Dusty the key to CC post is in the starting post in the two terms. “Dumb down" and “Republican/libertarian". What CC stated was that Republican/libertarian’s think “Glaciers are not “essential", taken from the first post. The post is not really about glaciers or global warming as much as it was meant to be about how the Republican/libertarian’s “Think Tanks" and Faith Based institutions have “dumb down" Americans. Now the key to understanding the post is the word CC used, “Vociferous". Search the word “Vociferous + Glacier" and you get hits from Democratic Caucus and Climate Change dealing with melting glaciers. Now add the term “Dumb down" to the search and again you get democratic, Climate Change and a conspiracy by anti-environment and anti-climate changers. You covered all the logical points about glaciers on a science and technology bases for this type of forum. And that got you on a spacecraft to Mars and a personal mental evaluation from CC. The point being is that your responses were without malice and covered the task of rationalizing the effects of glaciers on an overall world base as a form of water storage. And CC’s reports talked about the effects of the loss of the water storage systems over time. But I really don’t get the feeling that CC wants to talk about the science and technology of glaciers as much as create a political argument as noted in post #2. I am not trying to pick on CC. You are new to the forum and I wanted to give you a little insight. Insight? Literally billions of dollars have been spent on climate change denial and lobbying against any action being taken to mitigate the effects. The above poster often posts the kind of denial nonsense that is generated from the worst of the fossil fuel industry funded and controlled think tanks, including that more CO2 means much more rich plant life, that we'd be in a glacial deep freeze right now if not for massive emissions of greenhouse gases, that past levels of CO2 have been much higher therefore we're perfectly safe in driving levels to much higher concentrations of CO2 and more. Considering that this is already having a devastating effect globally that is already affecting billions of people which will get progressively worse as we effectively do nothing because of people just like him, then I think to say there is significant malice being shown by the climate change denial movement is accurate. The eventual consequences will make the Holocaust look tame. And that includes the decreasing water security for hundreds of millions of people as glaciers continue to disappear as the globe rapidly warms. There's no question that this is in fact happening. Think of climate change deniers like the above poster as spambots with a singular mission to advance the economic interests of just a few, spambots with no conscience or any real insight about anything but how to deprive the many of the essentials of life in the mindless pursuit of money no matter the consequences.Hmmm. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from the paragraphs I skipped. But beyond that, what you are missing is those glaciers are the foundation to hydrology and regional weather patterns* that go back millennia, There are subtle impacts (as those links I’ve offered, help explain!!!) on all sorts of levels and systems that dusty is totally blissfully oblivious to, but that are critical to watershed, community success and sustainability. This totally casual, superficial dismissal based on shear ignorance and disinterest, that dusty champions is disgusting because it so grossly dumbs down what’s going on here.This is such a vague, confused, rambling, and pointless babble that all I can do is wait for some specific foolishness to refute.
The above poster often posts the kind of denial nonsense that is generated from the worst of the fossil fuel industry funded and controlled think tanks, including that more CO2 means much more rich plant life,Plants get carbon from the atmospheric CO2 that forms the carbon based structure of the plant. Doesn't it make sense that more CO2 will lead to more biomass?
that we’d be in a glacial deep freeze right now if not for massive emissions of greenhouse gases,Since greenhouse gasses warm the Earth and there are presently greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere then it seems reasonable that the Earth would be cooler right now if there were no greenhouse gasses right now.
