Global Warming – Are We Too Late?

Back here at the Trailing Edge, our guidestones for new ideas may not be what one might hope and expect. Be that as it may, since President Bush has acknowledged global warming, maybe we should start thinking about it.

Oddly enough, what started this line of thought was some good news – at least I hope it is. It seems there may be a cancer treatment in the wings. Check out:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.h

An effective, cheap cancer treatment? Hooray! Does this mean we can all start eating like hogs, drinking like fish, and smoking like chimneys? You bet it does, except that no self-respecting hogs, fish, or – for that matter – chimneys are likely to be as self destructive as we delight in being. (Well, maybe not you, but me for sure.)

Anyway, I guess thinking about my self-destructive behavior – and the opportunity to engage in it – got me thinking about global warming. It appears that mostly all scientists in the know think that global warming is a fact. Seems they have thought so for some time. And pretty much all of them think it’s our fault. (Well, again, maybe not yours, but mine for sure.)

Released this week:
An Associated Press article by Angela Charlton, World scientists meet to finish up long-awaited global warming report, 6:30 a.m. January 29, 2007, quotes one of the report authors:
" 'We're hoping that it will convince people that climate change is real and that we have a responsibility for much of it, and that we really do have to make changes in how we live,' said Kenneth Denman, one of the report's authors and senior scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis."
However, the article goes on to say that…
"Some critics worry that the IPCC scientists did not take into account shifts in Greenland and Antarctica."
http://go.sosd.com/servlet/nrp?cmd=sty&cid=RIM&pgn=1&ino=957129&cat=Science&lno=1

So what, I ask myself (and both of you), is this about Greenland and Antarctica that didn't figure into this comprehensive report?

An article on Antarctica published in Earth Island Journal’s Summer 1998 issue (Vol. 13, No. 3), Antarctica's "Deep Impact" Threat, by Andy Caffrey, covers the ice melting at both the North and South Poles (pun intended only a little bit):
"On April 17, US government scientists reported that a 75-square-mile chunk of the Larsen ice shelf had broken loose and blamed the break-up on global warming. 'This may be the beginning of the end for the Larsen ice shelf,' said US National Snow and Ice Data Center research associate Ted Scambos….
"Meanwhile the mile-thick sheet of ice covering 85 percent of Greenland is vanishing at the rate of 2.5 centimeters a year and the Bering Glacier, the world's largest temperate glacier, has been retreating at a rate of 1 kilometer per year since 1990. Over the past 30 years, Western Arctic temperatures have risen 1 degree C….
"In the August 1995 Scientific American, Christina Stock reported how 'for a geologic nanosecond - a century, in other words - some 120,000 years ago, the earth underwent climatic havoc.' New findings show that sea level records, imprinted in limestone of the Bahama Islands, rose 20 feet above that of today and then plunged to at least 30 feet below modern levels. These erratic 100 years came at the close of the last interglacial era, a time when the climate was somewhat similar to ours.”
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/summer98/wr_sum98d.htm

Two other online articles, written this month by Catherine Brahic for the NewScientist, present a pretty exciting – and accurate as far as I know – discussion of both ice melting and global warming:
Major climate change report looks set to alarm, published 11:54 29 January 2007
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11049-major-climate-change-report-looks-set-to-alarm.html
Melting of mountain glaciers is accelerating, published 18:36 30 January 2007 http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11064-melting-of-mountain-glaciers-is-accelerating.html

So maybe we shouldn’t just turn over and go back to sleep – which is surely the right thing to do when it comes to most scientific reports.

What should we do instead, I ask you (or myself, if you’ve both gone on to more interesting blogs)? Should we actually think about changing the way we think about energy consumption. Should I - right now before it's too late - turn off my comput…(session interrupted)

Politically Confused

January 10, 2007.
OK (which, by the way, was how an earlier president abbreviated "all correct"), am I the only one here who didn't see any sensible statements of position this evening from anyone currently holding a political office in the federal government?
I started to use "clear" instead of "sensible," but that wasn't accurate. Democrats, Republicans, even our Commander in Chief, were frequently clear in what they said. So that's Oll more or less Korrect, as far as it goes.
However, clarity, while necessary, isn't sufficient. Foreign policy should also be sensible. Otherwise, foreign powers (like, say, European ones) might all go off and start something without us (like, say, an economic and political union that shows signs of working better than ours). (To be clear, I am not happy to worry that the US will someday soon be a lesser power, just trying to be sensible. Although I may be straying from the point a bit. Excuse me, please.)
To be sensible, the various positions of our newly and previously elected leaders' would have had to be grounded in reality - at least to some extent. So let's test that:

Position A: We should get out of Iraq as soon as feasible and commit no more troups or funds to the effort of bringing peace and democracy to that region, because that's what the Iraq government wants and what will safeguard American lives.
This position is OK, except that there doesn't seem to be a general political will in Iraq with a clear "want" when it comes to American troups. The people in Iraq seem to want the mass killings and chaos to diminish, which only happens when American troups are around. The government in Iraq wants to be left alone to run things. Each faction and sect appears to want that.
Also, it could be that refusing to send troups to help the troups currently in Iraq may not be the best way to protect the Americans there. Being understaffed, underfunded, and underprotected is a difficult position from which to succeed at pretty much anything. Even getting out alive.

Position B: We should increase our efforts to bring peace and democracy to Iraq by increasing troups and costs, because that's what the government of Iraq wants and what will secure a lasting peace in the region.
That position is OK except that the government in Iraq doesn't want us there, nor does pretty much anyone in power in that region. That may be the single thing that all the many factions and sects agree on. Oh, and the lasting peace thing. Well, really. Anyone know how to erase the last 40 years or so and handle the whole thing sensibly?

Now, I've said before that, back here on the trailing edge, we're used to being confused, but this is a new high (low?). We may not have the answers back here, in fact, we rarely do. But at least we can recognize when no one is asking the right questions. That's probably why our version of PC is "politically confused."