Scientists urge U.S. to protect economy from climate

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eight scientific organizations urged the next U.S. president to help protect the country from climate change by pushing for increased funding for research and forecasting, saying about $2 trillion of U.S. economic output could be hurt by storms, floods and droughts.

"We don't think we have the right kind of tools to help decision makers plan for the future," Jack Fellows, the vice president for corporate affairs of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a consortium of 71 universities, told reporters in a teleconference on Wednesday.

The groups, including the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, urged Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain to support $9 billion in investments between 2010 and 2014 to help protect the country from extreme weather, which would nearly double the current U.S. budget for the area.

The U.N.'s science panel says extreme weather events could hit more often as temperatures rise due to climate change.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2041263620080821

[OnyxCollie]

1. Crap headline. nt

[DCKit]

17. How so?

It's easy to dismiss, but you don't offer a better answer - any answer at all.

Blanket criticism is easy, alternatives be harder.

[OnyxCollie]

25. The economy (business) is causing the damage to the climate that is damaging the economy.

It's a Moebius strip of fuckedupness, with an omission of any responsibility by business for causing the global warming or efforts to reduce the damage.

Happy now?

[KurtNYC]

2. yes, weird headline

[Lorien]

3. It seems to me that we should be protecting the climate from

our capitalist economies that demand profit, no matter the cost.

[f the letter]

4. Emphasis on

"no matter what the cost" : amen.



seriously... how fucked up has civilization made us? nobody can live on an unlivable planet, regardless of their bank account.

[Lorien]

8. That's a simple concept that even most here can't seem to grasp

they either think that climate change won't be a problem for our generation (and I still don't know why it would be OK for your kids or grandkids to have to deal with it), or that technology can fix everything. Still, others make the flippant remark that "the earth will go one without us" (and 99% of the other species that inhabit it), so everything is just fine. Yet war and the bad economy are critical issues when the environment is not...:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

What it really comes down to is that if people aren't being hurt by something THIS VERY MINUTE they won't think about it at all.

[AlphaCentauri]

9. many have bite the propaganda that dark forces want to destroy our Lifestyle

[asteroid2003QQ47]

10. Stop reading "The Naked Ape," STOP it I say! n/t

[The Croquist]

12. The earth is doing just fine.

2008 has been unusually cool so far. It is the 11th coolest (20th warmest) of the last 30 years.*
The Arctic ocean has allot more ice then last year.
The Antarctic ocean has allot more ice then usual.

If you want to cut down on CO2 emissions put tariffs on imported goods from China. They emit allot more CO2 per unit of GNP then the US does but they are exempt from Kyoto. They are also by far the biggest polluter on the planet.

I think the headline should be:

Scientists urge U.S. to give us more money before we have to admit that we don't know what we are talking about.


* There is only 30 years of accurate global temperatures.

[Lorien]

13. Sorry. You don't know what you're talking about

Even according to Bush "we're the world's number one polluter".

Go spend a little time reading up in the environment and energy forum. You'll have your eyes opened. Fox news isn't a great source of information on science.

[AlphaCentauri]

14. if that is true is because the melting ice is slipping into the ocean

[The Croquist]

18. There is more ice today then a year ago.

If you are talking about the "massive" Wilkins Ice Shelf you should be aware that the part that collapsed was about 415 square kilometers. As of July 2008 there was about 16,600,000 square kilometers of ice around Antarctica. That compares to about 16,400,000 square kilometers in July 2007. It appears that Antarctica has managed to survive OK.

As of July 2008 there was about 9,000,000 square kilometers of ice in the Arctic. That compares to about 8,100,000 square kilometers in July 2007. The July 2008 figure is still low but better then 2007.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=100&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=07&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=07&hemis1=N&img1=extn&year0=2008&year1=2007&.cgifields=no_panel

[AlphaCentauri]

21. Slipping ice shelfs into the ocean could give the impression that the iced area is expanding

there is no data of the thickness of the new ice layers.

[The Croquist]

23. Do you have a source for this statement?

"there is no data of the thickness of the new ice layers."

I presented evidence that there is more ice then last year. Now you are saying that it is thinner.

Well maybe it is but a lack of evidence is not evidence.
The ice pack IS expanding

In the Arctic there is allot of new ice and new ice is typically thinner but that is because the ice pack has grown from last year. The Antarctic ice is even more impacted.