that past levels of CO2 have been much higher therefore we’re perfectly safe in driving levels to much higher concentrations of CO2 and more.Depends how far in the past we want to go, and I am not convinced of the "perfectly safe" part, but life has survived climate change in the past, so I don't deny climate change, and I don't deny humans will need to make significant adjustments as climate does in fact change. But I do deny doomsday. I don't deny glaciers on inhabited continents are shrinking and that given this is a global fact it is a strong indicator of global warming. Further, glaciers do provide some water storage benefits for a few percent of global population. For some 95% of the world's people glaciers do not provide any storage of water at all. Even if all the mountain glaciers in the Americas, Africa, and Asia melt people will still have snowpack runoff, rain runoff, river drainage basin flow, lake storage, reservoir storage, and most especially ground water storage. The loss of the glacier storage capacity will not be a major human disaster, and for nearly all people on Earth will not have any effect at all. The land where glaciers are is dead because the ice kills virtually all life. When the glacier melts a vibrant ecosystem is sure to move in. Go to Yosemite Vally in California or hike the Ice Age Trail in Wisconsin if you want to see how much better off we are when the deadly ice is gone. Vast regions of this planet are uninhabitable and closed to agriculture because they are locked in the grip of severe cold or even covered with life killing ice. Global warming is sure to open up vast new regions for humans to grow food and live Glaciers simply are not essential for human water supply. Global warming will bring a mix of problems and benefits. The end is not nigh.
Dusty the key to CC post is in the starting post in the two terms. “Dumb down" and “Republican/libertarian". What CC stated was that Republican/libertarian’s think “Glaciers are not “essential", taken from the first post. The post is not really about glaciers or global warming as much as it was meant to be about how the Republican/libertarian’s “Think Tanks" and Faith Based institutions have “dumb down" Americans. Now the key to understanding the post is the word CC used, “Vociferous". Search the word “Vociferous + Glacier" and you get hits from Democratic Caucus and Climate Change dealing with melting glaciers. Now add the term “Dumb down" to the search and again you get democratic, Climate Change and a conspiracy by anti-environment and anti-climate changers. You covered all the logical points about glaciers on a science and technology bases for this type of forum. And that got you on a spacecraft to Mars and a personal mental evaluation from CC. The point being is that your responses were without malice and covered the task of rationalizing the effects of glaciers on an overall world base as a form of water storage. And CC’s reports talked about the effects of the loss of the water storage systems over time. But I really don’t get the feeling that CC wants to talk about the science and technology of glaciers as much as create a political argument as noted in post #2. I am not trying to pick on CC. You are new to the forum and I wanted to give you a little insight. Insight? Literally billions of dollars have been spent on climate change denial and lobbying against any action being taken to mitigate the effects. The above poster often posts the kind of denial nonsense that is generated from the worst of the fossil fuel industry funded and controlled think tanks, including that more CO2 means much more rich plant life, that we'd be in a glacial deep freeze right now if not for massive emissions of greenhouse gases, that past levels of CO2 have been much higher therefore we're perfectly safe in driving levels to much higher concentrations of CO2 and more. Considering that this is already having a devastating effect globally that is already affecting billions of people which will get progressively worse as we effectively do nothing because of people just like him, then I think to say there is significant malice being shown by the climate change denial movement is accurate. The eventual consequences will make the Holocaust look tame. And that includes the decreasing water security for hundreds of millions of people as glaciers continue to disappear as the globe rapidly warms. There's no question that this is in fact happening. Think of climate change deniers like the above poster as spambots with a singular mission to advance the economic interests of just a few, spambots with no conscience or any real insight about anything but how to deprive the many of the essentials of life in the mindless pursuit of money no matter the consequences.I hear a lot of whining and BS and no common sense logic. For example, more CO2 means much more richer plant life came from one of the founders of Green Peace of Canada. And the glacial deep freeze you are talking about came from the President’s advisor on science. The fact is that neither item came from these so called “industry funded and controlled think tanks". And this spambots and mindless pursuit of money. No idea what a spambots is. I am retired and not making one dime off any of this. That’s three strikes, you’re out. :-) I have made it very clear that my position on Climate Change and Global Warming is to support and follow the IPCC. You guys that think you are so much smarter than the scientists working with the IPCC. You are doing nothing more that causing harm to the world and making their jobs harder.Hmmm. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from the paragraphs I skipped. But beyond that, what you are missing is those glaciers are the foundation to hydrology and regional weather patterns* that go back millennia, There are subtle impacts (as those links I’ve offered, help explain!!!) on all sorts of levels and systems that dusty is totally blissfully oblivious to, but that are critical to watershed, community success and sustainability. This totally casual, superficial dismissal based on shear ignorance and disinterest, that dusty champions is disgusting because it so grossly dumbs down what’s going on here.This is such a vague, confused, rambling, and pointless babble that all I can do is wait for some specific foolishness to refute.
As unpopular as Stardusty Psyche is, I can't deny that he/she makes some sense. ... Where glaciers come into play is during the hottest and/or driest times when their water, as minimal as it is, is the only water around. Even a trickle can mean life or death to local populations. As the glaciers disappear, so will many people. ... It's possible to be partially right, and I think Stardusty Psyche is.
Well it wasn't addressed to you was it? I can't help noticing the substantive stuff I offer you, you conveniently ignore. No room for it in that head of your's I guess. or … As they say, piss off...Hmmm. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from the paragraphs I skipped. But beyond that, what you are missing is those glaciers are the foundation to hydrology and regional weather patterns* that go back millennia, There are subtle impacts (as those links I’ve offered, help explain!!!) on all sorts of levels and systems that dusty is totally blissfully oblivious to, but that are critical to watershed, community success and sustainability. This totally casual, superficial dismissal based on shear ignorance and disinterest, that dusty champions is disgusting because it so grossly dumbs down what’s going on here.This is such a vague, confused, rambling, and pointless babble that all I can do is wait for some specific foolishness to refute.
I hear a lot of whining and BS and no common sense logic. For example, more CO2 means much more richer plant life came from one of the founders of Green Peace of Canada.Argument from false authority. Next.
And the glacial deep freeze you are talking about came from the President’s advisor on science.Some computer models show we would be in a cooling trend if not for human induced warming. Do you have source for the "glacial deep freeze" comment?
I have made it very clear that my position on Climate Change and Global Warming is to support and follow the IPCC. You guys that think you are so much smarter than the scientists working with the IPCC. You are doing nothing more that causing harm to the world and making their jobs harder.I hereby declare headache inducing irony an informal logical fallacy.
Plants get carbon from the atmospheric CO2 that forms the carbon based structure of the plant. Doesn't it make sense that more CO2 will lead to more biomass?Plants don't do well when under stress from weather extremes, among myriad problems with your overly simplistic question.
DarronS - Plants don’t do well when under stress from weather extremes, among myriad problems with your overly simplistic question.How ironic you would use such a simplistic and vague statement in an accusation of me posing a simplistic question. "Plants don't do well" Oh, how very non-simplistic of you. "stress" Ok, very non-simplistic. Hmm...weather extremes, like, oh, say, places where there are hurricanes and plants also flourish? Or temperate zones with summer and winter and extremes of cold and heat where plants flourish? So, where is it on Earth that plants simply do not grow? Ice. Plants do not grow under, in, or on top of ice. Ice is deadly to plant life. Where there is permanent ice there are no plants. Where ice retreats plants move in and flourish. The best thing that could happen to plants is to get rid of all the ice.
Darron, does it seem like it’s some sort of Dungeons and Dragons Rhetorical Game for these people?-
All they know is playing with the sentences bandied back and forth,
never any serious reflection on the substance of what we are trying to discuss.
No appreciation for all the micro-niche, regional weather patterns, the various rain forests and how geography and hydrology cycles and prevailing wind currents and occasional massive ice cubes, refrigs and water buffer, etc, etc, etc, have woven together this world humanity knew for all these past centuries. … and we’ve ravenously consumed it with a speed that astounds, and these fools try to pretend nothing is happening.
Just this haughty disregard and hubris.
Depressing.
