Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

[Music Calgary]

http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan%2BGlaciers%2BGrow%2Bfor%2BFirst%2BTime%2Bin%2B250%2Byears/article13215.htm

Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.

 

I've never accepted the "fight climate change" hysteria. Nature does what it does. For us to invest resources into an intentional attempt to block nature from taking its course in order to somehow "reverse" the unintentional harms we create is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard.

 

The Alaskan glaciers have grown this year, Arctic sea ice has increased this year, some areas just had the coldest summer in several decades -- and yet the press isn't giving it any coverage. Odd.

 

I wonder how global warming alarmists will obfuscate this one.

[UstadKhanAli]

I've never accepted the "fight climate change" hysteria. Nature does what it does. For us to invest resources into an intentional attempt to block nature from taking its course in order to somehow "reverse" the unintentional harms we create is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard.

 

Regardless of whether there's climate change that is man-made or not, running cleaner cars, having less toxic emissions, putting less crap in the air, and conserving natural resources and energy are all things that i can get behind and don't consider stupid.

 

There has been extremely noticeable climate change, by the way, in the last hundred years. That is indisputable, as it has been measured by scientists from everywhere and acknowledged by, well, pretty much everyone. The controversy is whether it is man-made.

 

The article you linked to also points out:

Molnia says one cold summer doesn't mean the start of a new climatic trend.

 

Sooooo...who knows.

 

Have we had a warming trend? Absolutely.

Has it been man-made? Possibly.

Will the warming trend reverse itself? Got a crystal ball?

[amplayer]

Regardless of whether there's climate change that is man-made or not, running cleaner cars, having less toxic emissions, putting less crap in the air, and conserving natural resources and energy are all things that i can get behind and don't consider stupid.

 

Well stated. I agree.

[UstadKhanAli]

Why, thank you. Mighty kind of you!

[Music Calgary]

Regardless of whether there's climate change that is man-made or not, running cleaner cars, having less toxic emissions, putting less crap in the air, and conserving natural resources and energy are all things that i can get behind and don't consider stupid.

 

Actually they are very stupid at times, it's all in the implementation... Having good intentions doesn't mean you are generating net-positive results.

 

For example using biotech to conserve resources.

 

As soon as start supporting the concept above the implementation you are in trouble vis-a-vis your own best interests.

 

For example buying a new Prius under the maxim "running cleaner cars" is not conserving resources, it is consuming them.

 

Words are not results.

 

Auto emissions are relatively easy to control, new cars are reasonably good on that front. They are not the biggest problem -- so why is that where resources go instead of the biggest problem? Stupid? Heck yeah...

 

Again, as soon as start supporting the concept above the implementation you are in trouble vis-a-vis your own best interests.

 

Every human supports having cleaner air -- that's obvious. The problem is in implementation. What are you willing to give up? What goods are you willing to tell your family they must do without? When push comes to shove not too many people, particularly those who yell loudest about clean air, are willing to do what it really takes.

[blue2blue]

I'm a common sense kind of guy.

 

Climatologists and other scientists -- who are the experts, here, after all -- have cited large amounts of evidence to support their conclusions. The rest of us, by and large, are not experts and do not have our fingers on the evidence or the expertise to interpret it.

 

 

But... if there is a problem with global warming and the evidence seems clear, now, according to climatologists -- whatever its causes -- it only stands to reason that human activities that contribute to that warming may not be the wisest course of action.

[UstadKhanAli]

Actually they are very stupid at times, it's all in the implementation... Having good intentions doesn't mean you are generating net-positive results.

 

Sure. But this doesn't change the fact that running cleaner cars, having less toxic emissions, putting less crap in the air, and conserving natural resources and energy are beneficial to us.

 

Implementation is always a problem whenever one is trying to do something on a global scale. Still, shouldn't we try?

[Music Calgary]

Climatologists and other scientists -- who are the experts, here, after all -- have cited large amounts of evidence to support their conclusions. The rest of us, by and large, are not experts and do not have our fingers on the evidence or the expertise to interpret it.

 

That is a really, really ridiculous thing to say/think. To each their own though.

 

Forming reasonable informed opinions via reading/conversation is more appealing to me.

 

The "experts" who have gotten almost all the media exposure on this are bought and sold. If you do even cursory research you will find that sources like UNs IPCC are using highly flawed computer models to forward innaccurate data.

 

But... if there is a problem with global warming and the evidence seems clear, now -- whatever its causes -- it only stands to reason that human activities that contribute to that warming may not be the wisest course of action.

 

The evidence is clear? HAW!

 

How on earth you people feel that you understand nature is beyond me. Because you don't. At all. Failed prediction after another...

 

If the evidence is so clear to you then please cite some. Tell us how it is.

 

Still, shouldn't we try?

ABSOLUTELY!

[blue2blue]

Science is a process by which evidence is collected and analyzed systematically in order to develop the most accurate base of knowledge possible at any one time.

 

Science, of course, is no more infallible than any other human endeavor, but the rigors of the Scientific Method help assure that it is the best explanation for phenomenon that can be supported by evidence at any given point in time:

 

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena , acquiring new knowledge , or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable , empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning . [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation , and the formulation and testing of hypotheses . [2]

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

 

Of course, you are free to ignore the findings of scientists, as many people seem to feel compelled to do by superstition, misunderstanding, or simple ignorance -- but to suggest that you or any other individual knows more or better than those who have applied a systematic and rigorous intellectual methodology to the acquisition and testing of knowledge seems to me an over-reaching so extreme as to immediately deny any credibility whatsoever to the person claiming it.

 

Talk about ridiculous...

[bp]

Clean air and water would be wonderful. Alternative fuels are essential for both the environment and economic security. Let's just start there and stop bull{censored}ting about global warming.

[amplayer]

For example buying a new Prius under the maxim "running cleaner cars" is not conserving resources, it is consuming them.

 

I agree with you there. Actually, it is worse than that. The huge batteries associated with the Prius have no good way to be disposed of when the car is eventually scrapped. The problem is, those huge batteries are absolutely awful for the environment! They leak nasty chemicals into the ground.

[Music Calgary]

Clean air and water would be wonderful. Alternative fuels are essential for both the environment and economic security. Let's just start there and stop bull{censored}ting about global warming.

 

Well said. I'm down with that plan 100%...

[Jeff Leites]

I wonder how global warming alarmists will obfuscate this one.

 

They will stick to their agenda. Facts are not part of their thinking process, only what feels right. The truth will be on the back page if anywhere, the lies will be yelled from the roof tops.

 

I've always felt that a good size natural forest fire, or volcano puts much more crap in the air than man does.

 

That said, I also agree with Ken. Why should we pollute the world anymore than we have to when alternatives are becoming available. I hope I live long enough to see clean FCHV (fuel cell hydrogen vehicles) become the main mode of transportation. I've already been waiting 35 years.

[Magpel]

Forming reasonable informed opinions via reading/conversation is more appealing to me. ABSOLUTELY!

 

In the sciences, as with any other highly specialized body of knowledge or practice, you have approximately a 0% chance of ever holding an informed and accurate opinion without some degree of reliance on experts. Tell me your opinion of, you know, angiotensin-converting enzymes, or something.

 

So there have always been imperfect but essential conventions and laws and standards in place to try as best as possible to protect the integrity of knowledge and to document research and experimentation to ensure repeatability. It seems to me we wouldn't have come quite so far if they didn't work to some extent. And science, among most other fields, has NEVER been free from extra-scientific pressures. The marketplace of truths is hardly unique to our era.

 

But anyway, I think it is pretty clear that the so-called growth of the glaciers is actually a kind of fungal infection with concomitant inflammation.

[Richard King]

Regardless of whether there's climate change that is man-made or not, running cleaner cars, having less toxic emissions, putting less crap in the air, and conserving natural resources and energy are all things that i can get behind and don't consider stupid.

Economics.... I am rebuilding a house that was damaged in a hurricane in 2004. I am eventually looking to sell this house after it is put back together. I could have gone with the standard fiberglas bat insulation. I could have gone with your normal, typical paint. I didn't do either. I went with a sprayed on foam insulation at a cost of about 400% of fiberglas bats. Supposedly this will save about 30% on the heating/cooling expenses per year. The required size of the air conditioner unit went from 4800 BTU to 2400 BTU. All interior paint will be non toxic zero VOC paint http://www.mythicpaint.com/. My feeling on "Man Made" global warming is that it is an invention of man and is used by people like Gore to increase their wealth. I don't believe that he even believes in the "fact". If he did he wouldn't live as he does. I did the above for economic reasons and to add to the value of the house and, hopefully, make the house more desirable to the typical buyer. I didn't do it to avoid "man made" global warming. When alternative fuels become economically feasible for a car, I will make the jump there also. Anyone want to buy a newly rebuilt, efficient, pool house in Vero Beach, Fl? It's three blocks to the ocean and 1/2 block to the river.

[UstadKhanAli]

Thanks. Even if one doesn't believe that global warming is man-made, there's still so many reasons to do these things...including economics.

[Richard King]

Thanks. Even if one doesn't believe that global warming is man-made, there's still so many reasons to do these things...including economics.

Yea, but... do you want to buy a house in Vero Beach?

[the stranger]

I've always felt that a good size natural forest fire, or volcano puts much more crap in the air than man does.

 

The latest research is showing that the lack of forest fire if contributing to CO2 build up. Yeah. Something about the whole cycle of fire and the way it regulates growth. Without the fire, the undergrowth doesn't not function properly, which results in less plant life to absorb co2, and significant loss of nutrients. Also, I guess fire (ash) is the best fertilizer of all. SciAm- I'm sure their description is better than mine.

 

It did make sense, though. More than my summation.

 

I found it:

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=temperate-zone-forest-fir

 

Climate models suggest that forest fires drive global warming by releasing greenhouse gases. The resulting climate change then lengthens the forest fire season and increases the number of fires each year, thereby pumping more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and further exacerbating atmospheric warming. But a new study says that despite emitting heat-trapping methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, fires in temperate zone (or boreal) forests may actually cool the climate significantly, because they leave behind a landscape that reflects sunlight.

 

Or better light reflection. I don't think this is the same article, but the ideas about carbon emissions and such seem to change daily.

[UstadKhanAli]

Yea, but... do you want to buy a house in Vero Beach?

 

Ah, that's the MAIN question here!!!!

[John Sayers]

Thanks. Even if one doesn't believe that global warming is man-made, there's still so many reasons to do these things...including economics.

 

 

well yes and no Ken - I'm right into alternative energy systems as my previous posts will confirm, but I'm not about to be snowballed into supporting economic destruction based on a lie.

 

If you are really interested in the science then read this 4 part open letter to John McCain from Viscount Monckton published yesterday. It presents the pseudoscience that has been presented to us under the label "Climate Change/Global Warming"

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

[UstadKhanAli]

well yes and no Ken - I'm right into alternative energy systems as my previous posts will confirm, but I'm not about to be snowballed into supporting economic destruction based on a lie.

 

Economic destruction? How would this happen if we are conserving, using alternative energy, and keeping the air clean?

[John Sayers]

because every US firm that consumes carbon wil be taxed for it and naturally they will move offshore to countries that won't tax them, like China.

[UstadKhanAli]

But aren't there a lot of strategies that can avoid this in the U.S. or other countries? Of course, with the economy the way it is, some of those strategies might be hampered.

[John Sayers]

well Italy is the first to suggest dropping the cap and trade scheme because of the economy.

 

If you get the time read Monckton's letter - it puts the case of the GW sceptics to the full.

[Dean Roddey]

Whether fossil fuel usage is the issue or not is irrelevant. They aren't going to last that long in the larger scheme of things. Anyone with any sense would be looking at moving off of them as soon as possible, so as to avoid giving those folks who still have it a huge stick to beat everyone else with. Once we are off of them, then they are no longer a issue, whether they cause global warming or not.

 

So whether you believe that fossil fuels cause global warming, or that Russia and OPEC and Venezula et al are using (or might use) their fuel resources in ways that aren't in our interests, or that pollution is not a good thing for us and our children and would like to leave a better world to them, all those things would argue for getting away from them as quickly as it is reasonable to do so.