 0.0500%of the atmosphere?

The second question is really a question of Ethics. That question can take many forms. For example,

(1) Is it “moral” for a person to seek to profit from the ignorance of others, rather than seek to educate them?.

(2) Is it “moral” to allow the costs of that Luddite-like ignorance to become a “legacy” of our children?

(3) Is it “moral” to promote ignorance, because that is so much easier than studying the scientific question, and also much more “socially acceptable”?

(4) Who were more “moral”? The “cooperative” Jews of Berlin, who went peacefully to their deaths in Hitler’s “concentration camps”? Or the brave Jews of Warsaw, who did not go peacefully?

Well, I hear some stirring upstairs. I think it’s time for my wife and me to cook up some “brunch”...

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

pfony1,

Thanks for you answer. This time I am slow. Your points are valid and appropriate arguments (although I generally don’t appreciate Nazi analogies simply because it trivializes the Holocaust. Only the Armenian slaughter, Darfur and what the Communists did are in my opinion comparable. If no one has been systematically rounded up and slaughtered, don’t compare it).

The “sub-questions” to your second point appear to, in some respects, justify my statements in this thread and in threads past that, in lieu of the apparent victory of this “cult” (Basically the whole world and all three POTUS candidiates are on board with only a few lonely Freepers shouting “no”), it is a more strategically appropriate move to ursurp the premise and adapt it to more reasonable stratgies for tackling the perceived “problem”. In many respects this is exactly what Constantine did. His choice was a good one. Had an earlier emperor adopted his strategy, perhaps we would still be speaking Latin.

The current leaders of the cult want a revolution. They want to redistribute wealth. They are using the fear they have created to make a profit themselves and to shape the world according to their leftist agenda. In order to the address their self-proclaimed version of AGW, none of their cures are actually necessary. Humanity can switch to a low-carbon intensity economy without wealth redistribution and without drastically changing our lifestyle or condeming the majority of the human population to lives of abject poverty. And, this plays to the strengths of the US. It will make the US more independent and stronger in the world. The exact opposite of Limbaugh and his parrots who claim the US is the most ingenious country in the world, but have no faith in the people or system to do something as simple as use less energy or even stop burning coal and create more efficient cars. Rush, in my opinion, has a very low opinion of Americans. He proves it on a daily basis by talking about what Americans can’t do. His underlying strategy is generally to promote what is good for Rush Limbaugh (for instance another Clinton presidency). But I digress.

Water usage will ultimately (and shortly) be a much larger constraint to economic growth in the US and the world than energy usage is. Using less water is more difficult and expensive than using less energy.

Of course biologically speaking (and we are biological beings) unrestrained and never ending growth is generally categorized as cancer. That is only the case when that growth consumes geometrically corresponding amounts of resources.

Taking the steps to decouple increased resource use from increased economic growth at this point in global economic development is probably a real good idea given the visible stresses that this resource-use growth is creating and the potential conflicts between major powers to which it will ultimately lead. The cult will do this in their own way to the detriment of all. Using the energy and momentum that has been created to achieve logical, appropriate and universally beneficial new wealth-creation paradigm maybe ain’t such a bad move. Coal and oil companies will suffer. So will all those poor Democratic peoples in oil-rich countries (Don’t worry the Norwegians still have salmon). Everyone else will ultimately benefit.

Do the ends justify the means? To purists never. For me it is a sensible move even if some people are doing the right things for the wrong reasons.

My point is that I think the focus on destroying the cult has been weakened so much that it is a lost cause. The media has done an outstanding job of making the juxtaposing the people who don’t want to teach evolution and believe in Angels witht the smae people who say that Climate Change science is junk. Although the former and the latter may or may not overlap, the damage is done and the legitimacy of that scientific viewpoint has very little value.

At present, the philosophy Taoism and fighting style of Tae Kwon Do is probably the best move.

That is probably a great deal of fodder for you. Rip me a new one (politely as always) ;0)

[dennisw]

Go complain to the Chinese and Indians. They release 2/3 of CO2 emissions

They laugh at global warming. They could care less

[Yaelle]

"Help us, McCain! Help us, Al Gore and Newt Gingrich! Stop the CO2 any way you can! Get carbon off this planet! Our ice shelves are collapsing!"

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Go complain to the Chinese and Indians. They release 2/3 of CO2 emissions

Chuckle. Yawn. The amazing part of the AGW debate is the utter stupidity on both sides. Thanks for the pertinent example.

[dennisw]

What an incoherent post by you but it was in the early AM

So what proportion of global CO2 do Chinese and Indians release? What are your numbers

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

So what proportion of global CO2 do Chinese and Indians release?

Since you were curious enough to ask, these two countries together are responsible for slightly less than 1/4 (or 23.3%) of the estimated total CO2 released by human beings through economic activity. Your numbers, wherever you got them, are made up since 2/3 = 66.6% . If you think about the size of the Chinese and Indian economies than you will understand this. The key word in that previous sentence was for you to "think".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

[dennisw]

Glenn Beck said 2/3 the other day. It’s that’s wrong then so be it

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

In this circumstance then Glenn Beck is either:

1. A liar intentionally engaging in misinformation vis a vis a liberal or

2. Poorly informed and/or not a particularly intelligent because the relationship of economic size to emissions is pretty darn clear (although there are some exceptions, for instance, places like Indonesia engaged in extreme deforestation and draining of peat bogs).

India might also be producing proportionally more CO2 due to the high intake of lentils in the populations’ diet ;0)

[stevio]

Freakin’ awesome!