Global Warming? Paul Ryan? No Contest!

In her New Yorker piece Hotter Than Paul Ryan, Elizabeth Kolbert is alarmed by the fact that it normally takes thousands or millions of years to see a change in the Arctic sea ice as large as the one we saw this year.

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of this development. We are now seeing changes occur in a matter of years that, in the normal geological scheme of things, should take thousands, even millions of times longer than that. On the basis of the 2012 melt season, one of the world’s leading experts on the Arctic ice cap, Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, has predicted that the Arctic Ocean will be entirely ice-free in summer by 2016. Since open water absorbs sunlight, while ice tends to reflect it, this will accelerate global warming. Meanwhile, recent research suggests that the melting of the Arctic ice cap will have, and indeed is probably already having, a profound effect on the U.S. and Europe, making extreme weather events much more likely. As Jennifer Francis, a scientist at Rutgers, observed recently in a conference call with reporters, the loss of sea ice changes the dynamics of the entire system: “It’s like having a new energy source for the atmosphere.”

Infographic from Live Science

Elizabeth Kolbert is an excellent science writer. Her book Field Notes From A Catastrophe remains one of the best books available about global warming. It is an excellent introduction to the subject for those with little background in the science. But that is not her subject, as the title suggests.

Yet, as big as the almost certainly irreversible retreat of the sea ice will figure in the future of the planet, it has attracted relatively little attention in the here and now. A study released on Thursday by Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, found that over the last few months, Representative Paul Ryan’s fitness routine—he’s a big fan of what’s known as the P90X workout plan—has received three times as much television coverage as the ice loss.

What’s hotter: Global warming or Paul Ryan’s abs? the study asked.

From the Media Matters study

Elizabeth moves on the presidential election, where any discussion of anthropogenic climate change has been conspicuous by its absence.

Which brings us to the Presidential campaign. You might have thought that with the Arctic melting, the U.S. in the midst of what will almost certainly be the warmest year on record, and more than sixty per cent of the lower forty-eight states experiencing “moderate to exceptional” drought, at least one of the candidates would feel compelled to speak out about the issue. If that’s the case, though, you probably live in a different country.

Remarkably—or, really, by this point, predictably—the only times Mitt Romney has brought up the topic of climate change, it has been to mock President Obama for claiming, back in 2008, that he was going to try to do something about it.

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans,” Romney declared in his convention speech in Tampa, pausing here to give the audience time to chuckle, “and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

Obama at least got exercised enough to point out, in his convention speech, that “climate change is not a hoax.”

“More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke,” he said. “They are a threat to our children’s future.” But that was as far as he was willing to go: no more grandiose claims about actually taking action...

Kolbert finishes by noting that when the presidential candidates debate in 2016, the Arctic sea ice may have disappeared altogether in September of that year. She is hoping that Hopey-Changey and the Bane Capitalist will be asked about global warming during the first debate in Denver on October 3.

You might have thought ... at least one of the candidates would feel compelled to speak out about the [climate] issue, writes Kolbert. Well, No, I didn't think... If you've been a regular reader of DOTE, you understand why climate change is rarely mentioned during the 2012 election. You understand that For Humans, The Economy Is Everything. It may even pain you to have to admit that Romney is right to mock President Obama for claiming, back in 2008, that he was going to try to do something about it. Romney is merely reflecting what humans value. You know why Obama has dropped the subject.

If the question is Arctic Sea Ice versus Paul Ryan's Fitness, it's No Contest. That debate is over before it starts. It's Paul Ryan's Fitness, hands down.

Comments

[Remi]

What surprises me about the absence of climate change alarm is from scientists that do not study climate change. It is as if they do not believe in science. If they did, they would take a keen interest in the science results of their colleagues and be alarmed and raise the alarm. Instead they go on with business as usual studying phenomenon of little or no relative importance compared to the destruction of our planet (and yes, that includes things beyond climate change).

[Bill McDonald]

Look for "Adopt a polar bear" campaigns once the ice is gone."They are so cute, just like Bambi!"

Who knew that the polar bears would find another replacement home and yummy food source so quickly!

Now that's real adaptation to change.

[Wanooski]

Someone stop the world please, I'd like to get off.

[JohnWDB]

Climate change: can't do anything about it without raping the economy

Abs: can do something about them and help the economy while you're at it (spending money on machines and videos and trainers and gym memberships!)

[James]

Global warming is a scam made up by the anti-human crowd as an excuse to strangle business.
-Any Republican

Thus, any discussion of human influence on climate becomes a political issue and is easily dismissed by roughly 1/2 of the American electorate. In a political setting where the economy is already tanked (though roughly 1/2 of the American electorate thinks otherwise) and changing behavior would likely have additional economic costs, the issue is DOA.

This race is about two candidates arguing about who can keep doing the same things (that have repeatedly failed the masses, but served the elite) better. One is just alot more open about his contempt for the commoners.

[A Natural Mystic]

"What surprises me about the absence of climate change alarm is from scientists that do not study climate change. It is as if they do not believe in science. If they did, they would take a keen interest in the science results of their colleagues and be alarmed and raise the alarm. Instead they go on with business as usual studying phenomenon of little or no relative importance compared to the destruction of our planet (and yes, that includes things beyond climate change)."

@Remy: You forget, scientists are human too! And for humans, The Economy is Everything.

[Gail]

Hm, scientists ARE alarmed - you might want to consult Ugo Bardi. http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/

An interesting post with several intriguing comments - mine was Yes people will double down in denial. Here in the Northeast of the US, article after article is appearing saying how beautiful the fall foliage is this year. It's simply insane, because the leaves look terrible, far worse than last year which was worse than the year before. But there are many people who earn money from tourists who come to see the autumn display, and so they either lie or are blind themselves. I took a bunch of pictures, yesterday, and posted them here, they show how trees really are faring: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-final-puff.html

One of the things that cracked me up recently, along the lines of denial, was the utter panic that ensued after it was reported that due to the extreme drought and lack of feed for ruminants, there would be a bacon shortage. You'd think - no duh...but Holy sweet jesus! That story was picked up and reverberated, terrorizing porcine Americans everywhere for about 24 hours when it was swiftly quashed by TPTB - there WILL BE NO BACON SHORTAGE! It was all a mistake!!!

Hilarious.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/09/27/is-the-bacon-shortage-hogwash/

[banz]

Have you people checked out the Antartic lately, just saying.

[John Theodorou]

@ banz

Why? It's warming too.

[Remi]

Gail, yes scientist are alarmed, as are regular people. But that's often as far as it goes. They continue to conduct research on mundane topics that are trivial in comparison to climate change. They know they are on a speeding train heading off a cliff, yet they decide to study how the refraction of the sunlight through their wine glass differs depending on the sugar content of the wine.
There are those scientists that are devoting their lives to trying to find a solution to the problem, not wanting to look up and notice that any so called solution would by necessity have a drastic impact on the economy and is thus is a non-starter. Yes doing nothing will have even more drastic impacts on the economy, and possibly threaten our ability to have a modern economy, but those threats are down the road and so who cares.

[banz]

Is it warming John? That depends who you listen to.

According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012, wow, lets not consider that though shall we.

Not here to convince you otherwise, just consider all the facts, its called a fair hearing.

[cdresearch]

banz, I think you need to study global warming a bit more. The NOAA data do not suggest what you appear to insinuate.

"Antarctic sea ice hasn't seen these big reductions we've seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us," said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC. "Some of the skeptics say 'Well, everything is OK because the big changes in the Arctic are essentially balanced by what's happening in the Antarctic.' This is simply not true." [Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround] .....

"The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this — that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening — is "just nonsense," Serreze said."

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2918-antarctic-sea-ice-global-warming.html

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/forget-the-melting-arctic-the-sea-ice-in-antarctica-is-growing-skeptics-say-15032

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/09/does-the-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice-disprove-global-warming/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/21/antarctic-sea-ice-and-the-art-of-climate-distra/190063

[John Theodorou]

@ banz

The west Antarctic ice sheet is warming up and east Antarctica is only being held up by the persistence of the ozone hole. Remember that? However, it's healing and will be totally gone by 2050 - then there will be nothing to hold back the melt over the entire continent.

[john c. wilson]

Why are we beating up on science again? Ask Michael Mann or Charles Monnett what the rewards are for candor. Any scientist indulging in the sort of candor exhibited in the blogosphere will quickly be out of work. Whatever good work they have previously published will no longer be cited and may not even be read.

Freely granted some working scientists would be happier as actuaries. The reverse is just as true.

