Family Film Blogging: Earth, or "Disney's Faces of Death"

The elephant in the room (ha, ha) is that the movie is supposed to make you more aware of global warming. And, I guess if you're young enough, you might make a connection between the narrator telling us over and over that because of global warming, elephants have to travel longer to watering holes (and get eaten by lions on the way) and that because of global warming, the ice floes break earlier in the Spring, preventing polar bears from having firm ground on which to hunt seals (so they starve to death). So, the movie is really more like Scared Straight: if we would stop global warming, then elephants wouldn't get separated from their moms in duststorms and get eaten by lions. If we would stop global warming, then polar bears could eat seals and not starve to death. Good news for elephants and polar bears, but maybe not for lions and seals.

Arctic Ice Flux « the Air Vent

One would expect if the ice melt was created by temperature change alone, we might see a uniform reduction in ice levels. Instead there is a top to bottom shift as the general trend is generally pushing ice toward the Bearing Strait. I makes me wonder now how much shrinkage of sea ice can be attributed to a weather pattern change rather than global temperature change.

Either way, the thirty year trend is toward a heavier ice flow out the bearing straight (bottom of figures) and lessened out-flow on the opposite side (top of figures) of the icecap.

SF Environmental Policy Examiner: Climate change and the fierce urgency of now

The people trumpeting this last point really have a habit of sounding like someone on a home shopping channel--Act now! This offer expires soon! This does not mean they are wrong. Let me repeat that. They can be annoying as telephone marketing calls--and some are--and they may still be right. But they sure don't sound convincing.

In one sense, in the U.S. at least, they may be right for non-scientific reasons. This may be their last opportunity to get legislation passed to severely limit CO2 emissions. If temperatures continue to decline (and they may do so for reasons unrelated to humanly caused climate change, such as a lack of sunspots or a series of volcanic eruptions), and the economy doesn't pick up, most of the impetus for combatting climate change will disappear. Many skeptics feel that this explains the almost panicky tone of those fighting for emission controls.

However, I have yet to see a compelling or even coherent case made that we cannot wait for the data to prove either side wrong. If someone would like to point me to one, please do so.