Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The Myth Of Climate Change
Nope, there's no climate change, and no, we aren't causing it with our reckless disdain for the environment. There's just more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any other time in the past 650,000 years, with the rate of increase just off the scales. From a Sploid.com link, the story by the BBC's Richard Black:

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.

Treasure dome

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

Posted by aalkon at November 26, 2005 8:02 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/814

Comments

If you'd like to see what NOAA has found over the years, take a look at the Ice Core Data Holdings:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.html

But it isn't enough for Americans to stop driving bigger cars; the real problem is the burning of fossil fuels, including power plants world-wide. This won't happen until the trip is more important than the destination, because it is the hurry, not the trip, that demands power.

China is in a hurry...

Posted by: Radwaste at November 26, 2005 1:44 PM

> This won't happen until the trip is
> more important than the destination,
> because it is the hurry, not the trip,
> that demands power.

Um, ya lost me. I think you're saying it could be brought under control if we were all ready to live like shit. Yes? No?

I hear you about the Chinese, but would like to think you believe they have as much right to the blessings of development (including lower birthrates and pollution levels) as anyone else. Yes it's a paradox, but liberty is prefered to authoritarian ecological schemes, no?

I'm for it anyway; pollution and population plumet with prosperity.

Posted by: Crid at November 26, 2005 5:07 PM

(Strike last sentence: Incompetent edit)

Posted by: Crid at November 26, 2005 5:08 PM

Crid, it's a fundamental law of physics: power is energy expended per unit of time. In the process of meeting assorted transportation needs, this is obvious: speed, and you burn more fuel to get where you are going. The destination, for Americans, is often arbitrary or ill-considered when they are merely traveling to abate boredom; this serves as an apt metaphor for the current practice of transforming American landscape into minimalls, and ecological wonders into housing.

By the way, liberty and prosperity are in no way logically tied to either pollution levels or population. Today, we spend energy drawn from a chemical "bank" which has no source to replenish its funds. I am eager to see Earth avoid the fate of Easter Island, whose inhabitants consumed everything in the vicinity and then died.

Posted by: Radwaste at November 27, 2005 7:39 AM

Exactly. There has to be some rational stewardship of this planet, which means we have to stop acting like frat boys on the last day of school.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 27, 2005 7:41 AM

Grrr! Anger! This is the CHRISTMAS of annoyance. God Damn.

Trusting the BBC on such matters is lunacy. You should get in the habit of reading three people:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Postrel
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg

> when they are merely traveling
> to abate boredom;

You mean when Amy flies to France? Or do you mean when your wife drives to Blockbuster to rent the Matrix series for Thanksgiving weekend, so the kids can be distracted as you converse with visiting friends from college days? Will I be permitted to drive the 2.8 miles to Santa Monica beach for sunset tonight without permission, or do I have to blow you first if I want to go faster than 30mph?

What is "mere" about abating boredom? And what's boredom? Presumably you think that these are judgments which must be passed... And that with heartfelt munificence, you personally are willing to pass those judgments. For us. (Gee, thanks.)

> minimalls

Know this about minimalls: People work in them. They own them and they patronize them. Their economic venues mean no less to them than yours do to you...

> and ecological wonders into housing.

...and they're not concerned that you feel their shelter reflects insufficient wonderment. Plus, they think YOUR home decor sucks, especially that carpet against those drapes.

> By the way, liberty and prosperity
> are in no way logically tied to
> either pollution levels or population.

Bullshit. In century after century, continent after continent, the meanest & poorest places are the ones that suffer hardest ecologically; see the marshlands of Iraq and the Amazon rain forests, respectively.

> Today, we spend energy drawn from
> a chemical "bank" which has no
> source to replenish its funds.

Then we'll SWITCH CURRENCIES. In the late 19th, scholars were terrified that they wouldn't be able to read at night without whale oil for their lamps. Turns out it wasn't an issue. Lots of clever people knew that there were rewards for solving the problem, so it got solved. People seem to think the Arco station on the corner was sitting there when man crawled out of the muck... But the oil economy was developed by people in response to certain needs. The fact that we'll always have needs doesn't mean apocalypse is at hand. There's no need to freak out and get all authoritarian.

We might not foresee the changes which will clothe and feed people in a few hundred years. But two hundred years ago, no one would have believed that we'd suck crude from under the Tundra and ship it to Louisiana, either.

The Earth is not an island anymore than your chair is a living room. Civilization isn't a "vicinity," it's a machine. And when a component wears out, it can be replaced. (Favorite example: Trusting crime families to run dictatorships in oil-producing nations isn't working out so well any more, so we're trying something new.)

> this serves as an apt metaphor

From you, Raddy, prissy language is a tell... It suggests you're thinking about matters of taste rather than liberty.

> There has to be some rational
> stewardship of this planet

It's a fascist impulse to presume that this isn't happening without direction from centralized authority; it's a cowardly one that sees this authority in a cuddly, accessible personage like Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. Or ANY "steward". Who you callin' "rational?"

Zappa, circa '67: "Bowtie Daddy don'tcha blow your top, everything's under control!"


Posted by: Crid at November 27, 2005 1:09 PM

Leave a comment