Thin Ice

March 13, 2010

in Whatever

As young males we were told that a certain private activity could cause warts on your hands and/or blindness. That appears not to have been accurate.

However, I have since learned that ideology and politics can cause blindness. Blindness has become pandemic across the country.

Those that suffer from this form of blindness also seem to have language difficulties. They can’t seem to appreciate the differences between the meanings of climate and weather.

It snowed, so Al Gore is proven wrong. Yeah, sure.

Well, DC did have three blizzards around last Christmas, didn’t it? Yes.

Heat is a form of energy. Warmer air can carry more moisture. More energy plus more moisture equals more precipitation. It only has to be freezing for that precipitation to come in the form of snow.

Winters may not be as cold as in my youth but I still but on a jacket when going outside in December. It does not have to be a record cold to produce snow in the northern climes. The temperatures in DC last December were considerably warmer than its record low.

These blind people love to pretend to be basing their position either on science or the fact that there is still some question. The question, surprisingly, is based almost exclusively on ideology and politics, not science.

This little graphic is what the blind people are missing. Most people look at this and estimate that, since 1979 (the red line), a bit more than 20% of the ice cap has disappeared. That is strange since they seem to include Greenland in their computations but not withing the red perimeter.

Both the Polar Ice Cap and the ice on Greenland are receding, but at very different paces. The ice of Greenland is on land. The Polar Ice Cap is on water. The factors involved are very different on land and on sea. Based on just the Ice Cap itself, there is an obvious receding of about one-third.

There is one positive in all of this, at least for some corporations. They will soon be able to save a few millions on the voyage of large ships between certain important ports. It is the fabled Northwest Passage. Yes, it will become a reality.

Rotterdam, the Netherlands is the busiest port in Europe. Yokohama is the busiest port in Asia. We in the US don’t generally pay much attention to such places and the commerce between them but it is very sizable.

The melting is opening up a route between these two ports that reduces the trip from 11,200 miles to 6,500. For a large container ship, that could mean a savings of $3.5 million. The savings would be even larger for ships too large for the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal. They presently take the scenic route around the Cape of Good Hope.

Sense About Science

Even the most rabid of deniers acknowledge that global temperatures have been rising over the past couple of decades. What they argue is that temperatures go up and down and that there have been warmer periods in human history. There was no industrial factor in those earlier periods so it cannot be caused by humans. Therefore, humans should continue doing as they please. In other words, ego reigns supreme. I want do to what I want to do and nothing else matters.

Have you ever seen something coming out of a smokestack? Most of it does come down, low enough where you can breathe it.

Back in the 1970s the FAA required jet aircraft to install what we called tin cans. These were devices that significantly reduced the black smoke that used to be seen when jets took off. The airlines decided on first retrofitting one engine at a time on each plane. Even though it meant having to take that same plane out of service again to retrofit the other engine(s), they had their reasons.

Watching a plane take off with one engine spouting out obvious pollution while the other appeared clean was thought to be a good public relations. There was just one small problem. The tin cans reduced the big, visible particles. There remained the invisible particles, including the ones created by the devices. So, there were more particles staying airborne much longer. People in the area didn’t receive much if any real benefit from those “cleaner” engine. The impact of science is not always grasped at first glance or upon superficial observation.

It is undeniable that humans produce pollutants, lots of them. It is undeniable that lots of those pollutants stay airborne for long periods. It is undeniable that those pollutants have an effect on the amount of heat that is retained by the hothouse effect. It is impossible to visualize the amount of tonnage of pollutants known to be put into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

There are differences between now and earlier historic periods of higher temperatures. This time the change is much faster. This time our dependency on technology and our vastly increased population leave us more vulnerable. It is the old analogy: taking out the bridges of Hanoi meant that the people put their bicycles over their heads and waded across, while taking out the bridges to Manhattan would create massive chaos.

Most of the major cities of the world are on water. Just imagine the results of all that melting ice. Consider if desertification moved north. The Midwest, the core of our agriculture, the source of the bulk of our exports, would be another, but much longer, dust bowl. Canada and Siberia would become the world’s breadbasket. I am very hopeful that curling will not become the national past-time nor borscht replace the Big Mac.


.

{ 11 comments }

naprawa sterowników vp44 March 31, 2011 at 1:35 pm

Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive learn anything like this before. So nice to search out any individual with some authentic ideas on this subject. realy thank you for beginning this up. this web site is something that is needed on the net, someone with a little originality. useful job for bringing something new to the web!

south austin locksmith February 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm

As usual, another great read. I can’t speak for everyone here, but I enjoy your views on topics like these.

Crawford April 23, 2010 at 10:21 am

Thank you. ‘nuf said.

Amy April 23, 2010 at 12:00 am

the most rabid of deniers . . . love it! IGNORANCE is blind. ‘nuf said.

Ed March 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

I don’t think anyone could wade across the Hudson River or Long Island Sound, but I digress. You failed to mention that much of the “scientific” evidence used by the IPCC is based on faulty data. You failed to mention that many, many respected Climatology scientists are not convinced. You failed to mention that based on U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements that the temperature is actually cooling – very slightly – .037 degrees Celsius.

The scientific method involves observing accurately and making judgements based on what is observed. It doesn’t work as well when you know the answer you want before you even observe what is happening.

I’m not a denier. Call me an agnostic.

Crawford March 16, 2010 at 10:35 am

I have a comment, Ed, but I have a friend in the hospital and some important research at the state archives. I’ll post that comment by tomorrow, I hope.

Crawford March 19, 2010 at 1:00 pm

The mention of the Hudson was to indicate that technologically dependent areas are much more susceptible to chaos when under stress. Those bridges carry water, power, gas and communication lines in addition to transport. Also, that transport could not possibly handled by bicycle anyway.

The IPCC headquarters was sloppy and behaved with less than due diligence but the science was not all that poor. In Chapter 10 of the 2nd report there were minor discrepancies in the predicted glacial melt in the Himalayas and the amount of flooding in the Netherlands. These were not significant enough to call into question all of their data. There is plenty of data from other, unquestionable sources. There is no need to depend on that one source. The attacks are a political attempt to discredit all science on the subject.

Are you just going to ignore the 30-year shrinkage of the Polar Ice Cap? That melt is not linear. It has been gathering speed. If and when both poles, Greenland and other major glaciers are ice-free, the coastal regions will be up to 20 feet under water. That is where most major cities are. I wouldn’t recommend long-term real estate investment in those areas.

The melting has already put the Gulf Stream at risk. That may cause more problems than we can be assured of successfully adapting to.

As I said, this is happening faster and will be longer term than the cold snaps and heatwaves of the past several hundred years. Why? Because man has had a significant influence for the duration of the industrial age. That cannot be denied.

Food supply will be severely strained. Centers of commerce will need to be moved. Those earlier periods did not bring such disruptions.

16 of the last 18 years are among the 18 warmest years since records have been kept. There are too many variables for it to result in a straight line rise in temperature. There will be some fluctuations. Also, there is a lot of money being paid out to buy the opinions of 2nd- or 3rd-rate scientists. I can find 20 or more reputable scientists on the warming side for every scientist that has been bought.

One can be skeptical as to the speed or extent of change but not the direction or import.

Ed March 19, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Your language indicates your willingness to have an open discussion on this subject. Those scientists who see long term manmade warming are reputable, while those who don’t are bought. When the coastal regions are under six inches of water, get back to me.

Crawford March 22, 2010 at 11:00 am

I spent a number of years analyzing “scientific” studies from “experts” paid for by the pharmaceutical companies. It happens. The drug companies usually hired MDs rather than real scientists to provide some putative credibility.

Admittedly, I have not devoted as much time to the credentials on this issue but there are unquestionably people from other disciplines posing as experts. There are scientists of little note in the community. There are provable financial links in many cases.

The sheer balance of scientists on the different sides could also be considered to have some weight.

I am not the one who ultimately decides who is credible and who is not. That is largely self-selecting, and generally known in the appropriate parts of the scientific community. Depending on peer acceptance is not foolproof but it is probably a better measure than one based on corporate PR handouts or ideological preference.

Cheryl Simpson Nelson March 15, 2010 at 6:00 am

the most rabid of deniers . . . love it! IGNORANCE is blind. ‘nuf said.

Crawford March 15, 2010 at 6:11 am

‘nuf said.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: