Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:39 AM
Original message
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up
Source: London Times

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be comple that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to sevetely ice-free in five years.

n his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”....

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece



Let the demonization of Dr. Maslowski begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. make me fucking care
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. True....
We shouldn't waste our energy on liars or exaggerators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. +1000 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. as usual the story is somewhat different than the Times reports
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. So... The Times is using exactly the same stories as Faux, now
Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

Source: Fox News

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Redirected from LBN to GD 8 hours ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7229471
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Interesting...
I get my news via RSS feed so when I wake up, its there. Hope Dr. Maslowski shuts up though. He shouldn't question Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. "Hope Dr. Maslowski shuts up though. He shouldn't question Gore." You're going to blow your cover.
Don't be so obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. What cover?
I've long questioned the speed and degree of global warming although I do think the phenomenon is happening. I wish that half the focus was spent on the the chemicals spilled into the soil and atmosphere as CO2 emissions. Sorry I am not a "True Believer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. You're a skeptic? Who would have guessed?
Try being more direct. Al Gore is not a god, nor is he a scientist. If you want to criticize his work, feel free.

If you want to join the debate on global warming, there are better ways.

Care to get specific?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. If he is not a scientist than he should not be making
statements such as the one refuted. Its fairly clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #18
36. Are you a climate scientist? I hope so, or you are one major hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #36
46. Because I dare to question?
The tenets of the religion are getting stricter every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. Bullshit. Your criticism is of Gore, who is a simple propagandist.
You bring no substance, which is typical for your ilk.

Begone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. I bow to your sound and well thought out argument.
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 12:01 PM by WriteDown
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #49
61. you best bow, chuckles
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Chill out Francis. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
willing dwarf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. The British clarified dthe science of disinformation during WW I & II
They found it most effective in Northern Ireland, and because it works they continue to use it today. They will jump at any chance to muddy the waters, sound smug and create the idea that "the smart people believe X while the many, the foolish believe Y." It's something you need to consider when there's a hot topic like global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
6. "Let the demonization of Dr. Maslowski begin." Really? Starting with ... whom, exactly?
Gore admitted his mistake, and Gore was further criticized by climate scientists.

Troll much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
9. A year and a half ago he was saying something defferent.
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 09:56 AM by baldguy
"Dr Wieslaw Maslowski predicted a 2013 Ice Free Summer Arctic five years ago - now he says that may have been too conservative"

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslowski-predicted-2013-ice-free-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma

Did Gore misrepresent Maslowski's views? Or did Rupert Murdoch's conservative Times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BAKTPRT Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Heres a thought...
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 10:26 AM by BAKTPRT
I for one look forward to warmer temps ..Just think of all that carbon,C02 and fossil fuel we wont have to burn..tons and tons and tons just from home heating ..look around your neighbor hood and count how many houses are using oil and gas to heat with,Its amazing what we miss right under our nose..Just the saving from letting your car warm up on a cold winter day .... less reliance on foreign oil.....less salt in the aquifer from salting the roads...cows will finally be on a more steady diet from green grass so their farts wont be as damaging to the environment (little sarcasm )... no more being cooped up in a barn like an animal.....I think its great....what the hell, might as well enjoy it while its here..I know I know the polar bear the polar bear...their just going to turn back to a brown color to match their environment like they did thousands of years ago, once again The poaching for their white fur will stop...The baby seals will frolic without fear.. The whales wont have to travel half way around the world to eat and spawn and get beached on unfamiliar shores from exhaustion...so what...whats the big deal...its happened many times before....Most important is the carbon and C02 will be cut drastically, That us humans started... .Thats a win win in my book...Im sick of the cold!..Now if Al tries and goes back to the Global cooling agenda again... he will be my man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Don't forget the millions
of Bangladeshi's that you will have to find housing for in your nice warm new country because they've all been flooded out.