"New" ice by the way has a higher albedo then "old" ice. That is because the ice in the Arctic (and Antarctic) is generally formed from frozen sea water and not from precipitation. Dust / pollution tends to settle on it, lowering the albedo and resulting in greater heat being absorbed. It is a negative feedback. Negative feedbacks are what has prevented the earth from being either a snowball or furnace for about 4.5 billion years so far.

Since 1979 (the first year of data) the the average minimum sea ice in the Arctic has occurred in September at 6.84 million square kilometers. The average maximum sea ice has occurred in March at 15.59 million square kilometers. That means that, at a minimum, 56% of the Arctic sea ice is "new" every year. The actual figure will be higher because some of the "old" sea ice will melt and re-freeze during the year.

The the average minimum sea ice in the Antarctic has occurred in February at 3.01 million square kilometers. The average maximum sea ice has occurred in September at 18.76 million square kilometers. That means that, at a minimum, 84% of the Antarctic sea ice is "new" every year.

It appears that "new" sea ice is the norm rather then the exception.

[ima_sinnic]

15. this post is riddled with misconceptions and ignorance

just your assertions about the Arctic and Antarctica are totally off, never mind the rest of it.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't.
A little education wouldn't hurt you.

[The Croquist]

19. My assertions about the Arctic and Antarctica are totally correct.

Why don't you go to this site and look at the ice at the poles.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=100&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=07&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=07&hemis1=N&img1=extn&year0=2008&year1=2007&.cgifields=no_panel

You might be surprised at what you learn.

It's not a question of what I want but what I have learned. I agree a little education is a good thing. Hopefully you will take the time to look. It might open your eyes.

[The Croquist]

16. Since when does Bush's opinion count?

I never quoted Fox news.

What I said was:

2008 has been unusually cool so far. It is the 11th coolest (20th warmest) of the last 30 years.*
The Arctic ocean has allot more ice then last year.
The Antarctic ocean has allot more ice then usual.

All of those are true. For sources you can go to:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
for satellite data since December of 1978 or:
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?config=seaice_index&submit=Go%21
for Ice data since November of 1978.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

22. Damned if you don't sound like a certain Free Market Environmentalist...

Professor in the U. Maine System!

[The Croquist]

24. I haven't been to Maine since 1973 (I think)

It certainly wasn't since 1974. I was in upstate New York on Monday. Is that close enough?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

26. "Close enough?" Could be a little too close, one of him is more than...

any rational person should have to endure. He's tenured deadwood sleepwalking to retirement.
Mind you, I'm not judging you based on the scanty information I have but something about your style did bring him to mind though.
------------------------------------------------

Don't think you can solve the problem by calling yourself a "free-market environmentalist." That's like calling yourself a "free-market Communist" or a "free-market Nazi." They're contradictions in terms.
--Dr. Reisman
George Reisman, Ph.D. is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics

[The Croquist]

27. I'm not sure what you mean

I am providing facts, The facts are that there is more ice today then a year ago. I don't think that makes me more than any rational person should have to endure.

[bdamomma]

5. kick

[NashVegas]

6. It Should Be the Other Way Around

We've fucked ecology for economy's sake.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Actually I believe the headline is perfect because it targets the

people most needing the message, those opposed to protecting the environment by using their logic or frame; protecting the almighty dollar. If the headline read "Scientists urge U.S. to protect climate from runaway consumer economy" many of those people would just tune it out.

I believe alerting these people that global warming climate change, left unchecked will adversely affect their pocketbooks, will only increase the chance of them taking this looming catastrophe seriously.

Thanks for the thread, AlphaCentauri.

Kicked and recommended.

[lunatica]

11. global warming is good for the Republican economy

We wonder about their logic, or lack thereof, but as the ice around the Arctic melts it exposes normally impenetrable deposits of oil in the Northwest Passage (see link for a NASA photo of the waterway). They just believe they're in a race to get as rich as they can before having to really worry about global warming. They know they'll personally be OK, because they can live anywhere in the world in great luxury, with their own Blackwater armies to protect them from the rest of us. they're not worried. Nothing ever touches them, and meantime the little people will be thinned out due to famine and violent weather. They only need a few to keep them fed and as servants. After all how many people are needed to take care of less than 1% of the population?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Northwest_passage.jpg

[paparush]

20. Hows about we protect the climate from the economy for a change.