I am fond of citing Al Gore's tome, Earth In The Balance, published 1992. It was of course a piece of staffwork, a compendium of received knowledge under the editorial direction of Mr. Gore. Twenty years back the balance point, or tipping point, was crystal clear to any who would look. Abundant warnings have appeared in the literature for much longer. Now the weather sucks, drought and flood cover a good part of the planet, the ice is vanishing before our eyes and a few people finally begin to pay attention. Well, you were all warned a long time back.

Scientists I know speaking in private conversation have always been not merely correct but simply dire. As for the arctic ice Wieslav Maslowski's 2006 projection (based on data 2005 and before) that the ice would be gone 2016 plus or minus three years has always been accepted, even by those who must go to print with 2030 or 2050 or some such nonsense. For a very long time everyone remotely in the loop has known that the 2050 projection is pro forma and is to be disregarded as noise. Since the 2007 melt the private word has been minus three, forget the plus three. Anything you read saying the ice "may be" gone by 2015 or 2016 should be read as "not later than". That is how they speak. This is a police state and language should be interpreted, always.

Elizabeth Kohlbert is a decent writer attempting to convey information to a general public that mostly doesn't want any. Content-generators who gas about Ryan's abs are losing the battle, aside from being ridiculous and pathetic. When the candidates name comes up I hear "Who?" more than I hear "great abs".

[Gail]

Remi, I'm the last person in the world who would argue with that.

[banz]

Thanks for the replies John & CD, no, the Ozone does not issue does not worry me partic. We will just have to agree to disagree. Look the Artic ice represents about 5% of the worlds ice, the Antartic on the hand accounts for about 85%. One is growing, one is declining, to adopt a one sided view is to ignore reality. The models may well say this and that, except, well, the models really are not doing that well in a predictive sense.
We have average declining temps over the last 15 years, even tho we have increased co2 emmissions. It is a greenhouse gas, and must lead to increased temps, except well, again, the models really are of little predictive value.
Personally, I will keep an open mind, however I dont intend to ignore reality, that is to say what is happening, now 15, 20, 25, 50, 100 years are a drop in the ocean in comparison to this planets history, so I will remain on the fence.
I dont believe in posting links, we could go on forever, however, Santers own study establishes a 17 year time frame, we are at year 15 now, I suspect Mr Santer will increase his time frame shortly to, I dont know, 34 years :)
Enjoy your day, and thanks for your time.

[raintonite]

Unf*ckingbelievable. Good news says the doctor: You have skin cancer. The good news, you ask? Well, you only have skin cancer on less than 1% of your skin.

The oceans are acidfying at alarming rates; honey bee populations are dwindling at alarming rates; there are more and severe weather events than previously; we're destroying pristine forests at ever greater rates. We could names 10s of dozens of symptoms of any malaise. You only exhibit about half a dozen now. So you're not too bad, relatively speaking.

This is the logic of the banz's of this world. It smacks of trolling.

I'm sure the banzs troll the economic sites as well: you're on minimum wages and can no longer feed your family. Don't worry the average chinese worker is worse off. Don't you feel better now.

Just don't mention the bankers and the mega-rich tax dodgers. They're doing god's work and paying the banzs of this world to spread this shite.

[banz]

Hello Rain

Look, an opinion is just that, its okay to have different opinions, I may disagree with you, likewise, you may disagree with me, its common and part of life.

I am trolling? Really, by expressing my view I am a troll? And I am employed by the mega wealthy and bankers to troll? On a website with 17 posts with regard to this topic. I actually enjoy this site, its shall we say...to the point :)But I dont think I am required to agree with everything stated.

Everything is "alarming" by those who propose "ALARMING" AGW. Really, there are more severe weather events, really, are you sure about that rain? The research says otherwise, did you know that?

In an environmental sense I wont dispute that we are doing damage, Carbon is a greenhouse gas, it must lead to warming, I agree completely, all I ask is exactly how much, is the feedback over stated? Are other factors at play? Do we need more time, do we have more time?

I dont know if I am right or wrong, I merely hold an opinion that makes me a fence sitter but as stated above, I will not ignore reality, I will look at the full picture, if Artic ice is declining, I will not ignore the fact that Antartic ice is increasing, no answer is provided by these facts, but I will not ignore them.

I wont ignore that fact that we have increased co2 emissions and the world has cooled in the last 15 years. I wont ignore the fact that the a major UN temp study in the 90's concluded that increased CO2 emissions followed rising temps, did not lead. I wont ignore the fact that increased CO2 output in conjunction with natural warming could in fact lead to a critical tipping point, AND I wont ignore reality, both positive and negative.