I like nature- I am a dirty, crunchy, organic-eating, bike-riding hippie.

Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out… and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they're all corporation-y… and they make money

Here is the deal with money. I'll not be ashamed I want more. I want more stuff for me, more for my family. I am making my house more energy efficent so my electric bills will be smaller. We have a nicer washing machine now that uses less water, requires less detergent, less electricty. At my economic level, middle class, does not create more worries.

Just bought a new Toyota with better gas mileage, with my more money, and does not leak oil. Repaired the majority of plumbing in my house so it does not leak, to save money (wife complains less also). Will re-insulate attic next month, to save money.

Money is a good thing. Corporations want more so they produce more effecient eveything. Corporations in a hundred years, if population growth continues, just might be the only thing that will be able to feed this world. And if that is the case they will develop a way to do it as efficiently as possible without destroying the ground, water, or air that their money grows from.

There is just a lot of people on this planet, and they always don't do what we want. If you want to mobilize for something good, help the Indians develop better fuel than the animal dung that hung a black cloud over the indian ocean that is changing their weather patterns. Our the giant black cancer causing mess that hangs over 2/3 of China.

I remember driving into Denver as a kid and seeing the giant brown cloud that hung over it, late 70's.

Our air is better, our skies are clearer. It's the rest of the 3rd world that needs help.

Personally I purchase a lot of Patagonia gear, recycled, organic, 1% fund, etc. Been switching back to down insulation which is, what's the word, "environmentally reproducable" or something like that.

My views come from my CSCI degree in the Business department of a small private Baptist college, being Texan, assault rifle owning, voting republican, loving the outdoors, served 4 years in the 82nd (Army), National Guard now, and been a few places in the world I would rather not go back to.

Just my thoughts, kinda rambling though, sorry.

Hi Chris,
A couple of observations: Most of the US cities I have visited recently have a brown cloud hanging over them, too.
Not as bad as, say, Calcutta or New Delhi, but bad enough to remind me that we've got a few problems of our own.
Also, as long as corporate America continues to depend increasingly on access to foreign markets and resources in 3rd world countries, a lot of our guys are going to be visiting places they'd rather not go (back) to. Iraq is just the beginning and I'd say it's a pretty sobering experience(or should be). These days I find myself wondering if it's not time to start rethinking our endless growth/consumption based economic system. Just my 2 cents worth.

These days I find myself wondering if it's not time to start rethinking our endless growth/consumption based economic system

I agree 100%. It makes me wonder like others have stated if some ultralight equipment is too ultralight. Like BPL's inflatable pillows or the balloon beds.

The problem is spreading the ideas to the masses, like the plastic bags at Wal-Mart.

I thought this story would be of particular interest to folks here at BPL…

Mountain Climbers Witness Global Warming

Saturday, April 7, 2007

BEND, Ore. – Mountaineers are bringing back firsthand accounts of vanishing glaciers, melting ice routes, crumbling rock formations and flood-prone lakes where glaciers once rose.

The observations are transforming a growing number of alpine and ice climbers, some of whom have scientific training, into eyewitnesses of global warming. Increasingly, they are deciding not to leave it to scientists to tell the entire story.

"I personally have done a bunch of ice climbs around the world that no longer exist," said Yvon Chouinard, a renowned climber and surfer and founder of Patagonia, Inc., an outdoor clothing and gear company that champions the environment. "I mean, I was aghast at the change."

Chouinard pointed to recent trips where the ice had all but disappeared on the famous Diamond Couloir of 16,897-foot Mount Kenya, and snow was absent at low elevations on 4,409-foot Ben Nevis, Britain's highest peak, in the Highlands of northwest Scotland. He sees a role for climbers in debating climate change, even if their chronicles are unscientific.

"Most people don't care whether the ice goes or not, the kind of ice that we climb on and stuff," he said. But climbers' stories, he added, can "make it personal, instead of just scientists talking about it. Telling personal stories might hit home to some people."

Alpine climbers are worrying about the loss of classic routes and potential new lines up mountains that are melting, from the Cascades in the Pacific Northwest and the Alps in Europe to the Andes in South America and the Himalaya in Asia.

Their anecdotes often reflect what science is finding, but with stories and pictures from places where most scientists aren't able to reach.

"As climbers we see these places, we go all over the world," Mark Bowen, a climber and physicist who wrote a book on climate and mountains, told the American Alpine Club at its annual meeting last week in Bend.

"We're in touch with the natural world like few people are. We can see the changes better than most people can," he said.

Scientists and diplomats at an international conference in Belgium predicted on Friday that global warming would turn many glaciers to lakes and cause rock avalanches because of frozen ground melting up high. People living in mountain areas can expect more risk of floods by glacial lakes.

Already, Switzerland's Matterhorn had to be closed to some climbing at times because of recent summer rockfall attributed to global warming and its Great Aletsch Glacier – Europe's largest – has retreated a couple miles from its peak of 14 miles in length in 1860. The Swiss Alps' icy soil that glues its rock faces together is thawing, causing instability.

At Montana's Glacier National Park, glaciers are vanishing like the storied snows of Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. In South America, the great ice fields of Patagonia in Argentina and Chile are shrinking; Bolivia hopes to keep its only ski area open by using artificial snow as the Chacaltaya Glacier fades.

The glacier from which Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made their first ascent of 29,035-foot Mount Everest in 1953 has retreated so much that mountaineers now walk hours longer to reach it. A mile-long lake replaced the glacier at 20,305-foot Island Peak in Nepal's Everest region.

Japanese mountaineer and explorer Tomatsu Nakamura, editor of the Japanese Alpine News, said climbers are seeing more melting and less snow and ice in the mountains of the eastern Himalaya, Tibet and Bhutan, home to many of the highest unclimbed peaks in the world.

Since the 1940s, when geologist Maynard Miller began conducting research on Alaska's vast Juneau Icefield, he has seen how global warming has affected glaciers studied in the longest continuous research program of any icefield system.

"We're going to be in one heck of a mess, I can guarantee that. We have mucked up the world's climate," said Miller, who was part of the 1963 expedition that got the first Americans to the summit of Mount Everest.

"Everything is changing, minute after minute, nothing is the same," he said. "Glaciers are extraordinarily sensitive indicators of climate change."

—

On the Net:

Mountain Research Initiative: http://mri.scnatweb.ch

American Alpine Club: http://www.americanalpineclub.org

That was very interesting to read their firsthand accounts.

It will be interesting also to read Skurka's eyewithness observations during his Great Western Loop adventure.
http://www.andrewskurka.com/index.php

Seems like the mountaineers and long distance hikers are the ones who really live the climate changes. These adventures are climate prophets.

Thanks for sharing Ernie. I've seen pictures of the retreat in Glacier National Park and heard Switzerland has been experiencing serious mudslide/falling rock problems as a result of melting glaciers.

Pretty sad stuff.

Here in Japan, the lower terminus of the snow on Fujisan was 100 meters higher than its been in 30 years. Maybe a 30 year cycle, maybe not? Also much lower snowfall than the average thruout Japan. I could not get in a single day of ice climbing. :(

A few fairly surprising responses for a crowd like this.

First, anthropogenic climate disruption is a recognized scientific reality. It's not up for discussion by serious people, at least since 1995.

Second, anyone who does not preach, educate, and practice environmentalism (whose cornerstone is the precautionary principle) does not in my opinion, belong on this site. Any enjoyment they derive from this planet is unearned and amounts to theft.

Hi Eric,

I agree with your first point- Global Warming is accepted as reality by the scientific community, and quite overwhelmingly. Any debate isn't a scientific debate, but a layman's debate that is propogated through politics and media. But in the worldwide scientific community (and most of the world's political community), this is a foregone conclusion.

I disagree with your second point though. For me, it's right to be an environmentalist (as much as I can in my 21st century U.S. context). I'm very aware of my carbon footprint and do what I can to minimize it. However, I love the differing opinions that occur on this site. Everyone is welcome, in my opinion.

And truth be told, if you drive to a trailhead, you aren't practicing sound environmentalism. If you live in an apartment in the city and use public transport, that's better. Or live on a subsistence commune, even better. But just having a computer, ordering UL gear through the mail, driving to the mountains, these all have impacts on the carbon footprint. It's all relative, really.

My 2 cents.

Doug – And truth be told… yes those activities do have impacts but the knowledge available through this site also reduces our relative contribution.

By using a backpack for recreation rather than a gas guzzling RV, motor boat, or SUV, we help. By being well informed on clothing and sleeping options, we help by always require a heated or cooled environment for comfort.

Some observations – for what little they are worth. The way the thread topic topic is framed excludes a whole pile of folks…just a guess that most of us don't want to tagged as dirty and have (sadly) aged past crunchy. We do like nature, some of us probably eat organic, and I'm with you on the bike.

Eric – My guess is that the way you make your first point really P.Os Lorraine. Maybe that was your point? FWIW though, I agree that it is getting impossible to argue the science. Serious people are then left to figure out the path forward. That will involve science AND politics AND policy (not the same as politics) AND economics. It will involve lots of disagreement among serious people.

To your second point, its a rather undemocratic point of view isn't it? This is going to be messy. Lots of disagreement. It would be a lot neater if you could just exclude everyone with dissenting points of view from the party…if only we had a king of the world who happened to think just like me. (Oh wait…that hasn't gone so well in past attempts has it?)

To drop the sarcasm for a second, it is frustrating to perceive that the earth is in crisis and to be confronted with what seems to be persistent denial and foot dragging – I get that. However, dividing the world into those who are "OK" (i.e. agree with us) and those who are "Not OK" (i.e. don't agree with us) seems a terribly unproductive approach. It polarizes people and intensifies resistence rather than generating solutions.

when is the air car going to be ready? articles a few years ago said march 2007.

uses air compression

a french company i think

if it works – it will change things.

if not something else will.

This was especially amusing coming from a liberal Dem.

As a native of upstate New York, whose dramatic landscape was carved by the receding North American glacier 10,000 years ago, I have been contemplating the principle of climate change since I was a child. Niagara Falls, as well as the even bigger dry escarpment of Clark Reservation near Syracuse, is a memento left by the glacier. So is nearby Green Lakes State Park, with its mysteriously deep glacial pools. When I was 10, I lived with my family at the foot of a drumlin — a long, undulating hill of moraine formed by eddies of the ancient glacier melt.

Geology and meteorology are fields that have always interested me and that I might well have entered, had I not been more attracted to art and culture. (My geology professor in college, in fact, asked me to consider geology as a career.) To conflate vast time frames with volatile daily change is a sublime exercise, bordering on the metaphysical.

However, I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue. As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment, as if, having ground down organized religion into nonjudgmental, feel-good therapy, they are hungry for visions of apocalypse. From my perspective, virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.

Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida — as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.

Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault. I began "Sexual Personae" (parodying the New Testament): "In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe.

I voted for Ralph Nader for president in the 2000 election because I feel that the United States needs a strong Green Party. However, when I tried to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on cable TV recently, I wasn't able to get past the first 10 minutes. I was snorting with disgust at its manipulations and distortions and laughing at Gore's lugubrious sentimentality, which was painfully revelatory of his indecisive, self-thwarting character. When Gore told a congressional hearing last month that there is a universal consensus among scientists about global warming — which is blatantly untrue — he forfeited his own credibility.

Environmentalism is a noble cause. It is damaged by propaganda and half-truths. Every industrialized society needs heightened consciousness about its past, present and future effects on the biosphere. Though I am a libertarian, I am a strong supporter of vigilant scrutiny and regulation of industry by local, state and federal agencies. But there must be a balance with the equally vital need for economic development, especially in the Third World.

Here's a terrible episode from my region that made the news just last year. A bankrupt thermometer factory in Franklin Township, N.J., vacated its building in 1994 but ignored a directive to clean the premises of residual mercury toxins. There was a total failure of oversight and follow-through at the state and local levels. The result: In 2004, a daycare center opened in the renovated building and for two years subjected children and pregnant women to a dangerously high level of mercury vapors from the contaminated site.

The degree of permanent health effects on those children is still unknown. This kind of outrageous negligence should not be tolerated in a civilized nation.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/04/11/global_warming/index3.html

This changes everything! Had I known that Camille Paglia was against global warming I would have never been led astray :). She very eloquently says little if anything about global warming and then, at the end, misdirects to some children and mothers exposed to mercury. What about the fathers, now that's the really tragedy! My sarcasm is directed at Camille, not you Loraine. Your previous posts have given me something to think about, this one gave me some mirth and that's valuable too.

No problem. So, liberal Democrats aren't in lockstep after all? Actually, I think she made the point about geology and climate change rather well, and her description of Gore was masterly. She also mentioned the environmentalism as a religion thang. Such fun. Who knew she had balls?

HI Lorraine,
You have mentioned a political agenda surrounding the climate change issue on several occasions. What do you think that agenda is and who benefits? There doesn't seem to be much doubt that the earth is undergoing a period of warming, at least according to a majority of scientists whose opinions make it into mainstream (and other) media. There are definitely questions as to the totality of causes, but most seem of the opinion that human activity is one of them, at least as an accelerant; and anything that increases the rate of change is definitely a major concern in terms of allowing all life forms time to adapt. As for heading for the hills, do you really think that is an option with a human population of some 6.5 billion, and counting? Assuming the causes of the warming trend are still up for debate, wouldn't it be wise to exercise caution if there's a reasonable possibility that we are a contributing factor, given the stakes?

All this reliance on "proven" scientific data and scientists to debate the reality of what is happening around all of us! It's like quoting the Bible for proof of Christ's existence… you can quote till you're blue in the face for or against history, but nothing you say will ever bring Christ forward to make his claim. You just have to wait and see.

If you want proof of the reality of global warming, it's really rather simple. You don't need to be a scientist, though talking to a scientist who is actively looking at the problems helps to clarify what you are looking at. Just take a trip up to any of the northernmost and southernmost arctic regions, or any of the until-now permanently (in terms of short-term, human-biased global history) glaciated regions of the world, and make your way around, looking with open eyes. Iceland is going through a truly major depletion of all its permanent glaciers. At the same time, entire areas of the driest continent on Earth, Australia, are experiencing such a bad drought that the cattle industry is faltering for the first time in its history.

Whether or not the global warming that's happening now is human influenced or not really shouldn't be the core of the discussions. What we should be talking about and actively trying to prepare for is how we are all going to live in this drastically altered world. If things continue the way they are the suffering is going to be immense. And that includes the people who are most oblivious to what is right under their noses: the world's affluent and industrially powerful, the ones who debate these problems and never come up with any consensus more than anyone else in the world.

While the debate is fun to watch, regardless of which of the *many* sides one believes in the global climate debate, the human race still has no conclusive, accurate model for long term climatic conditions:

Ask why do our best models put hurricanes in Yucatan and Atlanta simultaneously only 4 days out from their current position, or why can't I get a reliable weather forecast for 2 weeks out?

I expect it's because it's too complex of a numerical problem for current models and computational engines.

Ironically, those who state the strongest of opinions or feelings (for any particular position) as fact are either flat out lying or are a couple of beers short of a 6 pack.

No human really knows.

I do believe that many see this as a case of Pascal's Gambit /Wager /Paradox. Is the downside so steep that "you gotta believe" no matter what?
Climatically, I don't believe we know that either.

Paglia is an interesting figure — she's definitely liberal (very, very liberal) and she calls herself a democrat (and a libertarian), but she's hardly a "liberal dem" in the conventional mold. She tends to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything she perceives as dogmatic, and she has a reputation for being light on substance and very, very heavy on style. In the words of Molly Ivins, "the sweeping generalization is her signature. In fact, her work consists of d**n little else. She is the queen of the categorical statement." To put it more simply, she has a lot more in common with Bill O'Reilly (and Michael Crichton, for that matter) than Gore Vidal. What I'm driving at is that I'm not at all surprised by her position (nor her tactics, which Eric identifies so well) — it's perfectly in character.

Though we can not confirm man's contribution to Global Warming, I would venture that he is without a doubt a contributor. What is transpiring now in our time is something of major concern on a worldwise basis. There is much data to confirm that we are certainly in a warming period. We are seeing the melting of both polar caps. The Greenland Glacier is thawing and places in Greenland have not been uncovered by ice for eons. Glacier National Park will have no glaciers shortly. Additionally, the northern Pack ice is not remaining frozen as long or as solidly throughout the year. Many of our drier areas throughout the world including many of the world deserts are in horrible drought conditions.

As the world's polar caps and glaciers are melting, we are increasing the amount of freshwater being released into the oceans. The sea level is rising and the coastal seaports and many islands throughout the world will be in jeporday. As the ice from the Arctic (as well as the Antarctic) melts, it will have major affects on currents including the Gulf Stream which will cool and cause changes in the temperature of the current, upwelling, food, etc. This will in turn have a cooling effect on the climate of England and western Europe. And the list goes on and on. We are in for a rough time of it on our planet where we experience heating and droubts mixed with flooding and cooling elsewhere.

Rich

Miguel, there's something very fitting about your avatar in the context of this topic.

Here's something quite graphic to add to the discussion—
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6528979.stm

You know it's rather funny watching Americans divide the world into "Democrats" and "Republicans". Only Americans do that. As if the world is black and white. As if no one else's point of view carries weight or deserves participation. As if what is happening on a global scale concerns and revolves around only Americans. As if American decisions and points of view are the end all in what needs to be done. Liberals and Conservatives… I don't think I've met a mudslide or flood yet who much cares about taking sides. We're all in this together, whether we like it or not. (I'm concentrating on Americans here, because most of the discussion seems to be heavily weighted toward American politics and media, but it could just a likely have been "Japanese", who have their heads in the sand in a different way, or "Swedes", who also need to change their attitudes, though they do a lot better than most on the environmental issues.)

It might be kind of interesting to discover basic points of agreement and find out when that agreement begins to break down. I accept that:

1. The planet has experienced a net warming during the last 150 years, appx .75 C
2. The rate of warming has increased in the last thirty years, appx. .50C of the .75
3. Increased solar irradiation is responsible for at least twenty-five per-cent of planet warming of the last thirty years.
4. Increased solar irradiation is responsible for no more than thirty per-cent of planet warming of the last thirty years.
5. The planet atmosphere contains appx. thirty-six per-cent more carbon dioxide today than it contained pre industry, 1750.
6. A least a portion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human burning of fossil fuels and clearing (burning) land.
7. Virtually all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human burning of fossil fuels and clearing (burning) land.
8. Strong evidence of the influence of human fossil fuel burning can be found in the change in carbon isotope ratios found in the atmosphere, upper or near surface ocean, tree ring analysis, and ice cores. This implies nothing about temperatures.
9. Water vapor, CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are atmospheric gases that absorb and radiate long wave radiation.
10. Methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide, although minor in atmospheric volume, are relatively efficient absorbers of long wave radiation.

"Only Americans do that." Miguel,

"Only" is used in a general way…that could easily be construed as a bigoted view point. Just because you might think Japanese and or Swedes are equally "Only" a certain way does not mean you aren't starting to take a rather simplified view of things.

There are plenty of people in other corners of the world that see life or try to place life into the good or evil context. There are also a lot of American's who have the luxury of not really needing to focus on politics or on the opposite end of the spectrum are rather savy in their depth of knowledge of the world. We do not all sit around yelling at each other like we are on a radio or tv program. Some of us sit around and discuss backpacking ad nauseum.

Thanks for this opportunity to rehash the obvious.

Oh, and I do not feel particularly drawn to any American political party…and rarely enjoy discussing the topic with other eager neighbors, etc. But I am going to buy a $15 carbon emission credit for my flight this summer and try to write it off on Uncle Sam. I will do all I can to push for less Petroleum consumption or at least owning up to the true costs of it.

Somewhere out there a rock is on a collision course with our planet. It won't be the first time that we've had such a thing to happen. About 265 million years ago a big one brought the age of the dinosaurs to our planet. Then about 65 million years back another hit and it was the big cold lizards loss, but became the little warm furries opportunity…

The debut of modern humans and their cultural behavior debuted about 50 thousand years. About ten thousand years ago the planet's climate became comparatively stable, and this was the first opportunity for modern people to become growers, herders, preachers, warrriors, etc. Two billion luckies now live with the Web, financial markets, global trade, WMD, etc. The other 4 billion, the unluckies, exist in a developing world trying to join the luckies.

Maybe the 10,000 year nice weather is ready to bounce again. Global warming and/or cooling. Either way, the 4 billion unluckies goal is not to maintain the prosperity of the 2 billion luckies. Meanwhile, a rock will arrive sooner or later.

Please don't take the my comments seriously : ) Instead, let's all go backpacking light before it's all over!