Dusty the key to CC post is in the starting post in the two terms. “Dumb down" and “Republican/libertarian". What CC stated was that Republican/libertarian’s think “Glaciers are not “essential", taken from the first post. The post is not really about glaciers or global warming as much as it was meant to be about how the Republican/libertarian’s “Think Tanks" and Faith Based institutions have “dumb down" Americans. Now the key to understanding the post is the word CC used, “Vociferous". Search the word “Vociferous + Glacier" and you get hits from Democratic Caucus and Climate Change dealing with melting glaciers. Now add the term “Dumb down" to the search and again you get democratic, Climate Change and a conspiracy by anti-environment and anti-climate changers. You covered all the logical points about glaciers on a science and technology bases for this type of forum. And that got you on a spacecraft to Mars and a personal mental evaluation from CC. The point being is that your responses were without malice and covered the task of rationalizing the effects of glaciers on an overall world base as a form of water storage. And CC’s reports talked about the effects of the loss of the water storage systems over time. But I really don’t get the feeling that CC wants to talk about the science and technology of glaciers as much as create a political argument as noted in post #2. I am not trying to pick on CC. You are new to the forum and I wanted to give you a little insight. Insight? Literally billions of dollars have been spent on climate change denial and lobbying against any action being taken to mitigate the effects. The above poster often posts the kind of denial nonsense that is generated from the worst of the fossil fuel industry funded and controlled think tanks, including that more CO2 means much more rich plant life, that we'd be in a glacial deep freeze right now if not for massive emissions of greenhouse gases, that past levels of CO2 have been much higher therefore we're perfectly safe in driving levels to much higher concentrations of CO2 and more. Considering that this is already having a devastating effect globally that is already affecting billions of people which will get progressively worse as we effectively do nothing because of people just like him, then I think to say there is significant malice being shown by the climate change denial movement is accurate. The eventual consequences will make the Holocaust look tame. And that includes the decreasing water security for hundreds of millions of people as glaciers continue to disappear as the globe rapidly warms. There's no question that this is in fact happening. Think of climate change deniers like the above poster as spambots with a singular mission to advance the economic interests of just a few, spambots with no conscience or any real insight about anything but how to deprive the many of the essentials of life in the mindless pursuit of money no matter the consequences.I hear a lot of whining and BS and no common sense logic. For example, more CO2 means much more richer plant life came from one of the founders of Green Peace of Canada. And the glacial deep freeze you are talking about came from the President’s advisor on science. The fact is that neither item came from these so called “industry funded and controlled think tanks". And this spambots and mindless pursuit of money. No idea what a spambots is. I am retired and not making one dime off any of this. That’s three strikes, you’re out. :-) I have made it very clear that my position on Climate Change and Global Warming is to support and follow the IPCC. You guys that think you are so much smarter than the scientists working with the IPCC. You are doing nothing more that causing harm to the world and making their jobs harder. No, we think we're far more accurate than someone who consistently misrepresents the data and the people who provide it. - For instance levels of atmospheric CO2 in the last million years haven't been outside the range of 180-290 ppm until the beginning of the industrial revolution despite your attempts to claim they were up to 300 times higher in the ice core record...which goes back about 800,000 years. That alone indicates how shaky your grasp is of this complex issue. The only insight you have to offer on this issue is how to cloud it....Hmmm. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion from the paragraphs I skipped. But beyond that, what you are missing is those glaciers are the foundation to hydrology and regional weather patterns* that go back millennia, There are subtle impacts (as those links I’ve offered, help explain!!!) on all sorts of levels and systems that dusty is totally blissfully oblivious to, but that are critical to watershed, community success and sustainability. This totally casual, superficial dismissal based on shear ignorance and disinterest, that dusty champions is disgusting because it so grossly dumbs down what’s going on here.This is such a vague, confused, rambling, and pointless babble that all I can do is wait for some specific foolishness to refute.
I have made it very clear that my position on Climate Change and Global Warming is to support and follow the IPCC. You guys that think you are so much smarter than the scientists working with the IPCC. You are doing nothing more that causing harm to the world and making their jobs harder.No, you've left a very clear pattern of climate change denial that is completely at odds with the IPCC. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18593/ You're a climate change denier, probably some jerk at the Marshall, Heartland or Cato institute who gets paid to lie about the very serious risk we all face from continued fossil fuel use.
