60 Minutes

[Memphis Mike]

Did anyone see the show last night?

The polar ice caps are indeed melting and scientists say the debate is over on the cause.

They say manmade greenhouse gasses are indeed a contributing factor.

One of the saddest parts of the story is this could cause the extinction of Polar Bears.

The bears depend on the ice to hunt seals and a study of the bears has already found a reduced size with less cubs being born.

Say what you will but mankind is ruining this planet for future generations. :(

It's funny how the Bush administration will contribute a lot of money to enviromental research yet fail to sign the treaties to curb pollution.

Here's a recap of the story aired last night.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml

[Norman Bernstein]

I saw the story.

Unfortunately, there's no really clear concensus about 1) how much the man-made contribution to global warming is a factor, versus natural Earth envorinmental cycles, and 2) whether doing anything about it, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emmissions, etc, would help... or possibly even hurt.

Until there's a clear concensus on this point, global warming is going to be simply a proxy for hard core left and right wing politicos.

[Memphis Mike]

Yeah Norman but did you read this part.

There's long been a debate about how much of this is earth's naturally changing climate and how much is man's doing. Paul Mayewski, at the University of Maine, says the answer to that question is frozen inside an ice core from Greenland.

With funding from the National Science Foundation, Mayewski has led 35 expeditions collecting deep ice cores from glaciers. The ice captures everything in the air, laying down a record covering half a million years.

"We can go to any section of the ice core, to tell, basically, what the greenhouse gas levels were; we can tell whether or not it was stormy, what the temperatures were like," Mayewski explains.

60 Minutes brought Mayewski back to Greenland, where he says his research has proven that the ice and the atmosphere have man's fingerprints all over them.

Mayewski says we haven't seen a temperature rise to this level going back at least 2,000 years, and arguably several thousand years.

As for carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, Mayewski says, "we haven't seen CO2 levels like this in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years."

What does that tell him?

"It all points to something that has changed and something that has impacted the system which wasn't doing it more than 100 years ago. And we know exactly what it is. It's human activity," he says.

It's activity like burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. is by far the largest polluter. Corell says there's so much greenhouse gas in the air already that more temperature rise is inevitable.

Even if we stopped using every car, truck, and power plant — stopping all greenhouse gas emissions — Mayewski says the planet would continue to warm anyway. "Would continue to warm for another, about another degree," he says.

That's enough to melt the Arctic — and if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the temperature will rise even more. The ice that's melting already is changing the weather by disrupting ocean currents.

[Norske3]

To late to stop the melting.....98% glacier melting worldwide!...the more it melts the faster it melts.

The bears have been slowly starving now for years.

[ 02-20-2006, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Yeah Norman but did you read this part.
Yes, I did... but to be completely objective, this is just one scientist's conclusions... and there are lots of dissenting voices and conflicting data.

Normally, I'm swayed by the percentages.... as in the 'Darwin vs. I.D.' debate, since I'm not an evolutionary biologist, the overwhelming support for Darwin, vs. the paltry support for I.D. (as well as the religious agenda of it's supporters) has formed my opinion fairly strongly.

However, in the global climate debate, the numbers aren't anywhere near this stark. There are LOTS of disssenters.

This is not to say that I don't have profound environmental concerns... and on a 'micro' as opposed to 'macro' level, I side strongly with the environmentalists on issues like point source polluters, etc....

But, in the 'macroenvironmental' forum, I'm still somewhat on the fence.

[Dolly Varden]

i talked about an out take on this book in this months playboy magazine that i read, on another thread

this guy makes some interesting observations and it sounds like an informative book, if you arent afraid of information

he said polar bears may well be extinct in the wild within 20 years

Dutch

http://www.theweathermakers.com/images/cover.jpg

[ 02-20-2006, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Dolly Varden ]

[Matt J.]

Haha... cute distraction from the point... let's argue over "what" or "who" caused it rather than whether there is anything we can do to avoid total extinction for certain species...

Let's argue over whether our activities cause anything serious (um, extinction?) rather than just doing what we can to change our activities to the extent we can do do what we can...

Let's blame one person, party, country, etc, over the others, rather that just agreeing it's a bitch, perhaps a shame (though shame implies guilt, which brings us circularly to arguing about irrelevent fault), and we need to at least take some steps to doing what we beleive won't hurt, and may even help.

:rolleyes: Aint people grand? Yeah, let's have more kids! Something's wrong, or changing, or causing fire effects, and we're worried about getting blamed or who to blame... gooooood grief!

[Alan D. Hyde]

The continuing problem remains.

Is what we're seeing now the result of a geologically normal cyclical pattern? It has been far warmer in the past than it is now--- warm enough to permit wide settlement and pastoral agriculture for over a century in Greenland, for example.

OR, is what we're seeing novel, and, if so, is it the result of sunspots, or some other extra-human factor, or is it instead the result of human actions in the environment? We vain humans do tend to resemble Aesop's fly sitting on the axletree of the speeding chariot, saying "see what a dust I raise!"

Now, if you're a Ph.D., even one with a good tenured position at a leading university, then grant-writing and grant-winning are a necessary part of your economic survival--- your paycheck.

Just by way of example, Johns Hopkins has had federal grants in excess of $1,000,000,000 in some recent years.

So--- if this is how you make your living--- there will be a natural human tendency for you to follow "intellectual" and political fashions of the day, and to see matters in the light of such conventional wisdom.

Despite all the talk about "diversity," the boat-rocking individualist who thinks wholly for himself is no more popular in the University world than he is inside of General Motors Corporation. But, oh how much such individuals are needed in both those places!

Alan

[Memphis Mike]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yeah Norman but did you read this part.
Yes, I did... but to be completely objective, this is just one scientist's conclusions... and there are lots of dissenting voices and conflicting data.

Normally, I'm swayed by the percentages.... as in the 'Darwin vs. I.D.' debate, since I'm not an evolutionary biologist, the overwhelming support for Darwin, vs. the paltry support for I.D. (as well as the religious agenda of it's supporters) has formed my opinion fairly strongly.

However, in the global climate debate, the numbers aren't anywhere near this stark. There are LOTS of disssenters.

This is not to say that I don't have profound environmental concerns... and on a 'micro' as opposed to 'macro' level, I side strongly with the environmentalists on issues like point source polluters, etc....

But, in the 'macroenvironmental' forum, I'm still somewhat on the fence.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Norman but I think your kind of attitude is probably part of the problem.

Your kind of attitude has prevailed and influenced decisions negatively for over twenty years now.

When this issue first popped up years ago people said "oh, well we really don't know that yet."

"We really don't have any proof."

This scientist has researched Global Warming for over twenty years now and I myself believe his conclusions.

It's a damn shame that no one would believe them back in the early eighties and it's still a worse shame that people are still sceptical today.

[N. Scheuer]

Doing something about Global Warming would take too larg a whack at very large Bidnezz interests.

Moby Nick

[Memphis Mike]

Originally posted by N. Scheuer:
Doing something about Global Warming would take too larg a whack at very large Bidnezz interests.

Moby NickThat's exactly right. And these people are willing to destroy the very planet we live on in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

It's going to be damn funny in one hundred years when their factories and businesses are under water.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
So--- if this is how you make your living--- there will be a natural human tendency for you to follow "intellectual" and political fashions of the day, and to see matters in the light of such conventional wisdom.Thank god all of those scientists employed by the oil industry are totally and completely objective!

[Victor]

Sea level rise will certainly be bad news for those who live near the shore, but otherwise, does it really matter? When you look at some of these mansions built 6 inches above sea level on the Jersey Shore it's kinda hard to work up much sympathy.

And doesn't global warming promise to raise crop yields in areas that are now too cold? Rainfaull patterns may shift as well, of course.

[Norman Bernstein]

Sorry Norman but I think your kind of attitude is probably part of the problem.
Respectfully MM, I think it's more part of YOUR problem.

I call 'em like I see them, and I will NOT be pigeonholed. The evidence of human influence on global warming, and more importantly, the evidence that we can do something about it, is at best 'mixed'. One scientist's conclusions does not 'truth' make.... on a macroenvironmental scale, the dissent amongst scientists is substantial.

[Bruce Hooke]

From all I've seen, there really is very little debate going on in the scientific world about the causes of global warming. There is an underlying warming trend in the climate that is certainly a contributing factor, but there seems to be quite a clear consensus among scientists that the primary cause of the serious global warming we are starting to see now is greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere by human activities.

As with any scientific debate there are at least a few people putting forward alternative views, but this is a very small minority. Unless something can be mathematically proven (i.e., if x is not true than a = a AND a is not equal to a, therefore x must be true), there will always be people offering alternative hypotheses, because that is the way science works. However, in realm of policy we have to make decisions when there is simply a good consensus otherwise nothing would ever get done.

[Dolly Varden]

Originally posted by Victor:
Sea level rise will certainly be bad news for those who live near the shore, but otherwise, does it really matter? When you look at some of these mansions built 6 inches above sea level on the Jersey Shore it's kinda hard to work up much sympathy.

And doesn't global warming promise to raise crop yields in areas that are now too cold? Rainfaull patterns may shift as well, of course.you dont think climate cdhange will have a deleterious effect on your lifestyle so it doesnt matter?

you are very wrong. and not a very logical thinker

Dutch

[Popeye]

some people are not a part of the solution

[Dolly Varden]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
I saw the story.

Unfortunately, there's no really clear concensus about 1) how much the man-made contribution to global warming is a factor, versus natural Earth envorinmental cycles, and 2) whether doing anything about it, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emmissions, etc, would help... or possibly even hurt.

Until there's a clear concensus on this point, global warming is going to be simply a proxy for hard core left and right wing politicos.you are indeed wrong norm. the rest of the world is doing something about the problem, while the fat arse pig headed u.s. sits on its hands and debates the need for action. and our competition will reap the rewards of the new technologies and jobs that those technologies create, while the u.s. slides further into mediocrity

Dutch

[ 02-20-2006, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Dolly Varden ]

[Memphis Mike]

Here's more. The general, if not overwhelming, consensus is the US should join in the Kyoto Treaty.

http://americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm

[Victor]

Sorry Dolly, I meant aside from real estate values. Really, what ARE the overall ramifications? Won't it be balanced by other changes, such as crop yields? Now an Ice Age, that would be a threat that even George Bush probably couldn't cope with. I once read the last Ice Age was characterized by scant rainfall in most arable areas.

[George.]

The economic effects will probably be balanced. In other words, there will be winners and losers, for no net change.

Not much consolation if you end up on the loser side.

Other effects: coastal towns and real estate will suffer, with great property loss. But in the long term, it will be no worse than, say, WWII. The world will recover. The human world, that is.

The permanent damage will be in other fields. Cultural treasures like Venice will vanish. But thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of species will go extinct, because unlike humans, they can't relocate to ajust to shifting climate and sea levels - they are already restricted to small preserves.

So in the end, we'll end up much impoverished - at least that minority of us whose lives are enriched by things like Venice and coral reefs. The rest can go back to their TV and iPods.

[Bob Cleek]

http://heartslinked.com/pictures/ocean/images/sfseals_600x450.jpg

http://www.martinenelsa.demon.nl/1997%20foto/Pier%2039%202.jpg

Seems that those polar bears are just too lazy to get off their butts and move on to greener pastures! Look what the lack of polar bears has done to one new marina in San Francisco! :D

[Norman Bernstein]

you are indeed wrong norm. the rest of the world is doing something about the problem, while the fat arse pig headed u.s. sits on its hands and debates the need for action. I'm not so sure that this is an accurate portrayal of the truth. The U.S. has been imposing ever more stringent controls on automotive and industrial polution since the late 60's.... while China floods their domestic market with especially dirty small diesel engines. Even my 1970 MGB had a smog pump!

The 'rest of the world' aside from the U.S. includes a lot of nations that aren't really big contributors to global pollution and warming.... if you wanted to get the biggest bang for the buck, you'd have to look at emerging nations like China. We could undoubtedly be doing a lot more.... but it's not like we're doing nothing.

[WWheeler]

say goodbye to Louisiana and Florida

[Popeye]

the jig is up for Lower Shoe Cove

http://craignewbury.com/NFLD%20Trip/Scenic/Shoe%20Cove%20Stage.JPG

[stumpbumper]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:

I'm not so sure that this is an accurate portrayal of the truth. The U.S. has been imposing ever more stringent controls on automotive and industrial polution since the late 60's.... The Bush adminstration has relaxed many of these controls or extended deadlines to appease industry. If we wait for a consensus of opinion from environmental scientists, we may be gasping for breath while treading water. Taking effective steps to control greenhouse gases now is a no-brainer along with other environmental policies.

Lynn

[ljb5]

Originally posted by George.:
The economic effects will probably be balanced. In other words, there will be winners and losers, for no net change.There may be a few winners, but it's unlikely they wil equal the losers.

The destruction of arable land happens much more quickly than the creation.

Desertification is mostly a one-way street.

If Greenland opens up for agriculture, it may be many centuries until it produces crops in volume --- besides, no one lives there yet. We'd have to reshape entire societies to deal with the new reality.

If Iowa suffers a prolonged drought, or a few seasons of storms that devestate crops, Greenland won't be in a position to compensate.

Historically, the human response to loss of arable land is to do things that make the situation worse --- like slash-and-burn in the Amazon. Frankly, I don't expect all those people will move to Baffin until they've burned, cultivated and depleted every last scrap of land around them.

[George Roberts]

From the 60 minutes report:

"Even if we stopped using every car, truck, and power plant — stopping all greenhouse gas emissions — Mayewski says the planet would continue to warm anyway. 'Would continue to warm for another, about another degree,' he says.

That's enough to melt the Arctic ..."

This is what I have been saying for years.

You have a choice:

1) spend a lot of money reducing greenhouse gases with the same end result.

2) look for a different solution to the problem.

3) live with the "new" climate.

I would suggest getting on with choice 3.

[George.]

"Even if we stopped using every car, truck, and power plant — stopping all greenhouse gas emissions — Mayewski says the planet would continue to warm anyway. 'Would continue to warm for another, about another degree,' he says.

[/QB]How much will it warm if we don't do anything about it? ;)

[Alan D. Hyde]

Another reference on this topic---

http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/

Worth a look...

WELL worth a look--- Norman, I suspect you may find this linked essay both well-written and well-argued.

Alan

[ 02-20-2006, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Dolly Varden]

as tropical climate expands, insects and microbes which are hazardous to human health will increase in number and area of activity. humans will not win

Dutch

[George.]

Well, some of us live in tropical climates, and seem to ajust to the insects and microbes just fine... tongue.gif

[stumpbumper]

3) live with the "new" climate. Or die.

Lynn

[WWheeler]

I'm not so sure that this is an accurate portrayal of the truth. The U.S. has been imposing ever more stringent controls on automotive and industrial polution since the late 60's.... The Bush administration is proposing to relax EPA rules on coal-burning power plants. (There's over 300 old clunkers upwind from us in the Midwest and Ohio valley.) As a result, Ontario and 11 US states are taking the EPA to court.

[Meerkat]

When you're stsnding looking at the rubble of what was once your house, you don't much care whether or not the storm that did it was enhanced by man's activities or not - you just want your house back.

As the world's oceans cool less and heat more, the intensity of these storms will only increase and the period during which they can occur will also increase.

The pace of climatic change is accelerating. At some point, as we know from the geologic record, triggering events will occur. One such event is the cessation of the Gulf Stream. This will pretty much economically wreck the east coast of North America and cause equally profound climactic changes in Europe. In the Pacific, the failure of circulating currents would have an equally devestating effect.

If the polar bears can hang on long enough, they own't have to worry about habitat. We're going to have to worry about ours and the abrupt drop in human population all over the globe, and it won't much matter what the cause was.

With respect to the theory that man's activites have caused global warming, alternate energy may not be the answer. There's something called the heat budget that has to be taken into account too. There may be just too many humans on this planet to sustain.

Alan; What were the facts of Eugenics? What are the facts of global warming? I'm amazed that you'd try to compare the two. To suggest that global warming is quack science is irresponsible. Whatever the cause, it is here now!

[Dolly Varden]

says .head- "Well, some of us live in tropical climates, and seem to ajust to the insects and microbes just fine..."

STATISTICS ON MALARIA
Malaria is one of the planet's deadliest diseases and one of the leading causes of sickness and death in the developing world. According to the World Health Organization there are 300 to 500 million clinical cases of malaria each year resulting in 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths.
Children aged one to four are the most vulnerable to infection and death. Malaria is responsible for as many as half the deaths of African children under the age of five. The disease kills more than one million children - 2,800 per day - each year in Africa alone. In regions of intense transmission, 40% of toddlers may die of acute malaria.
About 40% of the world's population - about two billion people - are at risk in about 90 countries and territories. 80 to 90% of malaria deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa where 90% of the infected people live.
Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest malaria infection rate. Here alone, the disease kills at least one million people each year. According to some estimates, 275 million out of a total of 530 million people have malaria parasites in their blood, although they may not develop symptoms.
Of the four human malaria strains, Plasmodium falciparum is the most common and deadly form. It is responsible for about 95% of malaria deaths worldwide and has a mortality rate of 1-3%.
In the early 1960s, only 10% the world's population was at risk of contracting malaria. This rose to 40% as mosquitoes developed resistance to pesticides and malaria parasites developed resistance to treatment drugs. Malaria is now spreading to areas previously free of the disease.
Malaria kills 8,000 Brazilians yearly - more than AIDS and cholera combined.
There were 483 reported cases of malaria in Canada in 1993, according to Health Canada and approximately 431 in 1994. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States received reports of 910 cases of malaria in 1992 and seven of those cases were acquired there. In 1970, reported malaria cases in the U.S. were 4,247 with more than 4,000 of the total being U.S. military personnel.
According to material from Third World Network Features, in Africa alone, direct and indirect costs of malaria amounted to US $800 million in 1987 and are expected to reach US $1.8 billion annually by 1995.

want me to pull up information on any of the other tropical diseases mankind has whipped up on?

Dutch

[ 02-20-2006, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Dolly Varden ]

[George.]

Originally posted by Dutch:
The disease kills more than one million children - 2,800 per day - each year in Africa alone.

Malaria kills 8,000 Brazilians yearly - more than AIDS and cholera combined.
Very good, Dutch. This shows that:

1) Malaria kills far less Brazilians than guns, auto accidents, cancer, heart disease, or diabetes.

2) Brazil has done very well in controlling not only malaria, but also AIDS and cholera.

3) What really kills people in the tropics is Africa-style poverty, ignorance, and lack of good governance - not the heat and humitdity, or any insects and bacteria they foster.

[Meerkat]

Aside from which, as the global weather system corrects itself, there may well be less tropical climes anyway.

[Memphis Mike]

"Alan; What were the facts of Eugenics? What are the facts of global warming? I'm amazed that you'd try to compare the two. To suggest that global warming is quack science is irresponsible. Whatever the cause, it is here now!"

You have to take into consideration that Alan is a member of the "Have Mores."

They believe the money they hand down to their children and grandchildren will make their lives a lot easier.

Hence, the all out grab.

[Meerkat]

Oh well, I'm a colateral branch of that family: the Wanna HaveMores... ;)

Money does not preclude brains, although it does seem to distort the thinking process in unhealthy ways. ;)

[George Roberts]

George. ---

I heard a statement about the difference in doing nothing and in reducing emmissions to zero and I believe it went like this:

If we do nothing, the climate in 100 years will be ...