Idiotic responses to something as complex as climate change would be funny if it didn't reflect on how fucking bad our public school systems are at teaching basic fucking science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BAKTPRT Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. nothing complex about it..
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 11:20 AM by BAKTPRT
It happens...we know it..and if you really knew anything about science you would know that you dont have a chance in hell to change it..Its a natural thing for the earth to change..its done it thousands of times even when man wasn't on the earth (THATS ANOTHER FACT)..so why all of a sudden do you think we have the ability to change nature?...is it for our own agenda?..or should we just let nature run its course....the Bangladeshi's over time will have plenty of opportunity to move. just like they did thousands of years ago...Its all about the carbon and co2 emissions people will just have to adapt to cut out all those green house gasses.. (warming would drastically cut the use of carbon fuels..THATS A FACT)....The earth will warm...man will burn less fossil fuel....the earth will cool...bla bla bla...(over thousands of years of course)..I mean if that is the argument and its just not the earth trying to maintain its inner core and magnetic field so we dont get fucking flung out into space....The Bangladeshi's ..What type of program are they on to help save the earth?....Just asking...and please dont come back with the "You miss spelled something"routine please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
65. If the current temperature trends were natural, we would be cooling
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32675876/ns/us_news-environment/

"WASHINGTON - The Arctic is warmer than it's been in 2,000 years, according to a new study, even though it should be cooling because of changes in the Earth's orbit that cause the region to get less direct sunlight.

Indeed, the Arctic had been cooling for nearly two millennia before reversing course in the last century and starting to warm as human activities added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, a National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist and co-author of the study on Arctic temperatures that was being published in Friday's edition of the journal Science."

Nothing natural about what we're seeing today. Why do I think we have the ability to change nature? Because WE ALREADY HAVE, as evidenced by this study. Hell, if humanity wanted to we could plunged this planet into a new Ice Age decades ago by simply engaging in a global thermonuclear war and initiating a nuclear winter scenario.

"the Bangladeshi's over time will have plenty of opportunity to move. just like they did thousands of years ago"

If currently projected sea level rises occur, tens of millions will have to move in the next 50 years and millions of acres of farmland will be lost. Just moving further inland will be of little help when they have food shortages. And India is seeing to it that they'll be squeezed into even less space because India is building a border fence to stop the flow of refugees. Thousands of years ago there weren't 100 million Bangladeshis.

"(warming would drastically cut the use of carbon fuels..THATS A FACT)"

And it's also a FACT that warming will result in the need to cool more buildings with air conditioning in the hot summer months, which uses electricity generated from coal and natural gas plants. Do you have evidence that the lower heating bills would cancel out the higher cooling bills, or is that an assertation you just pulled out your ass?

"I mean if that is the argument and its just not the earth trying to maintain its inner core and magnetic field so we dont get fucking flung out into space..."

Is this a real hypothesis from the denier crowd? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BAKTPRT Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. And natural history and earth studies
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 11:39 AM by BAKTPRT
Bangladeshi's rivers and mountain streams are naturally depositing silt to curb any sea levels that may come...and thats only in the very low lying areas...you see nature has its ways of dealing with changes...dont freak out...they are going to be ok....even if it gets to the point of massive sea levels they have mega higher land to escape and re establish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Thanks baldguy. Murdoch never lets up does he?
Transcript

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski predicted a 2013 Ice Free Summer Arctic five years ago - now he says that may have been too conservative
Posted on 24 Mar 2008


We speak to Wieslaw Maslowski about his prediction that by the summer of 2013, we will have completely lost ice cover in the Arctic. Dr. Maslowski says that the complete loss of summer ice may actually happen sooner. The concern we have at Beyond Zero Emissions is that without moving to near zero emissions and drawing down atmospheric carbon as soon as possible, this could cause the irreversible melt of Greenland leading to 5 metre sea level rises this century.
Wieslaw Maslowski podcast


Matthew Wright: On the phone we have Wieslaw Maslowski from the US Postgraduate Naval School. Good morning Dr Maslowski? We're speaking to you today about the situation with the Arctic ice. As our listeners are aware, that's a very serious situation and ah, well ahead of estimates by scientists some years ago, and by science thats led to summaries and the IPCC stuff, we're seeing by 2020 or, there's a quote from Wieslaw that perhaps 2013 is even a possibility for the loss of the complete summer ice extent.

