climate change and the left? or should I say right!~!

[luckyleftyme2]

I decided to post this so all could see that climate change theory has been around long before "Al Gore"! OR "Mike Moore"
Nothing namby-pamby about Margaret Thatcher, whatever you may think of her in the round.

Nothing wishy-washy, nothing bunny-hugging, nothing lefty about the Iron Lady. And this is what she told the assembled fellows of the Royal Society on 27 September 1988: "For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world's systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself."

Funny old world, isn't? These days, if you're a right-wing Conservative, or a right-wing commentator or blogger, it is virtually a badge of honour to proclaim that all this global warming stuff, and action taken to counter it, is a load of cobblers, nay, more: it is a fraud, perpetrated upon a deceived public by free-spending liberal or left-wing politicians who don't have Britain's own best interests at heart, and who are backed up by scientists exaggerating the problem so that they can ensure the continuation of their research funding.

Yet the woman regarded by right-wingers as their icon thought just the opposite. She was at the forefront of those who first perceived, in the late 1980s, that our increasing production of greenhouse gases was posing a real and mortal threat to the stability of the atmosphere and thus to the welfare of human society itself. Her Royal Society speech, passionate in its rhetoric, set off the second wave of environmentalism in this country (after the first one in the late 1960s). In the two years remaining of her premiership, she treated the Tory cabinet to a global-warming seminar, instigated the process of the UK cutting its carbon dioxide emissions and oversaw the establishment of the Hadley Centre at the Met Office, Britain's world-renowned institute for climate prediction and research.
I have a friend who used facebook to state quite the opposite about climate change.(this is a non-political setting but he continues to try and make it a second "AMG" site!
I realize that their are many sides to this argument but can't help thinking our life style is speeding up the natural sequence of things. And the right is looking at it as costing money!
hmm seems like going un check has had it's problems. the latest I can think of is the smog problem in China and how they had to create radical control on autos to clear the air enough to be able to see the events!(of course by now the right has found a witness to claim this was a false premise -their was no fog and those tv pictures were all doctored)

[luckyleftyme2]

1. here's a little more info

At the real heart of the right-wing reaction, though, has been the matter of cost. Tackling carbon emissions means changing energy systems, which is very expensive. The initial emissions-cutting treaty, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, was drawn up in such a way that only the rich industrialised nations had to bear this cost, with China, India and other developing countries not required to take action. This was for reasons of historical equity: the rich countries put most of the excess CO2 into the atmosphere in the first place. But in terms of contemporary equity, it is increasingly seen as completely unfair, not least as China and India have gone from being "developing" countries to industrial giants, with no restrictions on their carbon emissions; indeed, China has overtaken the US to become the world's leading CO2 emitter, with India now in third place.

this should be a world wide effort with all countries sharing the cost!

[luckyleftyme2]

2. more on the ironlady

Although in recent years there has been a long series of extreme events which appear clearly linked to a warming world, from the mind-boggling melt-back of the Arctic sea ice in September 2007 to the smashing of the British air temperature record on 10 August 2003 – it jumped from 98.8F (37.1C) to 101.3F, (38.5C), a staggering leap – the progressive warming of the whole globe which appeared to be observable in the 1990s appears, since the millennium, to have plateaued.

No one really knows why. (A good guess is the Chinese sulphur aerosol: China's vast, exploding carbon emissions are accompanied by huge emissions of sulphur dioxide, which have the effect of cooling, rather than warming the atmosphere.) Yet that's not what matters. What matters is that we know beyond peradventure that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and an increase in its atmospheric concentration will warm the atmosphere, and this increase is now proceeding at a frenzied rate.

It is proceeding even as right-wing commentators pooh-pooh the whole matter, even as members of the public pass it over completely and worry about other things, and unless the laws of physics are suspended, it will have the gravest consequences.

So although the forthcoming meeting at Durban may be on few people's lips, it is vital, not least in trying to bring the Chinese into a new global-warming treaty. One wonders what Baroness Thatcher might have to say about it, and it may seem unfortunate that her health no longer permits her to comment on the mortal threat which, with her training as a research scientist, she so presciently identified 23 years ago
as my right wing friends all know we aren't having the warmest nov. in recorded history of weather statistic nor is the artic ice melting-and if it does we can all adopt a polar bear!

