I wonder how many computer models they have for the
dissappearing ice on mars? Is that ice receeding faster
than expected? We should find out how much the extra CO2,
being pumped out by Martian SUV's, is exacerbating the
current warming trend those "Geenies" are experiencing.
It can't be helping, with all their saucer take off and
landings, eigther. We should pool our recources together and include
CERVUS in the round table discussions on what we can do
to stop this impending catastrophic runaway golbal warming.

Here's a 1000 year projection of the average global temperature variance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Though its an interesting article you posted Andrey it fails to take into account a much longer time period. Lets assume for the sake of argument that the 1000 year temperature chart is reasonably accurate.

Thanks!

Tom

Ironically, maybe it takes the ice at north and south poles to melt, flooding our home, in order for most countries to take serious measures against Global warming.

With all due respect to Cervus' call for civility and productive discussion. There are some differences in the goals of environmentalists vs energy security proponents. For instance from an energy security standpoint, strip mining for oil sands in Alberta might make perfect sense, while from an environmental and CO2 perspective it might be a nightmare.

Lets agree on the areas that we agree on... and I happily believe in both ideas. But also it's important for people not to think that the goals are in total agreement.

I too am a multiple problem arguer like cervus, we got at least 3 by my count: Global warming, Peak Oil and Energy Security (why are we paying terrorists?). But dealing with any one of these problems alone does not mean it will help solve the others. Say we drive more electric cars, we might be less effected by peak oil or OPEC cuts but making more electricity might just end up meaning more coal power plants and coal burning. Mass coal gasification is probably going to be the first thing we will do when oil peaks and the likely result maybe a increase in CO2 production (most likely a slight decrease in CO2 if the gasification processes co-gens both electricity and oil) and mass coal use is likely only going to doom us to peak coal in ~40years. What we need is government guiding to both increase alternative energy while limiting CO2 production, either that or we need a more grass roots effort to kill 3 birds with one stone.

Cervus:

Thanks for your wise moderating posts. I would add another point on which, I hope, everybody would agree. More efficient use of energy and especially limited fossil fuel recourses is major driving factor of economic grows.

Tom:

Yes, I was specifically talking about short-term climate oscillations (30-50 years). BTW, global temperature graphs, reconstructed by tree ring proxies and extremely unreliable and fragmented data from weather stations is very controversial. Strong evidence is that it is downright fraud. Some critique of it could be found here:

http://www.john-daly.com/cause/cause.htm

The best data we can rely upon is direct satellite measurements, carried out from 1978:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html

It also overlays CO2 atmospheric concentration.

Andrey,

Though tree rings and other geological evidence is not as accurate as satellite and weather station measurements, I think we can both agree that to throw out data because its not as accurate may be the wrong answer also.

I'm glad to see that the included links contain hard research and it may take me some time to dig my way through them to make up my own mind.

Still, bringing the conversation back on topic ... when was the last time the ice sheets were this small? What other explanation can we come up with and is it something we should be concerned about? How fast to they expand on cold climatological periods and what effect does that have?

Thanks for keeping a level head even when we choose to disagree ... its refreshing.

Tom

Tom:

Once there were alligators and palm trees in polar regions. Some scientists think that warming led to release of methane hydrates, that greatly accelerated further warming, which ultimately led to tropical conditions in the poles.

Yeah I'm concerned. My wife's family is from the Pacific Islands and I was planning on retiring there. I may reconsider or at least rule out low-lying atolls.

Mark,

Thats because the Antarctic plate was actually IN the tropics 800 million years ago or so. Continental drift moved it ... not global warming :-)

Tom,

aaaaaah there were no alligators and palm trees 800 million years ago, not even worms!

Tom:

Always a pleasure to exchange opinions with independently thinking person.

Two additional links right on the subject. Current article was discussed on scientific blog climateaudit.org Take a look at posts 35-36 here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1513#comments

There are original and very clear graphs of Arctic ice extend for 30 years.

Also interesting article explaining why sun and GHG has small effect on ice cover:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm

Regards, Andrey

Ben:
There were no worms in North America just couple of hundred years ago. They were wiped out completely by last ice age, and were re-introduced only by Europeans.

Oops sorry Ben,

You know I should really have my first cup of tea before jumping to any conclusions. You're right there's an article here from ABC news which relates the story of warm tropical conditions in the polar regions!

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2024641

It would be interesting if it were possible to sample the atmospheric constituents at that point in history for comparison.

I do think the key is to pull together around areas where we do agree, Global Warming / Peak Oil / Energy Security, and actually get stuff done,

It seems to me that we are spending too much time looking for perfect answers when there is enough information to clearly get going on interim, commonly agreed, solutions

Any work on energy efficiency helps and moves towards everybody's aims

The downside of Global Warming is so severe, that we must decide to act on the side of caution. The present U.S. administration wants you to believe that the trade off is destroying our economies in the process, which is absolutely absurd. This is nothing but the basic fear mongering that is practiced by these people every day on many topics. They want you to believe that you have no other choice but to choose between reducing CO2 emissions and having a good economy. It is another version of conservation means freezing in the dark. They want you to believe that to limit the CO2 in the atmosphere you have to give up your big home, your big SUV and lose your job. These are all false impressions that they want to leave in the minds of people to manipulate their opinions and behaviors. Anyone that falls for this kind of manipulation is as simple minded as the ones doing the manipulating.

SJC,

I don't think the bush administration is thinking that way. In my opinion, Bush doesn't want to change anything not out of economic affects but because Jesus will soon be coming back to ascend all good evangelicals straight to heaven and wipe the world clean of heathens; so why waste the time just sit back and let the world spiral to armageddon.

I would think getting off of foreign oil would be a boost for the economy instead of a drag. As much as we like to pretend we're in the middle east for humanitarian reasons ... its all about the oil.

"They want you to believe that to limit the CO2 in the atmosphere you have to give up your big home, your big SUV and lose your job."

SJC, aren't the first two of those exactly the mainstream opinion here on GCC? With the way people mock any and all improvements (such as Chrysler's upcoming Hemi hybrids) that might allow us to have nice stuff and still improve efficiency, it seems reasonable to be concerned.

For the record, I think there are huge economic and social upsides in improved efficiency and cleanliness - but only if we avoid the urge to force everyone into hair shirts.

We cam have a good life, a clean world and a prosperous economy at the same time, it just takes a bit more thinking than some people are capable of. When you and your friends are making a ton of money off the status quo, you don't want to change anything. You just go on TV and say something about our "addiction to oil" and then you go back to the situation as it was and is. That is not leadership..it is cheer leading..there is a BIG difference.

Ok ill be brutal.

The reason bush wont push cafe up alot is simple. It would cost 150 billion or more to improve ice engines enough to meet it with cars roughly as they are size/power wise.

Rhat is in a down market thats going nowhere but basement.. The car makers dont wave magic wands to get that money and tech. WE PAY FOR IT. BUT!!!!! We arnt about to pay for that and EVERONE knows it so the car makers know they CANT DO IT.

So what will they do? Well LOOK AROUND! They are as much as tattooing the answer to your foreheads folks.

They will close factories here and only leave open enough to make what sell for profit. EVERYTHING else will come in overseas or from mexico.

And the result is million of lost jobs as it echoes out from the car companies to the suppliers o the steel and so on factories onto who knows what else... and then the pensions default and healthcare fails....

And that is just a tiny sliver of the changes comming.. And all the polticoes just want it to happen on someone elses watch.. thus clinton couldnt do it either.

See your assuming the us econ is as strong as the slime have chanted for years... you should know better.

"The present U.S. administration wants you to believe that the trade off is destroying our economies in the process."

"Anything for a buck" is what's destroying our economies.

Its probably not quite that easy though ... there seems to be a pretty clear correlation between the price of energy especially for transportation and the performance of the economy.

Here are my assumptions:

69% of US oil consumption is for transportation.
60% of that energy is consumed for personal transportation.
Transportation constitutes a vital national interest.

Being more efficient and diversification are cornerstones of the modern market. It's an adapt or be crushed market out there. Unless there are artificial constraints placed on the free market system it is my belief that the smart business leaders will deliberately seek out and promote these technologies. I suppose the logical question is then .... what artificial constraints have been placed on the system!

Wintermane,

I will also be brutal.

The US car companies are going out of business in the US not because of costs but because they are building the wrong models, meanwhile other global manufacturers are producing cars that easily meet the increased CAFE requirements, but the cars are not allowed in the US (probably because of lobbying pressure from the big 3)

Eventually one of the big 3 will split away and charge full steam into PHEV abd BEV because they will figure out that is the only way they can survive.

If GM has not figured out that it should build the VOLT with a 20 mile EV range with a modular battery space, the contents of which can be changed at a later date, more fool them!

If they have not figured out that Toyota lost some money on the Prius early in its production cycle, but now owns the space, more fool them!

If GM has not figured out they can lease the batteries and replace them when improved capability arrives, and from that effectively generate revenue that used to go to the oil companies, more fool them!

Hello kevin... flunked economics did you?

Do you have any idea what happens in ANY industry when one companies cost per unit is mucg larger then anouthers?

Exactly what is happening! Gm builds and concentrates n high margin cars while building just enough small cars at a loss to cover cafe.
As they CANT build small cars for a profit here they expand elsewhere WHERE THIER COSTS ARETHE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE...
The "right" models have too low a profit margin for gm to make at its higher costs.

Its basicaly like macies trying to compete with walmart on bulk white trash makeup... ISNT GONA HAPPEN.

Following that you have a "race to the bottom". You try to find the lowest wage country to build cars and destroy the economies of those countries that used to be able to buy cars. I know conservatives will say that for every job destroyed there are two to replace it, but I have not seen the proof of that claim. Even if there is a job to replace the one lost, it is lower paying and that person can not afford to buy an expensive car. Henry Ford paid his people enough to afford to buy the products that they produced. A solid principle and one that we may be losing year by year.