I have made it very clear that my position on Climate Change and Global Warming is to support and follow the IPCC. You guys that think you are so much smarter than the scientists working with the IPCC. You are doing nothing more that causing harm to the world and making their jobs harder.No, you've left a very clear pattern of climate change denial that is completely at odds with the IPCC. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18593/ You're a climate change denier, probably some jerk at the Marshall, Heartland or Cato institute who gets paid to lie about the very serious risk we all face from continued fossil fuel use. Three strikes again. You are just not having any luck at getting anything right.
Three strikes again. You are just not having any luck at getting anything right.You mean like misrepresenting what John Holdren has to say about the issue as you have repeatedly. Or lying repeatedly about recent levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide as you have going so far as to claim that ice cores show them as much as 350 ppm above current levels. Or throwing out red herrings like supervolcanoes which we can do absolutely nothing about. Or claiming that higher levels of carbon dioxide will result in greater plant growth which has been explained to you is nonsense because CO2 is just one element for plant growth. The droughts that are already resulting from climate change will make increased plant growth impossible in many places due to the lack of water. You keep making all these errors that are way over on the side of saying that increasing the levels of CO2 isn't something to be concerned about often attributing to people positions they clearly aren't taking, that includes the IPCC. For instance John Holdren is for completely phasing out fossil fuels as soon as possible, not taking the slow path as you keep claiming. Three strikes? You're on your 12th or more. Like I said, you're a denier, and being one you'll just deny that. The only BS on this subject is constantly flowing from you...
After the glacier melts they can still use the snowpack runoff and rain runoff for drinking water and crop irrigation.All of which is transitory and highly problematic considering we are in an era of climate change which is already resulting in prolonged droughts in many areas and when it does rain it's often in such great amounts that much of it is lost as runoff before it enters the water table. What glaciers do is store water for long periods that will keep many rivers flowing in times of drought. Without glaciers when the snowpack is low or non-existent then rivers will see greatly decreased flow.
Glaciers produce no water. Water comes from precipitation.Glaciers store precipitation, sometimes for thousands of years, see above, they act as reserves in times of drought and greatly decreased precipitation.
So, 95% of the world does not get its drinking and crop irrigation water from glacial runoff by your own figures! And of the 5% how many will be unable to drink water and irrigate their crops from continued river flow, lakes, groundwater, melting snowpack, reservoirs, and local precipitation?Glaciers feed many rivers all over the planet, as water security significantly decreases as the effects of climate change and rapid depletion of water resources continue then the loss of supply of water from glaciers will be one more stress on an already critical situation. CC is showing far more clarity on this subject than people who are far more focused on denying reality than trying to understand it.
Au contraire, I have learned more instances where alarmism sells. I have learned that many people are fooled by the word "source" as it is employed in the fallacy of equivocation. Lake Itasca is the "source" of the Mississippi river just as glaciers are the "source" of the great rivers of South Asia. Of course, "source" in terms of headwaters only means the uppermost elevation of a river, its starting point, not where the vast majority of the river water comes from. River water comes from its entire drainage basin, not simply its headwaters or "source". If you could cut off the headwaters of a river it would still be filled by its drainage basin which is how most of the water actually gets into the river, not from the "source" in terms of its headwaters. I have learned that lots of people write very shortsighted tunnel vision articles about things they claim are essential but really are not.Which is effectively a bunch of BS handwaving, let's look at the actual data. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleice.html
One estimate of global water distribution Water source Water volume, in cubic miles Water volume, in cubic kilometers Percent of total water Percent of total freshwater Ice caps, Glaciers, & Permanent snow 5,773,000 24,064,000 1.7% 68.7% Total global freshwater 8,404,000 35,030,000 2.5% -- Total global water 332,500,000 1,386,000,000Most of the available fresh water on the planet is in fact stored in glaciers, and ice sheets almost 70%. We lose that and already critical water security becomes a growing disaster. So the shortsighted tunnel vision you attribute to others is in fact the result of your own ignorance...
This is such a vague, confused, rambling, and pointless babble that all I can do is wait for some specific foolishness to refute.As opposed to the sheer idiocy in not seeing that losing most of the fresh water resources on the Earth is a recipe for disaster. The breakdown of all the cryosphere has already begun, the more CO2 we add to the atmosphere the faster this will occur. Not only will we lose vital fresh water reserves, huge areas of some of the most productive and populated regions of the world will be lost to the oceans. This will include the source of food for hundreds of millions of people such as the Yangtze and Mekong deltas. The level of ignorance being shown by the deniers here is stunning. Credit to CC for at least having the courage to face reality...
What does the evidence indicate based on the research of the most qualified scientists say in regard to the loss of not just glaciers but all the ice cover on the planet.
The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night. If the planet were a featureless, monochromatic billiard ball without mountains, oceans, vegetation and polar ice caps, a steadily rising concentration of CO2 would mean a steadily warming earth. Period.
Because including all these factors in calculations about the effects of CO2 increase is hugely difficult, it is no surprise that climate scientists are still struggling to understand how it all will likely turn out. It is also no surprise, given his track record as something of a climate change agitator, that James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been circulating a preprint of a journal paper saying that the outcome is likely to turn out worse than most people think. The most recent major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 projects a temperature rise of three degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees—enough to trigger serious impacts on human life from rising sea level, widespread drought, changes in weather patterns, and the like. But according to Hansen and his nine co-authors, who have submitted their paper to Open Atmospheric Science Journal, the correct figure is closer to six degrees C. “That’s the equilibrium level," he says. “We won’t get there for a while. But that’s where we’re aiming." And although the full impact of this temperature increase will not be felt until the end of this century or even later, Hansen says, the point at which major climate disruption is inevitable is already upon us. “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted," the paper states, “CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [parts per million] to at most 350 ppm." The situation, he says, “is much more sensitive than we had implicitly been assuming."
If today’s CO2 levels would lead to several meters of sea-level rise—putting many coastal areas, housing hundreds of millions of people, completely underwater—then letting CO2 rise to 560 ppm could lead to a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Even a rise to 450 ppm could be catastrophic, according to Hansen’s team’s analysis. Before about 35 million years ago, the planet was completely ice free, so warm-water alligators and lush redwood forests thrived above the Arctic Circle. The transition to large-scale glaciation in Antarctica began, the researchers estimate, when CO2 dropped to 425 ppm, plus or minus 75 ppm. Most of the ice should therefore disappear again if we reach that point—and if all of Antarctica’s and Greenland’s glaciers were to melt, sea level would rise many tens of meters. The only way to keep CO2 concentrations as low as that, Schneider says, is to have the entire world adopt California’s strictest-in-the-nation proposals for limiting carbon emissions—something that is hard to imagine even the other U.S. states agreeing to, let alone developing nations such as India and China. That’s only taking the feedback from melting glaciers into account. “Changes in vegetation, in atmospheric and ocean chemistry, and in aerosols and dust in the atmosphere all appear to be positive feedbacks on temperature changes," Schmidt says. “If global average temperatures change for any reason, those other elements will amplify the change." Other positive feedbacks include the release of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, which will happen as they warm up, and the accelerated release of other greenhouse gases—methane, for example, from biomass that will begin rotting as permafrost melts in the Arctic.Clearly what we're doing is insane... and so are those who keep claiming there's nothing to be concerned about based on a campaign that is directly connected to the campaign to deny the health risks of tobacco. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 None of which is going to stop the deniers from making more BS observations intended to distort and confuse the issue, in the pattern they have learned from the utter scumbags in the tobacco lobby. Killing people for profit is the work of murders...
I have made it very clear that my position on Climate Change and Global Warming is to support and follow the IPCC. You guys that think you are so much smarter than the scientists working with the IPCC. You are doing nothing more that causing harm to the world and making their jobs harder.No, you've left a very clear pattern of climate change denial that is completely at odds with the IPCC. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18593/ You're a climate change denier, probably some jerk at the Marshall, Heartland or Cato institute who gets paid to lie about the very serious risk we all face from continued fossil fuel use. And if not that, he's certainly got their script in hand.
No dumbass. I'm talking about the drought Texas experienced from 2009-2013. Hurricane Sandy. Ethiopia. Flooding in Texas last year. The extreme weather events that are increasing worldwide.DarronS - Plants don’t do well when under stress from weather extremes, among myriad problems with your overly simplistic question.How ironic you would use such a simplistic and vague statement in an accusation of me posing a simplistic question. "Plants don't do well" Oh, how very non-simplistic of you. "stress" Ok, very non-simplistic. Hmm...weather extremes, like, oh, say, places where there are hurricanes and plants also flourish? Or temperate zones with summer and winter and extremes of cold and heat where plants flourish? So, where is it on Earth that plants simply do not grow? Ice. Plants do not grow under, in, or on top of ice. Ice is deadly to plant life. Where there is permanent ice there are no plants. Where ice retreats plants move in and flourish. The best thing that could happen to plants is to get rid of all the ice.
What does the evidence indicate based on the research of the most qualified scientists say in regard to the loss of not just glaciers but all the ice cover on the planet. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-beyond-the-co2/So, what does Hansen and his nine co- authors or the IPCC have to say about to say about your claim that Climate Change is directly connected to the campaign to deny the health risks of tobacco?The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night. If the planet were a featureless, monochromatic billiard ball without mountains, oceans, vegetation and polar ice caps, a steadily rising concentration of CO2 would mean a steadily warming earth. Period.Because including all these factors in calculations about the effects of CO2 increase is hugely difficult, it is no surprise that climate scientists are still struggling to understand how it all will likely turn out. It is also no surprise, given his track record as something of a climate change agitator, that James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been circulating a preprint of a journal paper saying that the outcome is likely to turn out worse than most people think. The most recent major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 projects a temperature rise of three degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees—enough to trigger serious impacts on human life from rising sea level, widespread drought, changes in weather patterns, and the like. But according to Hansen and his nine co-authors, who have submitted their paper to Open Atmospheric Science Journal, the correct figure is closer to six degrees C. “That’s the equilibrium level," he says. “We won’t get there for a while. But that’s where we’re aiming." And although the full impact of this temperature increase will not be felt until the end of this century or even later, Hansen says, the point at which major climate disruption is inevitable is already upon us. “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted," the paper states, “CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [parts per million] to at most 350 ppm." The situation, he says, “is much more sensitive than we had implicitly been assuming."If today’s CO2 levels would lead to several meters of sea-level rise—putting many coastal areas, housing hundreds of millions of people, completely underwater—then letting CO2 rise to 560 ppm could lead to a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Even a rise to 450 ppm could be catastrophic, according to Hansen’s team’s analysis. Before about 35 million years ago, the planet was completely ice free, so warm-water alligators and lush redwood forests thrived above the Arctic Circle. The transition to large-scale glaciation in Antarctica began, the researchers estimate, when CO2 dropped to 425 ppm, plus or minus 75 ppm. Most of the ice should therefore disappear again if we reach that point—and if all of Antarctica’s and Greenland’s glaciers were to melt, sea level would rise many tens of meters. The only way to keep CO2 concentrations as low as that, Schneider says, is to have the entire world adopt California’s strictest-in-the-nation proposals for limiting carbon emissions—something that is hard to imagine even the other U.S. states agreeing to, let alone developing nations such as India and China. That’s only taking the feedback from melting glaciers into account. “Changes in vegetation, in atmospheric and ocean chemistry, and in aerosols and dust in the atmosphere all appear to be positive feedbacks on temperature changes," Schmidt says. “If global average temperatures change for any reason, those other elements will amplify the change." Other positive feedbacks include the release of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, which will happen as they warm up, and the accelerated release of other greenhouse gases—methane, for example, from biomass that will begin rotting as permafrost melts in the Arctic.Clearly what we're doing is insane... and so are those who keep claiming there's nothing to be concerned about based on a campaign that is directly connected to the campaign to deny the health risks of tobacco. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 None of which is going to stop the deniers from making more BS observations intended to distort and confuse the issue, in the pattern they have learned from the utter scumbags in the tobacco lobby. Killing people for profit is the work of murders...
What does the evidence indicate based on the research of the most qualified scientists say in regard to the loss of not just glaciers but all the ice cover on the planet. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-beyond-the-co2/So, what does Hansen and his nine co- authors or the IPCC have to say about to say about your claim that Climate Change is directly connected to the campaign to deny the health risks of tobacco? Nothing, because I'm not making that claim, this is just one more idiotic attempt on your part to distort what's being said here. Right up there with trying to claim that ice core records show levels of CO2 of 100,000 ppm or more or that John Holdren supports going slow on phasing out fossil fuels because the issue isn't all that serious. It's climate change DENIAL that comes directly from the campaign created by the tobacco industry to deny any responsibility for all the deaths and illness created by its products.The basic proposition behind the science of climate change is so firmly rooted in the laws of physics that no reasonable person can dispute it. All other things being equal, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere—by, for example, burning millions of tons of oil, coal and natural gas—will make it warm up. That, as the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first explained in 1896, is because CO2 is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun, which heats the planet during the day. But it is relatively opaque to infrared, which the earth tries to reradiate back into space at night. If the planet were a featureless, monochromatic billiard ball without mountains, oceans, vegetation and polar ice caps, a steadily rising concentration of CO2 would mean a steadily warming earth. Period.Because including all these factors in calculations about the effects of CO2 increase is hugely difficult, it is no surprise that climate scientists are still struggling to understand how it all will likely turn out. It is also no surprise, given his track record as something of a climate change agitator, that James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been circulating a preprint of a journal paper saying that the outcome is likely to turn out worse than most people think. The most recent major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 projects a temperature rise of three degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees—enough to trigger serious impacts on human life from rising sea level, widespread drought, changes in weather patterns, and the like. But according to Hansen and his nine co-authors, who have submitted their paper to Open Atmospheric Science Journal, the correct figure is closer to six degrees C. “That’s the equilibrium level," he says. “We won’t get there for a while. But that’s where we’re aiming." And although the full impact of this temperature increase will not be felt until the end of this century or even later, Hansen says, the point at which major climate disruption is inevitable is already upon us. “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted," the paper states, “CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [parts per million] to at most 350 ppm." The situation, he says, “is much more sensitive than we had implicitly been assuming."If today’s CO2 levels would lead to several meters of sea-level rise—putting many coastal areas, housing hundreds of millions of people, completely underwater—then letting CO2 rise to 560 ppm could lead to a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Even a rise to 450 ppm could be catastrophic, according to Hansen’s team’s analysis. Before about 35 million years ago, the planet was completely ice free, so warm-water alligators and lush redwood forests thrived above the Arctic Circle. The transition to large-scale glaciation in Antarctica began, the researchers estimate, when CO2 dropped to 425 ppm, plus or minus 75 ppm. Most of the ice should therefore disappear again if we reach that point—and if all of Antarctica’s and Greenland’s glaciers were to melt, sea level would rise many tens of meters. The only way to keep CO2 concentrations as low as that, Schneider says, is to have the entire world adopt California’s strictest-in-the-nation proposals for limiting carbon emissions—something that is hard to imagine even the other U.S. states agreeing to, let alone developing nations such as India and China. That’s only taking the feedback from melting glaciers into account. “Changes in vegetation, in atmospheric and ocean chemistry, and in aerosols and dust in the atmosphere all appear to be positive feedbacks on temperature changes," Schmidt says. “If global average temperatures change for any reason, those other elements will amplify the change." Other positive feedbacks include the release of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, which will happen as they warm up, and the accelerated release of other greenhouse gases—methane, for example, from biomass that will begin rotting as permafrost melts in the Arctic.Clearly what we're doing is insane... and so are those who keep claiming there's nothing to be concerned about based on a campaign that is directly connected to the campaign to deny the health risks of tobacco. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 None of which is going to stop the deniers from making more BS observations intended to distort and confuse the issue, in the pattern they have learned from the utter scumbags in the tobacco lobby. Killing people for profit is the work of murders...