Science and Society

Listing the polar bears as threatened was indeed a good move for our government - however, ignoring the real reasons WHY they are in danger has not been prevented, or even properly researched. Labelling the polar bear as threatened is one thing, but alleviating the thing that is threatening them is the key. Why am I not at all surprised this idiocy is happening on Bush's watch? Only in America can this sort of nonsense happen! Sad country we live in !

As for the polar bears. Well, I'm on a fencepost. I don't think they're loss of habitat should be used for political gain. However, if it is discussed, and protections put in place, that could help us shy away from crapping on the planet like we've been doing, I'm all for it.

None of this will matter when the Ice Age begins. The Global Warming police will be reviled for not letting us warm the planet even more. When Green becomes White we will be drilling anywhere and everywhere to find energy for survival. That's what I read on the all-powerful, all-knowing Internet. ;-)

Even if man-made global warming were real, we could do everything the alarmists want and the change would be negligible if at all. In many instances adopting more 'green' policies end up doing more harm than good. I can't wait for 10 or 20 years down the road when the whole global warming scare will be seen for the joke that it is. The agenda-driven media, the scientific community and the politicians will lose all credibility.

squeenter squillo -

I'll take that bet.

Mrs. Tiggywinkle, you can't blame America this time.

We truly ARE doing something about the crisis of the poor polar bears. We DID blame ourselves whether we are at fault or not and Congress voted to convert much of the world's food crop to ethanol... NOT to relieve us from the gas shortage but to combat global warming and save the poor polar bears.

As a result, not a single polar bear was saved, and we now have a major food crisis right now.

jock59801, why don't you face facts. People are NOT united on this issue. MANY doubt your conclusions. Even the scientists themselves are badly divided.

A lot of what squeenter squillo predicted is already coming true.

ivan234-

The scientists are not "badly divided." While you can always find scientists on either side of ANY issue, a ratio of something like 100 to 1 is hardly a sign of "division."

I know the facts fairly well, thank you.

Todd,

First, the ice returns in the winter, as Ive told you, you need to measure after the summer heat has a chance to melt it and then compare from year to year. You can't say measure half-way through a cycle and quit while you are ahead. heh.

Secondly, your Newsweek story has no quotes supporting the premise. Not one making a direct prediction of imminent cooling. Also, in a NYT article from the same year the NAS makes clear they dont have the data to say one way or the other and that global warming from CO2 is also possible. Today, after years of data collection, the NAS believes global warming is happening.

I still don't understand why you claim to believe the evidence for global warming and yet continually spam anti-warming material. It totally baffles me.

I'm sure there must be some reasoned arguments against man made global warming but you arent making them.

bubba....you never did explain why the Antarctic sea ice coverage is a third larger in extent than is normal?

A harsh winter? Global warming doesnt rule out cycles within cycles. You need to check long term patterns. And the summer melt will need to be examined as well. It all takes time and analysis, not tabloid spin.

Did you manage to find a way to get glaciers all over the world to melt with psychic energy from kilimanjaro yet? Or are you going to misrepresent your support for global warming again?

<<<

Does that mean what I think it does? That as a conservative you won't accept a report on what the National Academy of Sciences says if the NYT reported it back in 75? But don't conservatives dislike Newsweek as well?

Do you have to vet the scientists you listen to by political affiliation as well? Or do you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil lib?

It's sort of like Kremlin politics I suppose. Who is in, who is out, that sort of thing.

>>>The NYT.....!!!! Bahhahhaaahhaa! (belly laugh)>>

That being quote referenced.

s

bubba....and the answer about why Antarctic ice is so much larger in extent than is normal is?

The debate is not over polar bears, the north pole, the ice caps, global warming. The debate is over if we are a people, as a nation, as a world, are willing to take steps to leave this planet in a better condition then the day we were born. Everyone from both sides agrees that the planet is precious and we want it to protect and keep it beautiful. So you need to ask yourself is putting all the CO2 in the Atmsph good? No. Everyone knows it isnt good, just like everyone knows smoking is not good for you.. It "could lead to global warming" and "may cause the ice caps to melt" It may or may not happen, but if we could do something to prevent it then why wouldnt we?