Now a little bit about Dr Maslowski. He's got a PhD from the University of Alaska in 1994. He's in charge of a group that looks after a particular model that simulates arctic ice and I think it has 9km resolution - but that's over a very large area. In the past, he's worked in research areas in arctic oceanography, numerical ocean and sea ice modeling, ocean general circulation and climate change. In 2001 to the present, he's been research associate professor at the Department of Oceanography. 1995 to 2001, he was the research assistant professor, Department of Oceanography conducting reimbursable research, supporting student thesis research and teaching script oceanography. So good morning Wieslaw.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: Good morning, thank you for having me.

Matthew Wright: No problem and thank you for joining us. Just tell us a little bit about your research work around modeling of the Arctic ice.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: Well, I guess just trying to introduce in a very short time, I guess, what we've been doing for some last two decades or so. We're using mathematical models that are formulated in numerical programs using some programs that we're using Fortran programming language, so the computers can understand those programs. We're using those programs that are describing the mathematical equations of the behaviour of the ocean and the sea ice and than we're actually prescribing to those models realistic atmospheric forcing as has been observed from satellites and from various stations all over the world and trying to eventually understand the past and the present conditions that have occurred in the Arctic ocean, and by trying to understand that maybe trying to have a better view and a picture what's expected to come in the future.

Matthew Wright: So, just tell me about the US Naval Postgraduate School. Is the funding for any sort of military purposes or is it just a general research?

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: Well, the Naval Postgraduate School it's, ah, you could probably describe in summary. This is kind of like the only navy university in the United States. We offer only graduate degrees, meaning Masters degrees and PhDs. There is a separate academy, naval academy, in Annapolis where they actually, the navy officers and other military officers have a chance to pursue their Bachelor - undergraduate degree. So, at this institution here in Monterey California, we have graduate students and there is a mix of faculty. The institution primarily is to eventually educate the navy and other military personnel towards higher degree education, specialising in technical and defence areas such as oceanography, meteorology, space engineering and then we have departments of national security and business administration and so on. We have international study departments. So this is, kind of like, specific to the military and specifically to navy needs - a higher education institution equivalent to a university in the United States.

Matthew Wright:That's very interesting. So, in terms of what you've been reporting, what's happening in the arctic, our understanding is that the Arctic ice shrank between 2005 and 2007 by a bit over 22% and to put that into context for our listeners, it was over 1 million square kilometres - about the size of the Northern Territory in Australia. So, if you can think of that huge land mass in the Northern Territory, that was the area.

And also, our understanding is that when the Arctic ice extent is fully covered then light coming in from space hits the ice and 80% of that reflects back into the atmosphere, so it doesn't convert into heat inside the Earth's greenhouse or inside the Earth's atmosphere. So, just correct me if I'm wrong here, just one more thing that's of interest there, is that once the ice melts away, 90% of the light coming in through the atmosphere actually converts to heat inside the atmosphere and heats the ocean. Is that correct?

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: Well, there are several issues that you brought up which are quite important for me to clarify and you tried to describe them quite correctly, I guess. The first thing is that the observations of the ice extent - you can think about actually flying a plane or a high altitude instrument on satellites and trying to determine basically where the white is and where they have black - being the ocean surface without ice cover. And those observations have been very, ah, quite good quality since late 1970s, with the introduction of the microwave satellites, such as EurS1 and EurS2 in Europe, and several others satellites, ssmi satellites in the United States.

So, we have from observations, this is not my studies in particular, this is the US and European and other space agency programs that allow us to have a picture or view in time of the evolution of the changes of the ocean and sea ice surface, including polar regions, not only in the northern hemisphere but also in the southern hemisphere as well. The same satellites are quite accurately observing and providing information of the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic ice sheets. So, those observations are not actually particular results of our study. What we're trying to do is eventually use these observations as data to feed into the models that we're using and people are using and on top of this also, those observations are very useful for validating model results that people like our group or other groups are doing. And in order to understand the interactions and feedbacks between ocean ice and atmosphere and various other components of the climate system in a particular region, one needs to have some ways of at least convincing himself or herself and other people that at least where some areas were observations are available, the skill of such models is pretty reasonable.

So, what we do with the ocean and ice simulations which prescribe realistic atmospheric forcing, we're trying to validate the models with the valid observations from satellites and in situ, field observations. And then eventually look at parameters that are not readily available from observations to fill out the gaps of the missing information and probably synthesize this information together with observations to eventually come up with a bigger picture evolving in time and space.

So what we're doing, we're actually simulating the sea ice and ocean and interaction with the atmosphere and the satellites are very good instruments providing aerial observations of the arctic sea ice which is, as I mentioned, it's basically the satellite sea where the ice is; being a lot of reflectivity from the ice surface due to a parameter called ice albedo or surface albedo, which is simply a ratio of what the incoming solar radiation versus what the reflected solar radiation. So, reflectivity or ice albedo is high where you have sea ice and the surface is white. For the ocean, the surface is really dark and the reflectivity goes down, meaning that most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the ocean and not reflected back to the atmosphere. The consequences of this are several but I'm not sure if we have time to eventually go into details describing all the possible consequences of the changing surface albedo and the surface cover in the Arctic.

Matthew Wright: We do have another 15 minutes left in the show so we can get into some depth there. But just for listeners, when the sea ice cover is lost - and we're talking about 5 million square kms, what the average was - for say 1979 to 2002. Is that about right?

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: I believe it was close to 7 million.

Matthew Wright: Oh, 7 million square km. And in Australia, we have a rough benchmark; we say that for every square metre, a thousand Watts (W). So that's like ten 100W light globes every hour - 1000W - of energy that actually hits the surface of the land. Is that a similar situation in the Arctic? Or with the sun in the Arctic, is there a lot of cloud cover and that, sort of, balances it out? It's a lot of energy.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: There is a lot more cloud cover so it's not direct radiation, you know, it's more dispersed solar radiation but it's very important. I would prefer not to put a number, because actually I'm not an atmospheric scientist so I'm not actually feeling comfortable to talk about the solar radiation effect in the atmosphere. But the point is that its the primary forcing coming from the sun and the atmosphere, in terms of wind. So those two parameters, those two particular forcing parameters, have been quite extensively looked into, their effect on the Arctic sea ice and the recent changes in the Arctic sea ice.

What our group, at the Naval Postgraduate School here, brings a new perspective to this table, to this understanding, is that we argue that we also have to consider the effect coming from the ocean. And the effect from the ocean is actually; you already mentioned that by removing sea ice, the ocean absorbs much more energy from the sun than the sea ice has very high reflectivity so it's not only that we observe more solar radiation but also that the solar radiation hits the top surface of the ocean, which then eventually; the heat surface ocean, the top or upper part of the ocean becomes available in the longer term for effecting the ice from underneath, simply melting it. So, our contribution to this overall studies of the Arctic sea ice decrease is that we are arguing that the oceanic forcing indirectly receiving heat and the momentum, or the motion, from the atmosphere actually pretty much changes the time and space scale exchanges and interactions and ice response and then eventually provides, pretty much, a separate forcing to the sea ice condition.

Matthew Wright: Ok. So now, it was reported in The New York Times that you said that 2013 was a possibility, and perhaps you'd actually projected this some years ago, that we could lose the summer sea ice extent - that's in the summer solstice is it?

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: That is correct. So the minimum in the Arctic ice extent has been typically occurring some time in September, between early September and late September every summer. So, the minimum of ice extent is simply defined as the ice edge of percentage roughly say between 15, maybe at 20%, ice cover. And then everything inside this ice edge position on the Atlantic side and on the Pacific side is considered to be the ice extent so it's not really concentration - it's just the area within the 15% or 20% ice concentration or more. And this ice minimum has been declining quite significantly. The global climate models have predicted, and your audience is probably familiar with this International Panel for Climate Change study, Annual Report IV that has been published and presented quite extensively this year, earlier this year in 2007, and actually the panel together with 'president' Al Gore have won the Nobel Prize nomination, so those studies from this panel, the multi-national climate simulation study have predicted the ice might be disappearing in summer, the northern summer in the Arctic, maybe sometime by the end of this 21st century.

There are some model simulations, single model simulations, that are suggesting that it could possibly occur as early as 2050 or maybe even as early as 2030. Comparing those models simulations predictions with the satellite observations of the Arctic sea ice extent actually shows that most of those models are too conservative predicting the current and the past ice extent changes in the Arctic as has been observed. So the idea is that the climate models - they're underestimating, they are too conservative in their prediction.