[luckyleftyme2]

3. does clean energu create jobs

When so-called experts with little credibility and ties to the energy industry come out against renewable energy investments, you would think we would take their advice with a grain of salt.

Yet that’s not the case with media pundits, elected officials, and others who—egged on by the conservative Heritage Foundation—have latched on to a dubious study from Spain to scare lawmakers and the public into thinking that developing clean-energy technologies raises prices and costs jobs.

Spain is a global leader in renewable energy, but this study claimed that government subsidies for renewable energy projects such as windmills and solar panels cost the Spanish economy $8 billion and eliminate 2.2 jobs for every “green” job created. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The study, authored by the relatively unknown Gabriel Caldaza, estimates that renewable projects in Spain created only 50,000 jobs, yet U.N. estimates show those projects actually created 188,000 jobs.

Caldaza also claims that solar energy projects cost Spain 15,000 additional jobs last year. Yet Caldaza fails to disclose that these job losses in Spain were actually caused by the worldwide economic crisis, not government funding for clean-energy projects. In reality, government estimates show that the clean energy sector in Spain grew by 500 percent in the last three years, and it will likely create 270,000 more jobs by 2020.

Caldaza also inaccurately forecasts impending economic doom in the United States if the current administration keeps its sights set on renewable energy development. Caldaza asserts, without offering any analysis of the U.S. economic situation, that if the Obama administration continues to subsidize renewable energy projects, “the U.S. could lose 6.6 million to 11 million jobs while it creates three million largely temporary ëgreen jobs.’”

These dire projections have made Caldaza the darling of the American extreme right wing. Never mind that leading Spanish experts from Fundación Ideas para el Progreso in a letter to Congress decrying Caldaza’s study characterized his research as “not reliable or credible,” and further described the research institute he’s affiliated with as having “clear links to the energy industry.”

Investing in clean and renewable energy is not only beneficial to the environment and our health; it actually reduces household energy bills while creating jobs. A 2008 Center for American Progress study found that investing $100 billion over two years in green energy would generate 2 million jobs, creating four times more jobs than if the same amount were spent in the oil sector. And these jobs would be concentrated in manufacturing and construction—two of the worst affected sectors by the recession. Investing in green jobs could therefore act as an economic stimulus and help low skill workers such as construction workers, roofers, and assemblers.

hhmmmm seems the right wing fibbers are in denial!or as usual they are just standing in the way of change!

[luckyleftyme2]

4. just cuz the koch brothers know!

this just came out and it ain't some bought and paid for jerk who claims to be a scientist without connections!
Abrupt permafrost thaw increases climate threat
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30 November 2011

FAIRBANKS, Alaska -- As the Arctic warms, greenhouse gases will be released from thawing permafrost faster and at significantly higher levels than previous estimates, according to survey results from 41 international scientists published in the Nov. 30 issue of the journal Nature.

…

The survey, led by University of Florida researcher Edward Schuur and University of Alaska Fairbanks graduate student Benjamin Abbott, asked climate experts what percentage of the surface permafrost is likely to thaw, how much carbon will be released and how much of that carbon will be methane. The authors estimate that the amount of carbon released by 2100 will be 1.7 to 5.2 times larger than reported in recent modeling studies, which used a similar warming scenario.

…

“We know about a lot of processes that will affect the fate of arctic carbon, but we don’t yet know how to incorporate them into climate models,” Abbott said. “We’re hoping to identify some of those processes and help the models catch up.”

Most large-scale models assume that permafrost warming depends on how much the air above the permafrost is warming. Missing from the models, say the authors, are processes such as the effects of abrupt thawing that can melt an ice wedge, result in collapsed ground and accelerate additional thawing.

…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/480032a
now if ya all remember the alaskan perma frost has already been a problemn with roads ,buildings and several structures along the alskan pipe line!
with the polar ice melting and the sale of bikinis going up in alaska you would think even as brainwashed transplant to maine would realize its happening!

[luckyleftyme2]

5. for the witch of the east and her fish and his trolls

many studies are going on in alaska and russia concerning climate change and the effect it is having in that area!

How rapidly is permafrost changing and what are the impacts of these changes?

Vladimir E. Romanovsky
Associate Professor
Geophysical Institute UAF
Fairbanks, AK


Figure 1. One of the hot afternoons in Fairbanks, Alaska in June 2004.

What is permafrost? On a hot day in Fairbanks, Alaska (Figure 1), it is very hard to imagine that anything could be frozen around here. The sun is shining almost around the clock, the trees and grass are green and people try to find some good spot near the water, which is not spoiled by a myriad of mosquitoes. Yet, in less than 100 yards from the University of Alaska Fairbanks corner, within a large area covered by tiny black spruce trees and a thick moss layer, the soil is frozen just some 30 to 40 centimeters below the moss surface. This soil will be frozen during the entire summer. No big surprise, it was frozen for the last several thousand years and maybe even longer. That is why we call this natural phenomena "permafrost", or "perennially frozen ground". Only the upper 30 to 100 cm of soils (called the active layer) thaws every summer and then completely refreezes during the winter. Typical thickness of permafrost around Fairbanks is about 50 meters, but varies between a few meters and 150 m and more.


Figure 2. Wintertime in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Why does permafrost still exist in Fairbanks with such warm summers? Because the average temperature during the year is the most important factor for permafrost existence. Winters in Fairbanks are cold and long (Figure 2). So, the average air temperatures here are typically between -2 and -5°C. The insulating effect of snow makes the average temperatures in permafrost higher (typically from -0.2 to -2°C) that brings permafrost in Fairbanks area to the edge of instability (long-term thawing).

Permafrost gets colder and thicker northward. Within the northern foothills of the Brooks Range permafrost is already -2 to -5°C cold and about 200 meters thick. On the Alaskan Arctic Plain, permafrost could be as cold as -9 to -11°C cold and up to 650 meters thick.

The large observed and predicted future climatic changes will inevitably change the energy and mass fluxes at the land surface and, as a result, the near-surface and subsurface physical conditions in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic. This will trigger changes in ecosystems and infrastructure because the stability of these systems in the north relies on the stability of ice that, so far, holds these systems together. In losing permafrost, we are losing the stability of systems.

What is happening to permafrost? The long-term records of the near-surface permafrost temperature, obtained from different parts of the permafrost zone in northern regions, show a significant warming trend during the last 30 years (Table 1). Ground temperature trends generally follow the trends in the air temperatures with a more pronounced warming in the lower latitudes (between 55° and 65° North). This recent climate warming brought soil temperatures to a surprisingly high level, about 1 to 3°C warmer than long-term averages (Figure 3). Within some areas, the permafrost temperatures are very close to 0°C (Figure 4) and at some sites long-term permafrost degradation has already started (Fedorov, 1996; Osterkamp et al., 2000; Jorgenson et al., 2001; Fedorov and Konstantinov, 2003; Gavriliev and Efremov, 2003).

Of course their are a few knowledge people in the public forum that will dispute this-and we all can be polite and let them fools rant!
lmao at such ignorance!

[luckyleftyme2]

6. this is only a partial report

this article is to long to post all of it I simply want to stir your curiosity to search the subject for your self.
we all know money buys information but it also buys mis-information

Scientists Find New Global Warming 'Time Bomb’
by Seth Borenstein

Methane bubbles trapped in lake ice in Siberia in early autumn.
Methane trapped in a special type of permafrost is bubbling up at rate five times faster than originally measured, according to a study in the Thursday, Sept. 6, 2006, issue of the journal Nature.
Photo: AP/Nature, Katey Walter
WASHINGTON — Global warming gases trapped in the soil are bubbling out of the thawing permafrost in amounts far higher than previously thought and may trigger what researchers warn is a climate time bomb.
Methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — is being released from the permafrost at a rate five times faster than thought, according to a study being published today in the journal Nature. The findings are based on new, more accurate measuring techniques.
“The effects can be huge,” said lead author Katey Walter of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks said. “It’s coming out a lot and there’s a lot more to come out.”
Scientists worry about a global warming vicious cycle that was not part of their already gloomy climate forecast: Warming already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on.
“The higher the temperature gets, the more permafrost we melt, the more tendency it is to become a more vicious cycle,” said Chris Field, director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who was not part of the study. “That’s the thing that is scary about this whole thing. There are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off.”
Some scientists say this vicious cycle is
you can research the rest for yourselves