Some people want every american to takethe little steps to protect the planet (dont drive the SUVs, turn the lights off, dont run your ac, There are some people that think we should de-evolve and not have any cars, factories, anything.

I personally want to drive a big SUV, and turn my lights on, run the ac all day long. does that make me a bad person? No. not anymore then the tree huggers. But I do want to protect the planet.

So why dont we make a change as a people? The technology for zero emission cars is right around the corner. It will be here in the next 10 - 15 years. (Hydrogen and electric). But we need to quit choking off business and allow nuclear, solar, and wind plants to be built. Loosen the regulations, lower the tax burden, offer incentives, encourage mankind to build, ZERO Emmissions. We could save the polar bears, save the ice, save the devastating heat wave, or cold wave from coming. All of these may be true, or none of them, but either way we are leaving the plant cleaner then when we started. But all we do it fight about polar bears. WE are missing the big picture!!!

Hydrogen = zero emission cars (Tech is coming soon). Hydrogen = lots to electricity to produce. Build a nuclear plant, solar plant, wind plant next to a hydrogen plant. no emissions from cars, no emissions from power plants, no depending on foreign oil

Thanks; I just get so frustrated with the main stream media and the arguing about frivoulous points. How can we get to zero emissions and still live in the life style everyone is used to? Innovate. encourage the young engineers in this country. Set goals of reduced emissions, set a plan to get to zero emissions, Build a hydrogen station on every corner, design new technology, make hydrogen cars more powerful, dependable.

Forget the bio-diesels, forget the ethonal, they still give off emissions.

brian.....hydrogen requires electrical power to separate the h2 from water. Nuclear would be a great way to go about that. If you use current coal technology to generate power you get more greenhouse gas vs. the gasoline you would otherwise have burned driving your car. In the near term, gas/electric hybrids are the best choice I imagine.

Jock

The cooling reported comes from an article in Nature that is subject to interpretation. One interpretation is cooling to 2020, another is stability for that period.

Over at Skeptical Science the current blog: "April update on global cooling 2008" is addressing this issue. What I found more telling was the blog on the PDO and where that led to.

There was also a good blog on animal adaptation and a discussion on the polar bear issue in it's comments.

brian

A goal of zero emissions is simply unrealistic IF you consider CO2 as one of those emissions (do you plan to have every living thing stop breathing?) but the actual "bad" emissions are being tackled by new techs already. Unfortunately the universe has not been cooperating with the planet very well lately.

Throughout SSC22 and 23 the sun became increasingly hotter and broke all records for flare activity. Alignments of 1975-76 and two subsequent partial alignments have created greater than normal tidal flows in the sun and increased volcanic activity on the earth (not erupting volcanos but more activity below the crust, causing melting in Greenland/Artic and extreme El Ninos. None of this was even thought of back in 1991 with the first IPCC report. Thank the skeptics for their research.

Quietman,

The cooling cut and paste earlier in this thread was from the 1970s, not the proposed cycle within a cycle of today. It's a red herring that tries to link speculation in the popular media of the 70s with the widespread scientific support for global warming today. Asfaik most skeptics today agree its happening, they are arguing over causes.

bubba-

I think the deniers who have an agenda and know what they are doing have already moved on to arguing about causes rather than the reality of global warming. But all of their previous denial talking points are still circulating, and their less-informed "followers" are still slow to catch up with the program. What is really funny is the people who just deny everything so automatically that they can't even keep track of which point they are trying to make.

As for the polar bears, I have not looked into all of the details. Most people are not saying they are currently "Endangered," but are likely to become endangered under projected future trends, which is exactly what the definition of "Threatened" is. I haven't seen any quantitative projections, but it stands to reason if the summer ice melts faster than expected, than the populations would decline faster than expected. The southern populations are already showing signs of stress.

I think the polar bear is a bit of a side issue to the global warming discussion. Even if the projections are true, the only way to prevent this harm to the polar bear would be to slow global warming, which is something we need to be doing anyway, for many other reasons.