What our contribution, our study contribution to this overall topic is that we're saying that the satellite are only observing the 2-dimensional changes in the sea ice in the Arctic in terms of this ice extent. However, we do not have the observations of ice thickness - the third dimension, the vertical dimension - are very limited of the Arctic sea ice. And having those models that we used, we are able to look at the changes associated, not only with the ice extent, but also ice thickness and this way we can eventually calculate and try to understand the changes in the total ice volume in the Arctic. And our studies are suggesting that actually the volume and the thickness is decreasing even faster than the aerial observations from satellites. And this way we're saying that actually if we already have lost probably about 40% volume in the Arctic so far, if we project this trend ongoing for the last 10 - 15 years, we probably will reach zero in summer some time mid next century, mid next decade, I'm sorry.


Matthew Wright: So, there's been other projections from some glaciologists around 2020. So, somewhere in that range. You said 2013 in The New York Times where it was reported, but something between then and 2020 is very in the ballpark and a likelihood.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: It's interesting that the longer we wait and the more we see what is happening, what changes are happening in the Arctic, the sooner people start predicting those changes to completely melted ice in summer in the Arctic - as soon as in the next decade or so.

Matthew Wright: I think there's a lot of, there's inertia that's lacking because, I think there's some conservatism and a lot of scientists are a bit afraid of being seen to be alarmist or something like tha, so it's now that the observed is there on record that suddenly everyone who's got a prediction seems to be coming out now or perhaps it is that the media are just getting interested.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: I think the media is definitely getting much more interested and the society is trying to understand what is happening out there, not only in the Arctic but also the ice shelf around Antarctica and so forth. So, definitely the interest and demand for information is much higher than couple years ago. My statement you quoted and was printed in The New York Times of 2013, my first presentation where I actually had this projection stated exclusively was about 4 or 5 years ago in San Francisco, at American Geophysical Union poll meeting. So, I'm not actually upgrading my projection, I'm just saying that it may happen sooner but we were one of the early people who were saying that it might happen within the next decade, instead of by the end of this century.

Matthew Wright: That's definitely of concern because in Australia of course fortunately, and I'm sure you think that this is a good thing, our country's decided now to ratify the Kyoto Protocol with the change of government and currently in Bali they're now starting to talk about - nothing like what we believe needs to occur, and that's to take all our industrial emissions down to near zero emissions and then start actively drawing down atmospheric carbon using, getting char and carbon into soils. But, I think it's really good to see that Indonesia and China are calling for 25 - 40% cuts in CO2.

What do you think need to happen in order to, sort of, preserve the ice extent? I think James Hansen from NASA has suggested that, that might be one of the main, sort of, triggers or the main tipping points and that maintaining that summer ice extent might be very important for keeping a rather stable sort of climate that supports many of the ecosystems and many of the people that are living on Earth who are dependent on them.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: Well, personally I have my own perspective on all the carbon emission and global warming. However, I wanted to make very clear that the tools that we have used so far for our studies are not involving or allowing us to discriminate between greenhouse gases effect or other climate variability. So, what we see is what we see but there is no direct cause, there is no possibility for us to link direct cause of ice melt to something like greenhouse gases. My personal perspective is that we definitely should be cutting on the emission rates worldwide and it may not stop whatever the changes that are happening right now but we are still not very certain what kind of changes we can expect not only within the next 10 years but within 20 - 50 years into the future. So, if we sit and do nothing then definitely it will be much worse than if we try to actually reduce our pollution and emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for the long term.

Matthew Wright: Another area that's sort of gets in, sort of visualises it for our listeners, and I will just say that listeners are tuned into 855AM 3CR and you're listening to the Beyond Zero show and we're talking to Wieslaw Maslowski.

For listeners, we just suggested that an area the size of the Northern Territory potentially could be going from a mirror that reflects 80% of the light back into space; or there's some variability there in the amount of light because of cloud cover and things like that but it's still a large area, a very large area. And listeners in Australia know how big the Northern Territory is. If that then extends to the whole of the Arctic, I think ice extent, and you said at one stage, it was 7 million square kms, well that's pretty much the size of Australia. So, some sort of a mirror with some level of reflectivity the size of Australia, that's certainly a large albedo effect. So, tell us about that again but also about the ice thickness and what you've seen there because I think it's gone from 5 metres to 2 metres in many places?

