Comment from tyretiger
May 21st, 2008 at 1:43 am

Can you explain to me why the glaciers in the US, New Zealand, Greenland, South Pole, South America, Asia and perhaps other places are growing, some at alarming rates? It appears also that the Arctic ice is also increasing. It does not seem logical, that if our planet is undergoing global warming, that the world's glaciers, for the most part, are growing. I am not a scientist, but there is a great deal of controversy on this subject. It appears that some of this could be very political and not necessarily fact. It appears to me we need to find alternative energy sources, but in the meantime we better be building nuclear power plants, using clean coal technologies, and drilling the oil sources that we have, which are, as I understand it, many times greater than that of Saudi Arabia. Ethanol is not by itself a very good fuel. Like to get your thoughts.

Comment from Lisa Moore
May 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Actually, ice is disappearing. For example, check out our post "Arctic Sea Ice Shrinking Unexpectedly Fast" and this animation of Arctic sea ice from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The IPCC devotes Chapter 4 of its Fourth Assessment Report to "Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground". It's a comprehensive review of all the changes we're seeing due to global warming. Here are just a few excerpts: "Snow cover has decreased in most regions…. decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent…. Mass loss of glaciers and ice caps…. thinning, reduction or loss of ice shelves…. The permafrost base has been thawing…. extent of seasonally frozen ground has decreased."

Bill Chameides did a great series of posts about how we know humans are responsible for recent rapid global warming.

Fortunately, the main conversation among policymakers today is not about the science or whether to implement climate legislation, but how to do it most effectively. Environmental Defense Fund believes that the answer is cap-and-trade, and that the Climate Security Act is a strong start.

Comment from skeptic1
May 24th, 2008 at 12:15 am

From the graph on the left above, the temperature peaks are similar. Looking at temp, it looks like we are peaking again, and could very well be heading down again.

And the ice caps at the south pole are growing. Maybe not at the north pole. And you keep treating the IPCC as gospel. Why then is there a petition of 30000+ scientists in this country alone that there is no convincing evidence that man is causing global warming, and that evidence shows that higher co2 and methane is actually beneficial??? And I was not convinced by Chameides' weak arguments.

Disclosure: I have a MS is Engineering and am not affiliated with any group benefiting from carbon sales or use, political organization, etc. Just like to get to the bottom of things.

Comment from skeptic2
May 26th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

It seems to me that articles like this one don't do a lot to help the cause; they don't seem to hold up to close scrutiny. Specifically:

"CO2 and methane levels are higher today than they have been in at least the past 800,000 years."

1) What meaurement methods are used? If actual measurements are used for current levels, then a comparison to ice core analysis is an apples-to-oranges argument, and not really valid.

2) I am not familiar with the details of ice core analysis. Are the analyses valid for short-term effects? Can we really tell what the levels were in individual years, or decades, or centuries?

"The strong correlations of methane and CO2 with temperature reconstructions are consistent back 800,000 years."

1) Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Possibly a fourth variable affects all three items shown here.

2) Although the scale makes it difficult, it appears from the graphs that temperature changes predate methane level changes, which predate CO2 level changes. Not a strong argument for CO2 and/or methane driving temperature change.

"The long-term cyclic changes in temperature, methane and CO2 that follow slow changes in Earth’s orbit are consistent back 800,000 years.

1) The fourth variable mentioned above. If all three variables follow "slow changes in Earth's orbit" then it is even less likely that there is a causal relationship between them.

2) If this statement is true, it would (in my opinion) argue AGAINST any human activity being the cause of temperature change. If temperature changes have happened for 800,000 years, and follow changes in the Earth's orbit, then what makes anyone believe that anything humans can do will alter that pattern?

"Cold phases remain roughly similar throughout the 800,000 year record, but starting about 450,000 years ago, warm phases got warmer. Why?"

Why, indeed. I would say, without reservation, that the answer to that question is NOT human activity. Again, it would seem to indicate that the phenomenon is a wholly natural one, and that nothing we humans can do will alter it. What happens, happens.

"What accounts for the unusually low value for CO2 (172 ppm) about 667,000 years ago?"

Environmental regulations of the government in place at that time? A precursor to the Kyoto treaty? I suspect, once again, that human activity did not contribute to this datum, one way or the other. Again, a fairly strong argument that climate change, CO2 levels, and other natural phenomena are exactly that: natural. Human beings affect such things only by virtue of being a part of nature.

Disclaimer: My degree is in electrical engineering, and I work for an environmental engineering company. I strongly believe in our mission, and in the need for environmentally friendly solutions, in and of themselves. I am not convinced that AGW is real or controllable, or that it is a reason, by itself, to do anything.

Comment from traciatim
May 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Well, here is something I find interesting. It would seem that the CO2/Methane temperature swing varies wildly and always drops back to EXTREMELY cold. What are we doing do stop this disaster that is very obviously overdue according to that chart?

Pingback from Climate 411 » Every Vote Against This Bill Makes Oil Companies Happier - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am

[…] the Climate Security Act is the best chance to pass climate legislation this year — something the science, the politics, and the economics say we need NOW. If you’re still not sure we need rapid […]

Comment from zorro3
September 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm

The self-proclaimed scientists that pile onto these discussions are constantly whining about the IPCC because they can't measure up to scientific evidence no matter how hard they try. "my degree is in electrical engineering" another failed university student. He makes the most moronic arguement ever heard and then makes the statement "CO2 levels are natural" because "humans are part of nature".

Ever heard of physics? When you pump 16 billion tons of unasorbed C02 into the atmosphere yearly, you're not talking about an occasional major volcano eruption, or a peaks after an ice age, where the earth has thousands of years to adjust, and where it has ALL its natural C02 aborbing mechanisms in place. It's a sustained deliberate increase in global warming gases HUMAN CAUSED which has snowballing effect, along with human destruction of natural C02 absorption systems.

Comment from zorro3
September 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm

It's called steady pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere by HUMANS at a faster rate than ever seen from natural occurences with humans destroying C02 absorption mechanisms. The southern oceans are saturated and can't absorb. Land absorbing systems like forests are cut down. By ice core samples of hundreds of thousands of years any period before the Industrial Era was no more than 3.6 ppm per century. The current CO2 growth rate is close to 100 ppm per century, which is more than 20 times as fast.