If we cut emmissions to zero, we will have the same climate in 106 years.

I don't believe in climate projections to the degree that the statement implies but ...

I don't think there will be much difference.

[huisjen]

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
http://heartslinked.com/pictures/ocean/images/sfseals_600x450.jpg

http://www.martinenelsa.demon.nl/1997%20foto/Pier%2039%202.jpg

Seems that those polar bears are just too lazy to get off their butts and move on to greener pastures! Look what the lack of polar bears has done to one new marina in San Francisco! :D They don't need polar bears. They need eskimos.

Dan

[High C]

Norman, kudos for your objectivity.

[Memphis Mike]

Originally posted by George Roberts:
George. ---

I heard a statement about the difference in doing nothing and in reducing emmissions to zero and I believe it went like this:

If we do nothing, the climate in 100 years will be ...

If we cut emmissions to zero, we will have the same climate in 106 years.

I don't believe in climate projections to the degree that the statement implies but ...

I don't think there will be much difference.As I said, it's too bad people didn't listen twenty years ago.

It's not reversible..... now.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
Norman, kudos for your objectivity.Nice when someone agrees with your biases, eh? ;)

[Memphis Mike]

Originally posted by High C:
Norman, kudos for your objectivity.Keep living in denial, JT.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Memphis Mike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Norman, kudos for your objectivity.Keep living in denial, JT.</font>[/QUOTE]No, he lives in deswamp. ;)

[LeeG]

I went to the Natural History Museum in DC today with three little boys,looking at 50million year old fossils and 10,000 year old bones,lots of extinct animals since the last ice age. Maybe in ten thousand years there will be another museum. Probably not. Anyway it's a good museum. We're leaving good pyramids everywhere.

[High C]

Originally posted by Memphis Mike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Norman, kudos for your objectivity.Keep living in denial, JT.</font>[/QUOTE]There is a lot of disagreement. Keep your mind open.

What is the fix, from what you've learned about the issue? To sign onto Kyoto and then ignore it like Europe is doing? To shut off the power and close the roads? Whether now, or twenty years ago, if you really believe that man's energy consumption is causing harmful changes to the weather, that's the fix. Reducing CO2 levels by 5% below some recent level doesn't amount to squat. Besides, China is ignoring it. Europe is ignoring it. Dang near the whole world is ignoring it.

George R is right, the key is to adapt, not to just bang our heads against the wall and cry about mean old mother nature. The weather has NEVER been stable, and it's not going to sit still to suit us now.

[High C]

Originally posted by Memphis Mike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Keep living in denial, JT.No, he lives in deswamp. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Cleopatra lived in denile. ;)

[Victor]

Right, High, what're we gonna do about it now? Even if we'd invoked drastic measures ten years ago, would it have made any difference? Has anyone ever said what abiding by the Kyoto protocols would actually entail? Surely it would raise the cost of manfufacturing and transportation, but I believe virtually all new automobiles are close to negligible pollution.

[ 02-20-2006, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

[Memphis Mike]

"George R is right, the key is to adapt, not to just bang our heads against the wall and cry about mean old mother nature."

It's not "Mother Nature" that's done this but you're obviously too jaded to understand.

I think you just got a pretty good whack so we'll see what next summer holds.

Peace....out. smile.gif

[Dolly Varden]

) What really kills people in the tropics is Africa-style poverty, ignorance, and lack of good governance - not the heat and humitdity, or any insects and bacteria they foster. easy to say when you are the rich white guy with an albeit 2nd rate secondary education living in a 3rd world country

Dutch

[George Roberts]

Memphis Mike wrote:

"As I said, it's too bad people didn't listen twenty years ago."

(I don't agree that CO2 emmissions are the cause of global warming but ...)

It is very hard to say when there was time to prevent global warming. I think that even 20 years ago more CO2 was entering the atmosphere than was being removed. That net gain is an important point because it means that someone, but not me, has to give up quality of life to change the balance.

I expect the problem could not have been solved after 1900, but who knew back then. And who would want the world to live in that age forever.