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: The average ice thickness observed from satellites, and more accurately from the submarines that carry instruments called upper looking sonars, something like video camera that's looking up from the submarine below, looking underneath the sea ice. And the typical ice thickness in the Arctic, central basin in the Arctic, was on average about 3 to 4 metres for the last decade. What we have seen in the last decade, this thickness has on average decreased to below 2 metres, roughly 35 to 40% probably. If we would have most recent observations of the summer of 2007 I would argue that we probably lost more than 40% by now, by the summer of 2007. So, the ice thickness is declining even faster than what we have observed and detected using satellites and in terms of the ice extent in the Arctic Ocean.

As far as the changes in the albedo and changing the mirror into the totally observing ocean surface, there's 2 aspects of that I would like to bring to the audience there and your attention as well. One aspect actually is that if you have warmer water, the volume will actually expand a little bit and I just recently listened to several presentations by sea level people, scientists who study sea level for the past and the future, and apparently in the order of 50% of the current sea level increase can be accredited to the changes in the ocean surface temperature, not necessarily the addition of new volume of water. So, if we increase the temperature in the Arctic we might see some increases in the sea level due to simply increasing the temperature. The sea ice melting is not going to introduce new volume because it's already floating in the ocean. So, the volume of ice is already accounted in terms of the sea level, but the change of the sea level due to the increase temperature, from freezing temperatures of water of -2 Centigrade, if we go to zero or above zero Centigrade the ocean is going to expand at least a bit.

The other aspect of the no ice in summer in the Arctic is actually its potential effect on melting the Greenland glaciers flowing into the oceans. We already have seen, and I've listened to several people's presentations where they discuss the potential effect of warmer surface water entering glaciers and melting the ice flowing out into the glaciers from Greenland, might be actually accelerating the flow from the central Greenland towards the coast. So, those two aspects that this change in the ice cover in the Arctic might have immediate effect on.

Matthew Wright: We're going to have to wrap it up now. But that was actually my last question. It was, you know, bringing all that warm water to the Arctic, is that likely to affect that mobility we're getting in the Greenland ice sheets? And I think you've answered that. That's a big concern.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: That is correct. However, there are other people, other experts, that can probably address this issue more accurately than I did.

Matthew Wright: And we hope to get Dr. James Hansen from NASA on to perhaps speak about that, or some glaciologists. Great, thank you very much for joining us.

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: Your welcome and thank you for having me again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
27. Did you actually read the podcast?
He backs away from his prediction of 2013 and says that it is just going to be sooner than later.

I knew someone would try to attack the good dr. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #27
69. Did you? Did you even read your own reply?
"Sooner rather than later" would imply to anyone without an axe to grind that Gore was being too conservative in his estimate of 5-7 yrs, with Maslowski saying the arctic would be ice-free sooner than that. If anything, 2013 is worse than 2017.

Facts are damned "inconvenient" things, aren't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loge23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. I stand with Al Gore
What has this guy done to deserve ridicule?
Tried to warn us about greenhouse gases???

Anyone who thinks that there are no consequences to the release of gases and the pollution of our environment must also believe that there weapons of mass destruction still unfound in Iraq.

Give the guy a freakin' break already! All he's trying to do is make people aware of the destructive direction in which we're heading. I am sick and tired of reading and hearing complete morons criticize this guy. I guess he's just too damn smart for some folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. Where were his warnings and campaigns when he was VP?
He lives in a 20 bedroom house, but many defend that he "needs" it. Give me Ed Begley Jr. any day, but he will never get the accolades that Al Gore receives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
37. Are you suggesting that Al Gore never cared about climate change when he was VP?
Get yourself up to speed.

I warned you to cool it; now you've been revealed to be as ignorant as you are snarky. That's damned ignorant.

I'm more eager than ever to take your challenge about how wrong we are about global climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. Sure he cared...
He was just VERY VERY quiet about it. Also, his house was a bastion of wasted carbon. Even after its now been retrofitted, its not efficient compared to many other homes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #42
48. Who the hell do you think brought back the original proposal from Kyoto?
You came to the wrong place if you want to simply spout stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Yeah, and he was real vocal about it....
that's why the US has led the way or am I thinking about China? If only Gore had been in some position of power to push it forward

Also, its a little disingenuous to give Gore credit for Kyoto.