Yeah, the internet is a big honeypot for people looking for easy answers. The lower brow creationists have the same problem. All of that outdated information trying to lure them into looking foolish. They wind up on 3 sides of an issue.

ctrl-c is not always your friend.

Quietman

I understand SC 24 is having a hard time getting started leading some climate experts to think we might experience atmospheric cooling for a few decades?

Quietman, You are right it does take an extreme amount of electricity to produce hydrogen. But with a plan that all of America agrees to needs to be implemented. Lets say America, (both the right and left) agree to a 20 year plan to switch to zero emission automobiles (hydrogen / electric) and reduce power plant emissions as much as possible. How do we get there?

Build the nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal plants - Have goverment incentives to help aid in the construction. Have goverment help, not hurt industry.

Build hydrogen plants next door to the zero emission power plants. Make enough of them to supply ALL the nation.

Have the AMERICAN oil and car companies begin to phase in hydrogen cars and fueling stations. Goverment needs to help. Not hurt.

We need to call on our children to be our new young engineers and our American companies to develop, implement, and build new technologies. All this will is fuel out economy (similar to the race to the moon in the 70's. How many technologies came out of that that we use everyday now?) This will be the race to zero emissions.

In the meantime with the goal of zero emissions in EVERYONES mind we need to bring relief to every American that is being stung by the high gas prices. We need to drill for our OWN oil, with the understanding that it wil only be for 15-20 years. Make it a law, a permit to drill for our own oil in Alaska for 15 years. Then the permit will expire.

I guess my only point is I can lay out a plan to get us to zero emissions in 20 years. Is it feasible? I think it is. We as a nation can do anything we put our mind to. But goverment needs to help. Not hurt.

Both sides will need to give and take, but all under the impression that we are doing this for a greater good in 20 years. We will be country that is not knowingly polluting the air.

We need to elect a president, and a congress that can lead us in that direction. As of now, I dont see it from any of our presidential candidates. In 4 years are we going to still be having this argument with gas prices out of sight and pollutants still spewing in the air? Or are we going to be 5 years into a plan that could have us to zero emissions in 20?

We will always need coal and gas fired power plants. Nuclear plants put out a constant amount of power all the time. Wind and solar plants only work then the wind is blowing or the sun in shining. Gas-fired plants can ramp and ramp down as the constant changing power demand goes up and down (i.e. every day and night) But building more wind and solar plants will help relieve the need for gas-fired.

Quietman - You are right we will never get rid of green house gases. They will always be there, but we can try and limit them.

Again the debate is not over the polar bears, it is not over global warming. You can argure until you are blue in the face wether or not it is happening. Fact is you will not convince either side it is or isnt true. I personally dont believe in global warming. But I respect the opinion of people who are concerned about it. I do believe that car emissions certainly dont help the atm. That is a fact that everyone believes. So, lets write this off that we are taking these steps for a clean plant. One we are happy to leave future generations.

>>>In the meantime with the goal of zero emissions in EVERYONES mind we need to bring relief to every American that is being stung by the high gas prices. We need to drill for our OWN oil, with the understanding that it wil only be for 15-20 years. Make it a law, a permit to drill for our own oil in Alaska for 15 years. Then the permit will expire. >>>>

Alaska won't stop high gas prices if you mean ANWR. One government estimate said it would at best shave 50 cents off the price (and would take 10 years to develop and at best run for 30 years)
Gas prices are expected to hit $4.00 this summer and some estimates have suggested $7.00 a gallon within just a few years. If we are paying $10.00 a gallon in 2018, what will a 50 cent price break even mean?

Market forces should be pushing us off the oil before ANWR could even come online.

Brian

I think global warming is occurring, there is enough evidence for that. Whether it’s the result of natural climate variation or is man-made is the question.

>>>Make it a law, a permit to drill for our own oil in Alaska for 15 years. Then the permit will expire>>>

They tried this kind of law before in Alaska but changed it (for $$$) to allow foreign export. Not much went abroad before the stocks began to deplete but it shows that any promises or law regarding oil use is easily broken when money is at stake.

And whether it goes abroad or not the prices will still be set against the global market. They wont give it away after spending 10 years to get it.

DonG
Yes SSC24 did start this winter with just one small sunspot. None that I know of since. This cycle and the next are expected to have a lot less sun spots and hopefully this will signify a less intense warming since AGW can't happen without the sun's input (it's a feedback, not an actual forcing). If the sun cools, the Earth cools.

There are a couple of good threads on the solar cycles at Sceptical Science that you may find interesting. The point of the site is to disprove skeptic arguments but many of the papers used as proof of AGW actually don't, and even do more to disprove it (not that AGW does not happen, but that the contribution to climate change simply is not all that great).

The threads on the PDO, the Oceans and El Nino / La Nina (ENSO) are very informative. But the site is from Australia so it's not fast paced like Neds.

Quietman

Thank You, I will take a look.

bubba

OK, I thought you were referring to the current cycle. I do remember the winters of 1977-1978 quite well in northern NJ but the records were broken in the winter of 1995-96 for NJ and that winter I spent 2 weeks in Minn. durings the "Plains Blizzard" of 96, not fun.

What most of us did not know was the 70's through the 90's the PDO was in a warming phase and ENSO was having the worst swings in recorded history. El Nino broke records for forcing warming and this last La Nina put the skids on because the PDO shifted to a cooling cycle at the same time. These ocean cycles are not all that well understood but things are moving quite fast now that they are being related to internal forcing via vulcanism.

Quietman: "...signify a less intense warming since AGW can't happen without the sun's input (it's a feedback, not an actual forcing). If the sun cools, the Earth cools."

The Earth doesn't necessarily cool if the sun puts out less energy; only if other factors do not compensate. Many factors affect the Earth's climate, usually with feedbacks between them, as you know.

There are about 20 scientific institutions currently running full-scale global climate models on supercomputers around the world. All of these different models incorporate known cycles in solar output to some degree. I'm sure I couldn't understand all of it even if I had the time to try, but at some point we have to trust the best scientitific minds in the world to remember to include solar output in climate models (and to look atthe sensitivity of their models to violations of their assumptions).

I don't know much about GW arguments or the skeptics. What is the cause from the skeptics perspective? Or your version of it?

Guessing here from your comments..

The sun's behavior has increased volcanism. Volcanism is heating the planet from beneath? So then you'd say that CO2 is then released from the oceans? Are glaciers melting from underneath from volcanic heat or as a result of the atmospheric changes made by the volcanism?

Jock

I have spent a lot of time lately reading what papers I can download pertaining to AGW and climate cycles.
What the press says does not quite jive with what the actual papers say (that Nature article being a good example).

I have read past articles that said this period of the past 30 years or so the planet had less volcanic activity but I discovered that the truth was the opposite. The past 30 years has been of record amount of volcanic activity, but JUST LESS ERUPTIONS. Earthquakes and subsurface vulcanism is extremely high. The ocean temps are all naturally cooler than land temps but show drastic changes in different directions. Vulcanism is high at the straights of Magellen and under the ice sheet on the Antarctic penninsula but most of the southern ocean is getting COLDER which tends to explain a lot.

The discovery that the crust under northern Greenland is very thin and the magma flow very active also explains a lot. But most telling was the combined effect of the AMO and the PDO.

So the idea is that thin crust areas would be expected to show melting due to increased activity beneath the surface. But what about the global retreat of mountain glaciers (alps, everest, pac NW, africa, NZ,etc). Are they all due to thin crust or is there some additional argument for an atmospheric element?

No, I don't see how vulcanism can account for increase in global average ATMOSPHERIC temperatures and the retreat of 95% of the world's glaciers. The biggest way I know of for volcanoes to affect the atmophere is the temporary COOLING caused by increased particulates in the atmosphere. This is somewhat unpredictable but is still included in the climate models. I wouldn't know if any of them include expulsion of geothermal heat, but if it were significant enough to explain the observed 1.3 degree rise in temperature, I think someone would have noticed.

jock59801
One of the best scientific minds in the world was Rhodes-Fairbridge. The "Fairbridge Cycle" (of the oceans) was named for him in by detractors, but he was right and they were ALL wrong. He died while formulating his solar hypothesis but Richard Mackey has continued with the work. Last summer, the IPCC said this past winter world be one of the warmest, Mackey said it would be colder and who was right?

Even the "Father of Climatology" (retired but working now for FREE) wrote an article about the AGW hype and he founded the science! In his words: "Consensus is not science". I trust the old men in the field, not the youngsters trying to make themselves a name, especially anyone who started school post-JFK.

bubba -

I think most of the heat in the upper mantle that drives vulcanism and continental drift is considered to come from radioactive decay of natural isotopes of Uranium and other elements. I would think that would be a fairly constant heat source, although the amount that is actually brought to the surface could of course vary.

Quietman -

There is always uncertainty in science. There are always trends, paradigms, and money games. Some scientists may themselves add to the hype, although once the media get hold of it it is always exagerrated.

I don't know how much of the current warming trend is due to AGW, and I doubt scientists do either, although they would have a better feel for it. From what I have read, scientists have speculated anything from 30% to 90%.

It is an interesting debate, but even if it is only 10%, it is still a problem.

Quietman - Old men in science may be wise with experience, or they may be stubborn with long-held assumptions. It goes both ways. Was it the old men who were right about continental drift? (I don't know the answer to that, BTW).

Declaring that age trumps numbers, or vice versa, doesnt really seal the deal for me. ;)

I was just curious what the actual counter proposal was. Maybe Ill make some time to read up on the subject.

jock59801

Its called internal radiative forcing. Magma flows heat up the thin areas of the crust and that heat is transferred to the water. These areas are mostly subduction zones and they create alternating upwelling and sinking currents. The best known is ENSO, or in common terms "El Nino / La Nina". This effects the atmosphere by changing wind direction (towards the Andes and away from the Andes). It changes the weather in both hemispheres and the El Nino is signalled by volcanic eruptions in the Andes of Peru and Chile. How the eruption is tied to the magma flow is still an unknown but the effect on the climate has been studied intently.

Melting glaciers are another story. But just as an example, go outside in a t-shirt in ambient temps of between 10 and 30 F and walk alternately in and out of the sun. In the 70's you would have frozen your ### off but recently you could be comfortable in the sun (assuming no wind). The intensity of the sun was higher in the 80's and 90's much like it had been in the 40's and 50's.

Greenhouse gases require sunlight to do anything. Hide the sun and there is no effect at all. They require something to feedback to and that something is the sun. Raise temps and more feedback, lower temps and less feedback. And keep in mind that in the past CO2 has been over 600ppm and an ice age still came.
Worry about the methane!

jock59801
Yes, continental drift came and went and came back again with the WW2 generation, around the late 1960's if I remember correctly (my memory is not as good anymore). The double-helix and the atom are also from their generation as well as solid state electronics. Truely a revolutionary generation.

bubba
it's not age trumping numbers, it's that numbers really don't count. Science is definately NOT about consensus. That way was the dark ages.
The consensus on AGW is still a consensus on a HYPOTHESIS, still without any solid evidence, while forcings from the sun, vulcanism and the oceans are verifiable. I'll take facts over consensus any day.

Quietman -

Yes, it is extremely complicated. Do we trust a whole bunch of really smart physicists who have devoted their career to this, or yours and my amateur attempts to piece it all together? Normally I would be happy to wait and find out, but when the next several decades of human suffering depends on the answer, the stakes (and the probabilities) become much more important.

Quietman....were you referring in your earlier post at 10:37 to the January 2008 Nature Magazine article which states that climate scientists found the global warming computer models were exactly out of phase with what they observed in the polar vertical temperature profile? The model apparently predicted increased warming near the surface of the Arctic Basin, instead, they measured increased warming in the higher atmosphere suggesting changed wind patterns, not global warming were bringing warm air to the region. How can you trust a model that’s that far off?

Jock and bubba

I would question a skeptic if it was only one or two dissenting voices, but I still would not ignore the science behind the reasoning nor call the person a "denier". Yes some of the skeptics are in this case "paid for deniers" and you must also realize that many of the opposite are "paid for alarmists". Both do peer reviewed papers but reading between the lines you can weed out those with an agenda.
That is why I put more faith on the retired scientists who are not being paid for what they say and write. It is their honest opinion on the hypothesis, their better-than-a-peer review that I can accept. :)

Quietman,

For non-specialists science is very much is about consensus. With no understanding of quantum mechanics you dont expect your monitor risks generating a black hole because some guy on the internet has a website saying it will happen eventually. It's just a fact that you accept many findings of science, in many fields, based on consensus. As you are a consumer, not a producer of that science. As a scientist you are supposed to set aside consensus and follow evidence in your chosen field.

Those are two entirely different roles. Consensus certainly isnt meant to stop investigation but it does act as a guide or barometer for the average person or government. I think that's only normal.

As for your claims, I don't have the background or even layman understanding to comment. I would note though that if direct sunlight is the cause of glacial melt then your hypothesis would predict that the current rates of glacial retreat are less that the 80s and 90s as the intensity of the sun is currently reduced and has been for several years. If that is the only mechanism at work, it should be measurable (and I know they measure glacial retreat). Cloud cover would also be easy to factor. If you find mountains in cloudy regions melting at a similar rate?

I just seems like that is easy data to get.

Quietman....interesting articles, I recommend it to others interested in the climate change issue!

Todd -
The Graverson et al. paper you refer to does indeed suggest that some natural processes are contributing to the current Arctic warming. That is nothing new or surprising. They were looking for reasons why the Arctic is warming so much faster than the rest of the world. Undoubtedly that IS at least somewhat due to other regional factors.

They did NOT claim that the current global models were wrong. They didn't even look at the output of the gobal models much at all. You may be interested to read BOTH the first and last lines of the paper:

"The recent warming of the Earth’s surface is most probably due
to an increase of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. ... Much of the present [Arctic] warming, however, appears to be linked to other processes, such as atmospheric energy transports."

bubba

The standing in the sun is just an example to demonstrate that it has increased on a personal level (ie. you can test it if you remember what it was like before).

Greenhouse gases do indeed have an effect, otherwise it would be much colder on earth. But different gasses have more or less greenhouse effect. Water vapor is one of the strongest, CO2 is one of the weakest with methane somewhere in between (I don't recall the numbers offhand but they are available on the web).

Clouds can do either or both, force warming or cooling, depending on the particular cloud formation (density, reflectivity, etc.) but are very short term on an individual cloud basis. But as we all know, even though clouds disapate there are constantly more forming, so they play a very important role both in day to day weather and in the climate. The problem is that they are next to impossible to model.

On glacial retreat there are more issues involved. Glaciers on mountains happen to be sitting either on a volcano or on a fault or worst, over a subduction zone. We tend to forget how active mountains are when they seem to be so quiet. They were formed by uplifting and/or folding, and if they are tall enough for a glacier then they are young and active. I happen to live on an old mountain range - no glaciers - they melted a long, long time ago, but I can see in the rocks that they were here, glaciers leave behind lots of evidence.

Glaciers melt from both the lower surface and the upper surface depending on just what type of mountain they are on and rates vary. There are a few that are actually growing, but the majority (of those that are measured) are/were melting. There is a good blog on glaciers at Skeptical Science as well.

jock59801

RealClimate is a good site for links to papers but make a skeptical comment and they jump down your throat. I asked a simple question there once and I'll never make that mistake again. But the point is valid, like I said, it's a matter of interpretation. Of course, from what I have read there, the RealClimate view is that if it's not CO2 then it's not important.

bubba

Consensus means amoungst those who are specialists in that field is normally the majority view. Consensus in the IPCC terms is scientists, not all of which are climatologists. Is there a consensus of climatologists? From what I have read so far there is not, especially since some prominant climatologists are complaining that they are being misrepresented (by BOTH sides).

Quietman: "Glaciers on mountains happen to be sitting either on a volcano or on a fault or worst, over a subduction zone."

With all due respect, my friend, I hope you are not implying that the majority of melting glaciers around the world are sitting on active volcanoes. I would have to have slightly less respect for your judgment, if so. The rocks are not warm in Glacier National Park, and those glaciers are melting as fast as any.

No Jock, that's not what I meant. I mean that the ground that they sit on is geologically active albiet a couple of the better known ones are on active volcanos. By activity I mean tremmors, geologic movement or vibrations. Have you ever heard of the earth song?

BTW
Where is Glacier National Park and what, besides having glaciers, is it known for?

Quietman: "Consensus means amongst those who are specialists in that field is normally the majority view.... Is there a consensus of climatologists? From what I have read so far there is not..."

The majority of climatologists would say that a significant part of the current warming trend is due to anthropogenic emissions (including methane). From what I have read, I don't see any way that this statement cound not be true.

I do not think a majority should be considered scientitific evidence (or even a consensus), but I am quite sure that MOST climatologists would say that the general theory of AGW is largely on solid evidence. And I do not believe they are all money-grubbing @*&%$@ willing to make up data for the next grant check.

Quietman-
Glacier National Park is three hours from my house in northwestern Montana. It is known for its glaciers, one of the most beautiful cliff-hugging mountain roads in the world, and the largest concentration of grizzly bears in the lower 48. It is also by FAR the largest tourist attraction in the state.

Incidently, most of our our other major economies (timber, fishing, skiing, etc.) are also dependent on how fast the snowpack melts in the spring, which is getting noticably earlier every year. Global warming is VERY real to us in Montana, and we are not going to wait any longer for the federal goverment to get its head out of the sand to do something about it.

Jock
Re: "And I do not believe they are all money-grubbing @*&%$@ willing to make up data for the next grant check."
OK, no argument here, but that is not actually what I refer to on that side of the argument albiet some might well be.
No, I was thinking along the lines of a retired scientist, no longer concerned about losing his paycheck for publishing something contrary to what his employer believes. I know these issues from personal experience and now that I am retired I am not covering up for anyone anymore but understand those who still have to.

jock59801
Did you happen to notice the author?

University researchers are human, with biases and material needs, but we are not generally "covering" for anyone, and some of us actually have integrity.

I have been in scientific circles all of my life, and I think the current anti-intellectual attack on science is profoundly offensive and extremely dangerous. As a society, will we support a scientific process or will we not? Not all scientists are objective, but science IS the only objective process we have to gather information about the world. To reject it is to fundamentally limit the human endeavor.

jock.....I don't know about the glaciers melting globally, you're probably correct in that much of it is do to GW, but in the single case (and I stress single case) that I've looked into and that has been used widely to tout AGW, It seems Mt. Kilimanjaro is losing it's famous snows mainly due to other factors such as volcanic heating and deforestation. Some people may think that’s a “cherry pick”, but since man-made global warming advocates have used it as an example, I think it’s only fair to discuss it as such.

"Did you happen to notice the author?"

No, it doesn't say. Anyone we know?

jock
I used that one as an example precisely because the author was anon. That is the typical "denier", not a skeptic.
That was this weeks winner at Skeptical Science for the most arguments in a single blog. I laughed my butt off.
But that is EXACTLY where someone is placed or compared to for making any skeptical remarks about AGW. Now do you see why fewer scientists will speak up?

Jock.....Montana, I'm jealous, love it out there. I've spent a lot of time in Wyoming, definitely God's Country, excuse me Big Sky Country! What kind of science are you involved with, if you don't mind me asking?

Jock
I was just at NG Maps site looking at sat photos of NW Montana. That round/oblong range looks like it's being pushed up and out from the center. The lable said flat something county (I could not make it out). Is that the right area?

label - sorry, a little dysflexic

Quietman....probably Flathead Lake...in the NW part of the State up by Kalispell.

For the reader who posted "Why am I not at all surprised this idiocy is happening on Bush's watch? Only in America can this sort of nonsense happen! Sad country we live in !" - Response:

Democrats want their cake and to eat it too. They blame the President for everything and I do mean *everything*. High price of gas and the plight of the polar bears. They obstruct drilling for oil we need and use "environmental concerns" and legal games to keep everyone miserable. Their only function is to create problems - Since *when* has a Democrat done *anything* of *any* use to mankind whatsoever!

Drill in Anwar. Silence the environmentalists. Do what we can for the bears and start using common sense over and above listening to left-leaning blamefests against our president.

Democrats - The real bad news bears. Do the world a favor people - vote Republican.

Jock.....I looked at the skeptical science site regarding glacial retreat, pretty compelling stuff except, why are any glaciers building? It appeared like there were a fairly sizeable number of them, is it all due to local factors?

While I was there I found something else I hadn't even considered, Mars maybe undergoing global warming as well? That would seem to be a fairly straight-forward explanation that solar radiation was the driving force behind GW. Seems like it's worth looking into further anyway.

Todd-

The global atmosphere is very complex. Even so, most global models that scientists use show that there will clearly be regions that are cooler, warmer, wetter, or drier, even as the average global temperatures continue to rise.

BTW, we don't really need to know that the glaciers are retreating and the birds are migrating earlier to know that global temperatures are increasing. We have thermometers.

Jock....in 2007 PBS rebroadcast a Special entitled "Kilimanjaro - Volcano Above the Clouds" where they go into the reasons for it's disappearing snow. They follow a team of scientists who trek to the summit and measured the ground temp there to be about 80C. It went on to say they believe magma was within 400' of the surface and hence an acceleration in the disappearance of the glacier/snow there. Deforestation was also mentioned as a cause of the snow’s disappearance.

Todd -

A couple of consecutive photos on Mars showed that some features in one part of the dry-ice fields had apparently disappeared. This may imply warming, at least in this particular region. As on Earth, reasons for warming could be due to orbital tilt, changes in solar output, or atmospheric chemistry. Sonce the Mars atmosphere is almost pure carbon dioxide, some global warming is probably not surprising.

But even if this one anomaly on Mars is due to increased solar output, how does that say anything about whether the GW on Earth is ALSO influenced by increases in carbon emissions?

The Global Warming crowd of tree-huggers is using this legislation to hobble U.S. attempts at achieving greater oil independence; that's all. The polar bears will migrate, move, or otherwise adapt. Trust me; they've been around for a long time. Attempts to cripple our efforts at energy independence from foreign oil will cripple us, long before the polar bears and the caribou decide to shuffle off to another ice floe or another part of the tundra.

I just read an article a few days suggesting that Mars might be colder than previously suspected and that any liquid water might be 30% further underground than previously estimated. If that information is still uncertain they cant have many data points for determing changes at this point.

And that blog link was completely insane... Pure political fundamentalism disguised as, well, not really disguised at all.

Jock....oh I agree, I'm a avid skier so I watch the weather channel with baited breath every Fall for signs of snow. Over the years it seems like it gets a little bit later in the season, at least where I am.

When I was younger we occasionally skied in October back here in the East, that hasn't happened in a long time. To me it actually seems like winter is starting later, but lasting a bit longer as well. Now days we can ski into April most of the time, but that maybe due to improved snow-making.

Let me tell you where I'm coming from if I may? I believe that global warming is real, however I am a AGW agnostic who would rather try and digest the varying arguments for and against than to accept what I often see as media hysteria over different subjects.

I also feel like I'm being pushed by used car salesmen when somebody tries too hard to insist they're right. I appreciate your point of view and those of others on here who try and take the time to figure this out for themselves rather than blindly following someone else’s lead/opinion.

I’m also very anxious that this nation become energy self-sufficient or as reliant on home grown sources of energy as rapidly as we can for the sake of our national security and economic well-being. There, I think that’s full disclosure. How about you?