Jesus Christ, please examine this "data" with the same analytical skills that any sophmore college student learns in a basic statistics class.

Quote:
Deeper permafrost has not thawed since the last ice age, over 10,000 years ago, and will be largely unaffected by global warming in the coming century, says Lawrence.

Quote:
For the high-emission scenario, the area with permafrost in any of these layers shrinks from 4 million to just over 1 million square miles by the year 2050 and decreases further to about 400,000 square miles (1 million square kilometers) by 2100. In the low-emission scenario, which assumes major advances in conservation and alternative energy, the permafrost area shrinks to about 1.5 million square miles by 2100.

***So basically, even if we shut down the majority of coal and oil fired generators on the planet and virtually eliminate the automobile, we only gain about a 20% savings of permafrost? (and the methane/CO2 that it will supposedly release) Hmmmm, let's see, what should we do????***

For years I have been reading the studies on CO2 levels, shifting ocean and jet stream patterns, ice buildup/melting on the antarctic/greenland/northern Russian/icecaps. Guess what, most of it is c**p and the rest is questionable.

I never thought that I would recommend the bibliography from a friggin' NOVEL for christ's sake. But, here goes.
!. Go spend five bucks for Crichton's latest novel.
2. Read bibliography.
3. Use same.


I was shocked to see how Michael Crichtons' latest book pointed out the errors and political bias inherent in the modern environmental movement. Not that I'm particularly cynical, but experience has taught me that the average novelist will spout whatever b***s**t that their agent told them was the "PC idea of the day".

Crichtons latest novel "State of Fear" is unfortunately not a particularly entertaining book. It is disjointed and confused at times. I suspect that it tends to baffle the average collegiate reader; overwhelming them with facts, figures and concepts that they are incapable of processing,(probably due to the pathetic psuedoeducation that they received in the UC system).

The lack of critical thinking capability on the part of the US population is not Crichtons fault,(although it does make his job that much more difficult). The major problem is that most of the people who consider themselves "the guardians of the earth" are utterly clueless as to how the universe actually operates.

***I quote: "Who's Newton?" (from a grad student working on his PhD in Psych) I s**t you not, he really meant it.***

For the most part, "students of the environment" are not particularly interested in grinding their way through the mathematics, physics, statistics, geology, meteorology, astronomy, biology, virology, paleoantology, etc. etc. etc., that, when taken together, will eventually lead you to a rudimentary understanding of how the planet works.

We are now stuck with an entire generation that was raised by hippies: denigrating true critical thinking, sneering at the scientific method, embracing literally any philosophy that offers emotional comfort at the expense of the ability to be of any practical use whatsoever to yourself or your fellow citizens.
In the real world.

KingSizeLite:
To believe that humans have any real effect on the atmosphere is a bit like saying that fleas control the destiny of the dog.

Yes, humans never caused acid rain or depleted the ozone layer. It's all a hippiecommieeconut lie. Nothing we do has any impact whatsoever on the environment. These are not the humans you're looking for.

Global borin.... uh.. warming is boring.

Eco-fascism must be stopped.

Good thing no one here makes blanket generalities or assumptions as to the article authors intentions.

I don't see where they say the end of the world is nigh nor where they imply that veganism will stop what they think might happen.

It reads more of an FYI than some fearmongering bollox that it seems all news must be reduced down to in order for a "discussion" to be had.

PS: suck it trebeck, suck in long, suck it hard.

krum:






/a October 2004 multispectral image from the ESA Envisat, showing nitrogen dioxide levels globally
//wait ... what's that huge blob over asia ... is it right over China? OHNOOOOES!!!1!
///where were all your holiday gifts and trimmings manufactured?

Is there anything stopping us from planting a bunch of trees to turn the now unfrozen tundra into taiga?

That should suck up some carbon.

Krum:
Very well said.

these guys assume (stupidly) that the climate-controlling gulf stream won't collapse (oops, wait, it's ALREADY beginning to do that... how'd they miss that???) and plunge us back into another ice age before then.

nice headline 'mitter...

your world frightens me...

Permafrost. It's nature's longjohns. If rubbin' frozen dirt in your crotch is wrong, hey, I don't want to be right.

Don't worry, global warming will be taken care of with the next huge asteroid strike, super volcano, shut-down of the North Atlantic current, Cubs winning the World Series, etc.

My bet...Yellowstone will blow around the same time that the North Atlantic current shuts down. That will be fun!

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research...

(1) sounds like a cult
(2) if they are experts on the research of the atmosphere, then why are they making bold predicitons about the permafrost? Sounds like to me, somebody exceeded their mandate from Dear Leader.
(3) Anyone with shorefront property, this is all true!!! Your property will be underwater and essentially worthless. My advice, sell now and move to higher ground. My firm is prepared to offer you generous terms of pennies on your dollar. Anyone?

I work at NCAR, with CCSM. Lots of bad science takes place here, so take everything with a grain of salt.

sloeride

UCAR is like a cult, where members need to forego regular hygiene, common social conventions, and professional courtesies.

"Further loss of permafrost could threaten migration patterns of animals such as reindeer and caribou."

veedeevadeevoodee:
You do realize that nitrogen dioxide is not typically consider a greenhouse gas. In fact nitrogen dioxide is known to block out certain wavelengths of sunlight. However, I can only assume that you are suggesting a correlation between the production of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and the tropospheric pollutant, nitrogen dioxide. Or are you confused?

Krum:
I am a "student of the environment". I have had loads of physics, biology, chemistry, ecology, and mathematics. Is it just that I don't fit into your narrow stereotype? Doubtful. The environmental researchers that I work with come from a variety of backgrounds and points of view. They approach problems from many different angles and are very adept at thinking critically.
The problem in the argument concerning global warming is not that environmental scientists "sneer" at the scientific method. It is that politically motivated scoundrels such as GW Bush and Weaver95 choose to have their ears plugged and their minds closed.
The evidence that anthropogenic emissions are accelerating a global warming process has been available for quite some time (in spite of the "research" by a hack novelist). The research that obtained this evidence is sound and follows not emotions or a political drive, but the basic empiricism; this is something that cannot be said about global warming deniers.

TheSignPost: So I see where people are coming from when they say "OOO the environment, OMFG, OH NOES!!oneeleven!1, everyone just relax, it's just a blip on the overall big picture, people, take it from me, because I know."

Sure, true, for the planet. Not for the species, though. But whatever, most people seem to acknowledge that to some degree.

Mmmkay. Any word on when it'll be warm enough to grow grapes in Vinland or the UK? You know, like it was during the Medieval Warm Period?

GEICO already has the cavemen.

State of Fear is a work of fiction.

/That is all.

Krum: Crichtons latest novel "State of Fear" ... tends to baffle the average collegiate reader;

Why would anyone with a decent college education take the environmental ramblings of a failed doctor-cum-bad novelist as worth further thought?

I, personally, greatly enjoy the bibliographies of such authors as Diamond, Garrett, and others with actual degrees in the disciplines of which they speak. However Crichton, not so much.

Basically, you know your ecological argument is full of sh|t when the word Crichton appears on your screen. Return to Go, do not collect $200 in pollution credits.

Krum: We are now stuck with an entire generation that was raised by hippies

So, your parents were hippies? There was a time when only hippies roamed the earth? Dude, seriously, stop drinking the boiled mushroom water and calling it "coffee".

KingSizeLite: To believe that humans have any real effect on the atmosphere is a bit like saying that fleas control the destiny of the dog.

If the dog is being kept in a run from which he cannot escape, but other animals can come near him/her, the dog could catch plague-carrying fleas. The humans come down with the plague, die, and the dog later dies of starvation. Now, doesn't your example sounds silly? It's sort of like saying "How could a hurricane cause the deaths of pet animals?"

I guess saying humans have any effect on the atmosphere is like saying bacteria and viruses have any effect on humans. Somehow, I doubt that's the analogy for which you were looking, since it invalidates the point you were trying to errantly make.

Global warming proponents tend to be the mirror image of evolution deniers.

Considering that all the major scientific associations in the climatological and atmospheric science field are anthrogenic global warming proponents, your statement could not be more dishonest.

FarkmeBlind: Basically, you know your ecological argument is full of sh|t when the word Crichton appears on your screen. Return to Go, do not collect $200 in pollution credits.

That's hot.

I was just quoting Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer this morning.

/awesome

Sloth_DC: That's hot.

It's Local Thread Warming. Not caused by heated air emissions.

Really. Not.

No, I'm serious.

FarkmeBlind: It's Local Thread Warming. Not caused by heated air emissions.

Maybe it's a natural cycle?

Weaver95: Gee, yet another article from some eco-nuts telling us all that the world is going to end.

Meh - I don't believe the fundies when THEY try peddling this crap. Why should I believe this?


I guess the real difference is that these are projections from observations. The Fundies read stuff in a book whose original documents are lost and has been mistranslated subsequently. 'Nuff said about them.

What you should realize is that there is no doubt that the world is warming. The issue is if humans have caused this. By the precautionary principle we should at least assume that we are contributary.

Sloth_DC: Maybe it's a natural cycle?

Aren't you worried that sloths might become extinct as this "natural" cycle works itself out? Perhaps because sloth emissions are masquerading as "nature"?

/are sloth emissions silent, deadly, or both?

Sloth_DC:
Mmmkay. Any word on when it'll be warm enough to grow grapes in Vinland or the UK? You know, like it was during the Medieval Warm Period?

That would be now: English Wine Producers

The average global surface temperature has been higher than it was during the MWP for a couple of years now.

I_C_Weener: Neither is his bibliography

Crichtons book is a large blob of dog droppings. Quit advocating this poorly written polemic. Read about Imhofe (talk about corporate stooge) and Crichton:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=188

Please read this article - in simple words it deconstructs all of crichtons "arguments".

I_C_Weener
...[they] ignore important concepts and facts in order to justify, and rejustify, their own positions.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, Crichton did just that when he wrote the book.

and more than 1/4 of the permafrost will suddenly become protected marshlands, while the 3/4 in the ex-soviet union will become a heavily polluted mud puddle... as 90% of siberia's standing structures sink into the earth.

Interesting, eh? all of asia is going to have a nasty sudden lack of gas and oil.

I_C_Weener:
Dansker Well, one good thing can come of warmer temps...more vikings. The Little Ice Age destroyed their society.

The Vikings were long gone before the Little Ice Age.
All it did was give us a lot of white Christmasses and make it easier for the Swedes and Danes to invade eachother, what with the straits freezing solid and all.

I_C_Weener: Water vapor contributes more to the effect, but no one ever criticizes the use of water fountains.

In what scientific study are water fountains shown to be the primary contributors of water vapor to the atmosphere? I think you are a proponent of too little critical and too much magical, thinking.

Such as, sources of water vapor (off the top of my head)
respiration...of humans, their food and companion animals, vehicles, nuclear plants, ocean evap (which accelerates as the ocean and atmosphere warms) etc. How many of those factors are under our (at least ostensible) control? Why...ALL of them, except ocean evaporation (which we could lessen by reducing the other impacts that enter into the ocean's warming).

Do you see how illogically minimizing our impact leads to your false sense of security and superiority? Do you see how fountains are irrelevant?

/I won't be too surprised if you don't.

I_C_Weener: trust me, there is a magical man in the sky who will judge you

You seem to have trouble with imaginary forces and observations. What CC people are concerned with is that there are changes in the natural world (as opposed to supernatural) that are aligned with the hypothesis that the worlds climate is changing due to human causes. This is supported by an overwhelming consensus of climate researchers.

Now the fossil fuel industry funds a number of contrarians whose evidence is widely quoted. Sorry but unless these people actually start publishing and providing evidence as to why the general consensus is false then they are just shills - much like those ID folks.

As I said earlier - global warming is real - the human factor is compelling.

FarkmeBlind: /are sloth emissions silent, deadly, or both?

Mostly silent, occasionally deadly.

Dansker: That would be now: English Wine Producers

And Vinland?

Dansker: All it did was give us a lot of white Christmasses and make it easier for the Swedes and Danes to invade eachother, what with the straits freezing solid and all.

Heya Dansker, still fighting the good fight, kudos. I find it quite interesting how little European history most U.S. citizens actually know, despite the fact that most of them are overly proud of said "history".

/my mom is some-little-bit-Danish
//not the pastry