I notice that there are mostly politically-driven right-wingers commenting on this blog. Why is that?

Read the truth see the link below.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/081204D.html

Those who say global warming is a 'bad thing' are morons and I refuse to listen to them. Can they point to a single historic fact that supports the idea that warming is a net detriment to us? They have not done that and they will be hard pressed to refute all the evidence to contrary that shows human civilization advancing more quickly during warmer periods. Sea level has been rising for over 10,000 years so there goes that portion of their 'bad thing' argument. Warmer temperatures extend growing seasons, both in duration and toward the poles, and also allows the atmosphere to hold more water resulting in more rainfall overall. Both of those plus more CO2 all serve to GREEN the planet which equals more trees, more food and less disease - the exact OPPOSITE of what would happen if these whackos got their way.

So what do they want, global cooling? BRRRRR! Or is it that they really think the planet ought to stay the same temperature even though it's been going up and down for an awfully long time before we were even around? Are they actually THAT vain?

You can't point to a "historic fact" because the current rate of warming is unprecedented. We also have 7 billion people inhabiting this Earth, most of whom live near a body of water. The population was much smaller 1,000 years ago, and most of the land masses of the world were uninhabited or undeveloped.

Go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh, Mike.

Well, actually Bob I would characterize myself as a Libertarian. I think my money belongs to me - not to the government or enviro wackos to waste it tilting at windmills.

BobToo (same Bob?) I like TCS - a lot of interesting info there.

Mike, I have been making those same points (see my comments in the Inuit posting). Make sure you say that to all of your personal aquantences when you are talking about global warming also. The seeds of doubt are the only things keeping these nutcakes at bay. BTW, they aren't vain; they are stupid. They think the only alternatives to the global warming scenarios put out by the warmers and no others.

OK, now I'm confused. 1) It's not happening OR 2) it IS happening, but it's a good thing overall, if tough on some people; AND A) most scientists agree OR 2) most scientists who think so are bolsheviks.

Hi Charles, the answer to all your questions is yes. Sorry - I couldn't resist.

The main argument about global warming is that we are casuing it. However, there is no technology available today that can prove that. In addition, there is not enough data to know if we are in a warming period or not, we don't have enough years of good data to prove anything. You can ignore the people who say we have 100 years of global temperature readings because it is a lie. We only have good global data, and that is from satelites, for about the last twenty years or so. Laura may have a more exact figure than I do. Even with that there are temperature variations as you go through the strata of the atmosphere, and we don't have data on that.

With that said, what difference does it make if the earth is warming - there is nothing we can do about it. And why should we? People thrive in warm weather while more of us die in cold weather. That is a fact. Longer growing seasons means more food, a better life, and so on.

Also, we puny humans do not have the technology to change the geologic course of this planet. It has warmed and cooled many times while we have been around and for much longer. We adapt. Animals adapt. The ones that don't die and others take their place. It is a natural course of events, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Now, the people who insist that we can and must do something about it either want your money, or they want to destroy our capitalist, consumer driven economy. I'm sure you've heard or read how the US consumes more than any other nation in the world, sowe are evil and must be destroyed by any means. Global warming is one way to do that if you can wreck our economy by causing us to spend trillions of dollars trying to do the impossible about a fallacy we go away. End of story.

I find the host's comments on this article particularly intriguing, especially the one at the end of the article commenting on how the Ross Ice Shelf is holding back the glaciers.

I have one question for her. How does an ice shelf, which is either floating on water or grounded in the seabed, hold back gazillions of tons of ice? If the glaciers were going to flow into the sea, they would be doing it now. How do I know this? Well for one thing I'm a geologist. Also, have you seen a glacially carved valley in the mountains like in the Rocky Mountains? These glaciers were able to carve troughs into igneous and metamorphic rocks with relative ease. And to top it off, these were small glaciers compared to those covering Antarctica.

Now ask yourself, if a relatively small montane glacier has no trouble cutting through extremely hard igneous and metamorphic rocks, why wouldn't a large continental glacier be able to push a thin ice shelf grounded in soft sediments off into the sea? Doesn't make any sense to me.

This is why I have trouble taking these global warming whackos seriously.

Note to "Bob": You have no proof that the warming in the past century was any greater than say the warming in the 1930's or the warming during the Medieval Warm Period. You've been taking Mann's "Hocky Stick" at face value. His credibility is sliding down the tubes. Read some articles from some serious scientists and forget about "consensus" science. There is no such thing.

hi there woodNfish!
i really appreciate your comments on this blog and i keep on reading and following the reactions and opinions given by those people who participates on the discussion.
regarding your recent comment and so with mike's, youre saying that if global warming is true then it wouldn't be a bad thing afterall and if it would be bad then people plant and animals could adapt to the changes. but from what i have read before there's more to it than just greening the planet. according to the book i've read (and i couldn't remember who the author is) the warming of global temperature could result to stronger storms, longer period of El Nino and harsh rainfalls during La Nina (this weather condition applies to warmer countries). it might be a good thing to have a warmer weather on cold countries but then warmer countries will experience harsh conditions like drought and heavy rainfalls. and also having abundant plantlife isn't that simple as it is. some plants which are adapted to cold dry climate would not adapt to a warm moist climate and could result to extinction (sometimes mutation overtime). this could also result to an imbalance and a change in the ecological cycle. natural selection plays a good role in keeping the planet alive but then adaptation has its limits. if the creature couldn't adapt anymore it will die. humans could adapt with flexibility because of our intelligence but that doesnt mean that our adaptation is limitless right?
i agree that if this global warming is caused by nature or is a natural phenomenon then we couldn't do anything about it. but i believe that campaigns on purifying the air, planting more trees, using more earth-friendly chemicals using less toxic fuels is also a good way in keeping the planet healthy and thats not bad. even God himself commanded us to take care of all His creations.
i dont agree with them blaming everything to people. but the campaigns about keeping the planet healthy is not bad at all

Paul,

I based my comments on the ice shelf on a number of references I had heard and read. Here's an example from New Scientist which includes this quote:

"The Ross and Ronne ice shelves are of particular concern, Vaughan says, as some believe they play a crucial role in holding back the glaciers behind them. If they were to collapse, the entire western ice sheet could follow them into the ocean. In the worst-case scenario, this could lead to a five-metre rise in sea level."

Laura,

The Ross Ice Shelf is not stationary. It is continually moving to the north and as the edge becomes unstable, it calves and or melts. This continual movement is caused by the flow of ice from the continental glaciers from the Antarctic Ice Cap. Besides, if the entire Ross Ice Shelf did break off and head out to sea, it would not add to sea level rise because the mass of the ice shelf was already floating in the ocean. The statement from the New Scientist is rather interesting given that there is no mechanism for the Ross Ice Shelf to hold back the glaciers. It's not holding them back now.

Also, since the average air temperature for the bulk of the continent has been cooling over the last 40 years or so, what mechanism would cause the ice shelf to collapse?

Laura,

Here's a little more info on the Ross Ice Shelf:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/IcebergC-19.html

These two paragraphs from the article are rather interesting.

"Emeritus Professor Charles Stearns is Principal Investigator for the AMRC, and has studied and visited the continent for decades. He noted, �That crack has been there about as long as people have been going to Antarctica. In 1987, I saw it from an icebreaker.� He explained that the edge of the ice moves down from the high Antarctic plateau covering most of the continent at the rate of a kilometer a year and is fed by glaciers and ice streams. The ice is 2000 to 4000 meters thick on the plateau. It slowly moves down to the ice shelves, at the edges of the continent, where it gradually sloughs off, or calves, in the form of icebergs.

The chunk now calving from the Ross Ice Shelf has been moving for 30 years, Stearns noted. He added, �Ice flows down hill, feeding the ice shelf. It would pile up if it did not break off.� This latest calving brings the Ross Ice Shelf to the size it was in about 1911, when Scott's team first mapped it."

You should note that the velocity of the glaciers feeding the ice shelf is approximately 1 km/year. It's not like the glaciers are at a standstill, waiting for the entire ice shelf to break off before they can regain their momentum.

The other interesting note is that the ice shelf, as of the calving in 2002, is now approximately the same size as it was before Scott's team first mapped it in 1911. Evidently anthropogenic global warming goes back further than we thought, eh?

/sarc off

Paul,

Thanks for the link - I actually had found that yesterday when I was responding to your comment. I don't think I ever said the Ross Ice Shelf was stationary. It moves, and it also changes seasonally and annually as temperatures vary.

Much of the concern about the Ross shelf stem from what happened to the Larsen B ice shelf in 2002. Larsen B was a much smaller shelf, and somewhat different in structure to the Ross ice shelf, but it shocked researchers when the shelf collapsed in only 35 days.

Here's a relevant quote from the site:

"Researchers have measured up to eight times increased flow rates in the glaciers that feed the Larsen-B ice shelf since it collapsed. This has caused the elevation of the glaciers to drop by 38 meters in six months (1)."

Laura,

Larsen B was located on the Antarctic penisula (as I'm sure you know), an area of Antarctica that has experienced some warming over the last few decades.

The Ross Ice Shelf is located in an area that is experiencing steady or decling temperatures over the last few decades. In fact, the bulk of the continent is actually gaining ice mass resulting in a net sea level decline (references provided upon request).

If the Antarctic continent was warming up as the models indicate, wouldn't one expect the Antarctic ice mass to be wasting away instead of growing?

Which leads me to this: Are the models right or is the empirical evidence correct? I think I'll stick with the empirical evidence, thank you very much.

Hi Storm,

There is no way to give a short answer to your post. I really don't think warming is bad. As I have stated, people thrive in warmer weather and nature will adapt. We can't do anything about the natural process of extinction so we shouldn't try. We are doing an excellent job of cleaning up the environment and keeping it cleaner in the West. It is the thrid world and develpong world that is doing poorly. Only rich nations can afford a clean environment and history shows that (in most cases) as nations attain wealth, they become healthier and cleaner. (This is not true in the middle east, but they like to blame their problems on everyone else anyway.)

The ecology is not static and is always changing as is everything else around us.

We do not have accurate or even global temperature data except for the last twenty to thirty years and even that is limited because the atmosphere is made up of many strata, it is also full of pockets and holes and is so complex we don't fully understand it. Our science is especially weak in understanding systems and this planet is one big system.

I'm all for doing things in a clean manner if it is effective and affordable. I am not going to buy and elctric or hybrid car because they are overpriced, not environmentally friendly as claimed, and won't pull my boat. And, I am not willing to pay to chase non-existent boogeymen (global warming).

I am not a scientist, not interested in being a scientist, and not willing to bore myself to sleep every night reading environmental studies. I do, however, have a technical degree, work in a technology industry and I know that we cannot possibly determine, with the technology and data available to us today, with any certainty that the earth is warming or not. At this point in time only history will tell us that.