Some light reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #50
58. What position of power does the VP have?
You're as ignorant of civics as you are of science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. I forgot....
VP's are just spectators. Good thing Dick Cheney had no power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bergie321 Donating Member (797 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
38. He has
Done a lot of serious renovations to his home to make it have almost no footprint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. When the so-called skeptics attack Gore and his home, you know you've got a mainstream loser.
Let it go. This guy is here only for the attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. Here's one that'll blow your mind....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. Almost none?
Really? I think you are forgetting that he buys "offsets" to claim that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
52. Wow, where were you when Gore was VP?
and when he wrote Earth in the Balance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Earth in the Balance was written before Gore was VP....
He became much quieter after he was actually put in a position of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. I don't recall him being quiet at all about the environment then
in fact that is why I supported him in 2000, despite at the time being more ideologically in sync with the Greens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Feel free to list the major speeches he was giving on the topic
and his testimonies to Congress on the floor lobbying for environmental protection laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOCALS Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
66. How could he afford such a big house? Is he from a rich family?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #12
44. What has this guy done to deserve ridicule?
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 12:15 PM by Nederland
In general I like Al Gore, but he does tend to make a lot of gaffs that are not helpful. He now has had two pretty major gaffs in the last month: this one and the one where he claims that all the emails released in the Climategate scandal were over 10 years old. Both of those are things that are pretty easy to verify, and yet Gore just shot his mouth off and then looked silly. I think it might be time to look for a different spokesperson, someone younger who has an easier time keeping track of the latest information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
15. So that number is not unreasonable considering what some other scientists are predicting..
Muyin Wang of the University of Washington and James E. Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle predicted that the entire Arctic could become nearly ice-free in less than 30 years. The Arctic, they said, is losing sea ice far more rapidly than the world's experts had predicted in the last report from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency whose members provide crucial data for government policy actions on global warming. The rapid loss of Arctic sea ice over the three years from 2005 to 2008 marked "a new milestone," Wang and Overland said, and the warming ocean has caused summer air temperatures across the Arctic to rise by as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit more than the IPCC had predicted, they said. "We predict a nearly sea-ice-free Arctic in September (at the end of the melting season and the beginning of the next year's freeze) by the year 2037," the two climate scientists said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/MNF416TNTP.DTL#ixzz0ZlqSp2UJ


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
16. Despite Gore's backing off it, and the criticism by scientists there,
I would give even odds that he is right.

There has hardly been a single prediction by climate scientists that has not proved to be short of the mark - many of them going obsolete within a year or two of when they were hypothesized.

If there is any pattern in climate prediction that holds true, it is that it is always worse, and faster, than the predictions.

Just two years ago NOBODY was saying that we would see the kind of decline in polar ice that was confirmed this year - that not only is it declining in size, but that the remaining ice is 'rotten', and instead of being 10 meters thick year round, it has thinned to as little as 3 meters thick. That indicates that what is left will melt off much faster next summer, and likely to a greater degree than this summer.

It very well could be gone in 5-7 years.

re: Dr. Maslowski - of course he would never make a prediction like this, unless he had firm proof it. I'll bet you anything that he believes it to be true, though. Flip the statement on its head - there is a 25% chance that the ice cap will not disappear during the summer in a 5-7 year timeframe. Leaves much too large a margin of error to publish and be taken seriously - but would you make a bet with the odds 3-1 against you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
19. What The Fuck?
I'm not surprised at the stupid lengths climate change skeptics (read moronic shills for the status quo) will go to in order to pretend there is a breakdown in the science.

Just like the assholes that pretend that "intelligent design" is a science. The climate change skeptic (read moron) pretends that any difference in numbers or opinion means that none of the science is real. Science is all about differing theories and arguments about each.

Come back when you can actually understand something other than a RW POS message from a newspaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Let's not forget that Albert Einstein was skeptic of Newton's
Laws because they did not account for relativity. Thank goodness Einstein was rightfully shunned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. And that has what exactly to do with
the pos post you put up?

Climate change skeptics aren't fucking Einstein, shit they aren't even fucking climatologists.

Einstein was only a skeptic of Newtons when it came to relativistic mechanics but WTF try to come up with a comparison there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. See posts 9 and 14
Notice that your snark deserted you in that area of the thread, and I thought that since you've responded directly to most other comments, you must have missed those.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
23. I love the unrec feature
for posts just like this. I wish I could hit the fucking thing a thousand times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
24. Frog Extinctions Linked to Global Warming

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0112_060112_frog_climate.html

Salamanders "Completely Gone" Due to Global Warming?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090902-salamander-decline.html

Poikilothermic, ectothermic tetrapods are all threaten by global warming
Mr. Herpetology Hobbyman....... start reading up on your hobby
from scientist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Last time I heard this, the frogs were actually killed by
fungus brought into the habitat on the shoes of researchers/habitat encroachment.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4235
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. You didn't look at my links mine were about another continent
yours was about Tasmania
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. We're wasting time on this one. We've got an import from "Oh yeah? Says you!"
We'll be getting nothing but bullshit cut-and-pasted from nonsense websites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. That's the scary part
The chytrid skin fungus is just about worldwide. Of course before the chytrid skin fungus was named the culprit, global warming was blamed on the population declines. I should know. I had particular interest in harlequin frogs at that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
63. You didn't read the links
From the first link:

"The new study suggests that temperature extremes may have previously helped keep the deadly disease in check. But new climate cycles are now moderating those annual temperature swings.

Global warming has increased evaporation in the tropical mountains of the Americas, which in turn has promoted cloud formation, the study reports. That cloud cover may have actually decreased daytime temperatures by blocking sunlight. At the same time, it may have served as an insulating blanket to raise nighttime highs.

Pounds believes the combination has created ideal conditions for the spread of the frog-killing fungus, which grows and reproduces best at temperatures between 63° and 77°F (17° and 25°C)."

No either-or between disease or climate change. The disease is AMPLIFIED by climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. And the old study made NO mention of the disease
It was originally thought that pollution was the cause, but now we realize that that theory was wrong. There is a lot of evidence that the main cause is human encroachment, but that is not the "hot" issue right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
28. Aerial pics of Al's house (parking lot full of SUVs, of course) is also an "inconvenient truth"
Al Gore still taking a private jet everywhere he goes, btw? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. He "needs" those SUV's and that 20 bedroom house though..
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. I don't think you don't understand--he's RICH. He pays somebody good money for his indulgences
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. That's why when I flew into CLT last week I payed a company
to plant 100 Japanese maples in Siberia to offset my carbon usage. I hear they are magnificent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
64. I heard they pocketed your money and you never knew the difference.
Carbon offsets are a scam, but it's all about feeling good, isn't it? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. You're crazy...
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 03:16 PM by WriteDown
Right now there is a lush grove of Japanese Maples in Siberia that are absorbing CO2 thanks to ME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BennyD Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. My thoughts exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #28
60. I like this idea
All Nippon Air: Please 'go' before we go

With only a quick trip to the loo, you too can reduce greenhouse gases! At least, that was the thinking behind an experiment from All Nippon Airways.
The Japanese airline positioned staff members at the boarding gate to ask passengers to relieve themselves before boarding. The theory: A Boeing 777 holds 247 people; the average human bladder holds 2.2 pounds of liquid; ergo a quick trip to the can could cut a plane's weight by 543 pounds.

The lighter load -- a decrease in weight equal to about four women -- saves fuel and greenhouse gas emissions, All Nippon said. The test ran through the month of October and aimed for a 4.2-ton emission reduction. Did it work? The airline won't, er, spill yet on whether the pre-flight potty trips made a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
51. Picking nits and calling them elephants.
The science is sound. One old number incorrectly given, which has since been updated/corrected, doesn't change a damn thing.

Let's keep our eye on the ball:

(1) Human activity pollutes -- in a big way.

(2) Pollution contributes to/causes global climate change.

(3) Global climate change has reached a tipping point in terms of the planet's* capacity to sustain life.

(4) We'd better fucking do something about it.

(5) The rest is all stupid quibbling.


* The single planet that is our only home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
55. Whoa, I guess GW is a hoax after all.
What a joke. Unrec. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC