Global Warming and Melting Ice

The seas are rising, but you've still got time to enjoy your beach house

“If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet,” says former Vice-President Al Gore in his global warming documentary slide show, An Inconvenient Truth (2006). Gore was talking about what would happen if the West Antarctic ice sheet or the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely away. As recently as his April 27, 2009 testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Gore again noted, “Were the Greenland ice sheet to melt, crack up and slip into the North Atlantic, sea level would rise almost 20 feet.” In a presentation made at the Copenhagen climate change conference earlier this month, Gore claimed, “There is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

How do these statements square with a report, Melting Snow and Ice: A Call for Action, commissioned by Gore and by Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and released at the Copenhagen conference? Among other things, the report finds that the mean monthly snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has been declining by about 1.5 percent per decade. In addition, rivers and lakes are freezing over later and breaking up earlier. “Over the past 150 years, river and lake ice cover duration has been decreasing at a rate of about 1.4 days and 1.7 days per decade,” according to the report. But the chief reason anyone cares about global snow and ice trends is that melting ice sheets and glaciers contribute to rising sea levels.

First, a bit of background. In 2007, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) noted that during the 20th century sea levels rose at about 1.7 millimeters per year (almost 7 inches over the 20th century), but that the rate had increased to about 3 millimeters per year between 1993 and 2003 (about 12 inches per century). The 4AR projected future sea level rise of between 18 and 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches) by 2100. However, this projection did not take ice sheet dynamics into account because it was thought that they were inadequately modeled at the time the 4AR was released.

So what did the Norwegian Polar Institute report find? Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average. Melting sea ice does not affect sea levels, but does affect temperatures near land-based ice sheets. On the other hand, the sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing at a rate of about 1 percent per decade. Parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet are melting away, and there are now indications that the Antarctic continent is experiencing net loss of ice.

The report also notes that the Greenland ice sheet is losing volume and the mass loss has increased significantly over the last 10 years. And while the speed with which Greenland’s glaciers have been flowing into the sea accelerated over the last decade, a recent report at the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting in January 2009 by Swansea University glaciologist Tavi Murray found that the acceleration has stopped and that outlet glacier flows in southern Greenland have returned to the levels of 2000. One concern has been that meltwater at the base of glaciers may be speeding up their flow into the sea, but another recent study in Nature Geoscience found that this is not the case. The researchers concluded that “recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.” But before one breathes a sigh of relief about the effects of Greenland’s glaciers on future sea levels, a new report published in November in Science finds that Greenland’s ice cap is melting faster than ever.

So how much sea level rise is the planet likely to experience over the next century? The Melting Snow and Ice report notes, “The near-future contribution of ice sheets to sea level is highly uncertain but potentially large.” The report does cite a recent study from Geophysical Research Letters that finds that “if the climate continues to warm along current trends, a minimum of 373 ± 21 millimeters (about 15 inches) of sea-level rise over the next 100 years is expected from glaciers and ice caps.”

Taking into account future thermal expansion—sea water expanding as the globe warms—University of Copenhagen glaciologist Dorthe Dahl Jensen, speaking at the session in which the report was released, projected that global sea levels could rise by 1 meter (39 inches) by 2100, plus or minus half a meter (20 inches). The lower bound of this new projection overlaps with the upper bound of the IPCC 4AR projection. In contrast, a recent article in Energy & Environment (a journal, it is fair to say, that is editorially skeptical of catastrophic global warming projections) suggests that the “best guess” for sea level rise over the next century is 23 centimeters (about 9 inches).

So sea levels are very likely going to rise over the coming century, but not by 20 feet. Admittedly, Gore does not say that sea levels will rise by 20 feet this century, just that that much increase would occur if Greenland’s ice cap melted away. Fortunately, researchers generally project that the complete melting away of the Greenland ice sheet caused by man-made global warming would take between 500 and 1000 years. This is not great, but it certainly still gives humanity time to figure out how to adapt to such an increase—or figure out how to stop it. And it would be a good idea for builders and insurance companies to keep the projected rise in sea levels in mind.

What about Gore’s Copenhagen prediction of an ice-free Arctic Ocean by 2014? The researcher whose work Gore said he was citing, Wieslav Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, repudiated Gore’s assertion the next day. The Melting Snow and Ice report cites modeling studies that find that the Arctic Ocean in September could be ice-free by 2100, or perhaps as early as 2037.

Ultimately, the Melting Snow and Ice report offers a lot of good evidence that the planet has been warming up. Of course, its predictions of rising sea levels as a result of melting ice sheets depend upon projections of future man-made global warming being accurate. But that’s a topic for another time.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is available from Prometheus Books.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • thumb's up||

    He has a 20 foot meme... wow!

  • Old Mexican||

    What about Gore’s Copenhagen prediction of an ice-free Arctic Ocean by 2014? The researcher whose work Gore said he was citing, Wieslav Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, repudiated Gore’s assertion the next day.

    That's because he's a denier! A D-E-N--I-E-R!

  • Chad||

    Actually, I think Ron is a bit off in using the word "repudiate", which is a very strong word implying rejecting something with emphasis.

    Rather, Maslowski simply asserted that he said something mildly different than what Gore said, something more scientifically precise and defendable.

  • ||

    something more scientifically precise and defendable.

    Which is very unlike your statement that Greenland would melt and raise sea levels 20 meters.

  • Chad||

    Citation, please.

  • ||

    Citation, please.

    I don't need to...in this very thread you stated the planet was at risk

    A claim that has no hint of truth even if the most sever predictions of the IPCC turn out to be true.

    You have proven yourself a global doom alarmist.

    If you want to go back and find your own outlandish claim of 20 meters of sea level change then you can go back and find them.

  • Suki||

    I predict JC will hang Chad at 10:23

  • ||

    Funny stuff from Chad here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/12.....tigation-s

    Old Mexican|12.3.09 @ 6:32PM|#

    Re: Chad,

    If you have no idea why Greenland is melting, I suggest you learn to read anything other than crackpot websites. AGW is by far the strongest in the Arctic, and I am sure that even you can understand the ice-albedo effect.

    Why is the fact that Greenland is "melting" a bad thing? It did melt before, you know...
    reply to this

    Chad|12.3.09 @ 10:52PM|#

    20 meters of water, dipshit. I kinda like Miami and Manhattan (let alone Bangledesh, which I here is nice this time of year).
    reply to this
    joshua corning|12.4.09 @ 12:39AM|#

    wait a min did you just claim that Greenland will melt in a time frame where terms like Miami and Manhattan even have any meaning?

    I am sorry sir but you are a nut. There is no scenario in any IPCC report in which sea levels will rise 20 feet within 1000 years or less.
    reply to this
    joshua corning|12.4.09 @ 12:40AM|#

    20 meters not 20 feet.
    reply to this
    Chad|12.4.09 @ 7:12AM|#

    And anyone who knows anything knows that the IPCC report left out a lot the ice melt trends due to the uncertainty. Since that time, the certainty has been increased, and the data has gotten far, far worse.

    Chad you sir are a hack and an alarmist and now a proven liar.

    How does it feel to lose so badly and in such a humiliating manner?

    By the way I am going to quote this every time i find you trying to feed your bullshit here about AGW.

  • Chad||

    I love how you left out half of the first sentence.

    I wonder why...

    I did make a mistake, though. If Antarctica were to melt, it would raise sea levels over 60 meters, not 20. Greenland would raise levels about 20 feet (7 meters).

    As I said in the quote, the data for ice melt has been getting worse every time anyone publishes. The IPCC data is out-dated and highly conservative. The stuff Ron posted today is closer, but still has a lot of uncertainty (to the bad side....it is unlikely to be better).

  • ||

    I love how you left out half of the first sentence.

    I wonder why...

    I did not leave out half of the first sentence.

    Once again you lie. Really kind of sad.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    Rather, Maslowski simply asserted that he said something mildly different than what Gore said, something more scientifically precise and defen[si]ble.

    You should consider going into journalism - you sure know how to spin things. The guy said that he never said such things to Al Gore; that sounded like a "repudiation" to me...

  • Chad||

    No. Repudiation would start with Maslowski saying that the content of Gore's statement was untrue, not just the attributation. Note that Maslowski said no such thing. Instead, he said that he said something somewhat different to Gore, and that Gore's version is not certain enough to be scientific.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    No. Repudiation would start with Maslowski saying that the content of Gore's statement was untrue, not just the attributation. Note that Maslowski said no such thing. Instead, he said that he said something somewhat different to Gore, and that Gore's version is not certain enough to be scientific.

    Right. If what "A" said is different than what "B" said and "B" claims to have said the same that "A" said, then what "B" said is not the same as lying . . . huh?

    Your definition of lying must be different than the one everybody else holds...

  • Chad||

    No, it A says B said X, and B then says "No, I said X', which is slightly different", the odds are that there was a misunderstanding.

    Note that B's statement does not imply that X is untrue.

  • Old Mexican||

    Again, you could really find your métier in journalism - you sure know how to spin things.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Actually its'
    A says B said X
    B says I never said X furthermore X has no basis in B's current scientific understanding of how the world works.

    "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."

  • nigger penis||

    Autism much?

  • Old Mexican||

    Fortunately, researchers generally project that the complete melting away of the Greenland ice sheet caused by man-made global warming would take between 500 and 1000 years. This is not great, but it certainly still gives humanity time to figure out how to adapt to such an increase[...]

    To adapt, yes. To "do" something about it, now, is entirely something else. The Warmists are not interested in humanity adapting, though, otherwise they would not be purveying their wealth-destroying policies.

  • Jeffersonian||

    This is really the core of it, OM: As evidence, just watch a warmist recoil from any and all solutions other than massive government control of all CO2 emissions. If they're so interested in science, why do they vociferously reject solutions like geoengineering?

  • Suki||

    If they're so interested in science, why do they vociferously reject solutions like geoengineering?

    They saw that go terribly wrong in a movie. "Didn't you see [movie]!?"

  • ExLoony||

    Geoengineering solutions are in themselves climate changers, and we have nowhere near enough control to know what side effects they will have. If you are messing something up the best idea is to stop messing with it, or at least slow down - not start poking things in other ways too.

  • Old Mexican||

    [...] and there are now indications that the Antarctic continent is experiencing net loss of ice.

    I will review my portfolio and get rid of my Antarctic Ice Sheet stocks, now that it is experiencing a net loss of assets...

    ... and I am being facetious because I don't find the above relevant in ANY way. Why would one even consider as important the Antarctic's "net loss of ice" compared to a few decades when that ice has been changing sizes for MILLENIA? Call me when you have a better frame of reference, otherwise you're not doing anything that could be more relevant than, for example, finding the average speed of a slug in a 10 centimeter-long track. Ho-hum.

  • Chony||

    Your denialism is impressive. Didn't you read the word loss?!

    Loss=catastrophe! Temperatures have gone up! True they have gone down but they have gone up!!! There has been a recent 3 hour trend in temperature increases! If this continues for 18 centuries the temperature of the earth will be 400 million degrees!

    Why, oh why, do you hate Mother Earth?

  • Old Mexican||

    +1 in sarcasm ;-)

  • ||

    Nicely done. I'm assuming that the recent three hour trend of -2 degrees with have an inverse effect in my neck of the woods.

  • thumb's up||

    Speaking of woods, gonna get me some:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....ure-chief/

  • Rich||

    The Melting Snow and Ice report notes, “The near-future contribution of ice sheets to sea level is highly uncertain but potentially large.”

    Now *that* is settled science.

  • ||

    I wish I could get away with shit like this:

    "projected that global sea levels could rise by 1 meter (39 inches) by 2100, plus or minus half a meter (20 inches)."

  • Old Mexican||

    Well, they take their cues from the CRU - they have gotten away with shit like THAT for years.

  • Suki||

    We are 50/50 certain that an event may or may not occur.

  • ||

    You talk about the sea-level rise from the loss of Greenland ice, then say (according to climate change skeptics) that it will take 500-1000 years to melt. In this century it will only give us 9".* So we're not in danger from a rise in sea level FROM GREENLAND.
    But what about glacial and ice/snow melt from ALL sources?
    If Florida disappears in 200 years, will its residents care where the water came from? There are plenty of glaciers, sea ice, and mountain snow. If we get 9" from 50 sources, that's 10 feet of sea change.

    * Assuming that when you are gambling on human life on Earth, you want to use the most conservative estimates. Sort of like allowing the maximum amount of water contamination that we THINK won't cause birth defects, cancer, or mutations to humans (screw the fish). Makes me feel really hopeful for future generations. Let's allow for no margin of error.

  • thumb's up||

    If Florida disappears in 200 years, will its residents anyone care?

  • thumb's up||

    add its

  • ||

    Florida has nukes, you know.

  • thumb's up||

    If Florida's nukes disappear in 200 years will anyone care?

  • Brett L||

    But thanks to strict post-Andreew building codes, our beach houses are 16 FEET above mean high tide. What did the insurance industry ever do for us? Made our beach houses Gore proof!

  • Suki||

    Nothing is Gore proof! He can make up any number he likes for rising seas. Has for decades.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Who says there will be humans in 200 years? My predition is that with the proliferation of nuclear and biologic weapons that the human population will be pretty much fucked way before then.

  • ||

    Um, I meant "50 sources" to be a large out-of-a-hat random number. Now it looks like I can't do math.
    9" would only require about a baker's dozen sources for 10 feet.
    50 sources would only need to be about 2.5 inches each.

  • In Time Of War||

    There were no ice caps during the Cretaceous. Forget the sea levels, I'm worried about the Velociraptors.

  • ||

    Weren't real velociraptors pretty small and almost certainly no serious threat to humans?

  • ||

    If we'd been around, that is.

  • ||

    They were no T-rex, but imagine a medium sized dog that could take you down with a swipe of its foot. Or a really deadly turkey, like the Deadliest Turkey Ever (coming this fall to discovery channel, right after Deadliest Catch.) And i mean, look at the widespread panic out-of-control turkeys have been causing lately.

    Can't hurt to be prepared,
    http://xkcd.com/155/

  • ||

  • ||

    imagine a medium sized dog that could take you down with a swipe of its foot.

    We have medium sized dogs right now...

    I don't know about you but when I see a medium sized dog all i want to do is pet it and throw a ball for it to fetch...

  • ||

    IMAGINE!!!

    An animimal the size of a medium dog!!!

    Imagine!!

    An animal which is the size of a medium dog and perhaps half as smart as that dog!!!

    Imagine!!

    An animal the size of a dog that is half as smart with really bad depth perception!!!

    Imagine!!

    An animal the size of a dog that is half as smart that can't see very well and is unable to breath while running!!!

    Imagine pure horror!!!

  • ||

    Wiki says they weren't as smart as depicted in JP, but still as smart as a housecat.

    And hey, my dogs are only medium size but they can cause some serious damage when things get out of hand. I got a 2in cheek-scar from trying to break them up to prove it. Now, imagine if instead of 1/2in claws, they were over 2in long...

  • ||

    (Oh, but if a chick ever asks were its from, i got it dueling. Shhhhh!)

  • ||

    As smart as a cat. The dumbest mammal. Wow.

  • Tango Mike||

    Any one of my six cats could give you a run for your money.

  • ExLoony||

    Modern dinosaurs can talk (see "Me and Alex"), and can fly over the Himalayas while breathing just fine (big raptors like the tyranosaurs had the same efficient flow-through lung arrangement as birds). Of course, these are the cousins of the velociraptors, the ones which survived, not the velociraptors themselves.

    Mind you, for some folks that would just make for more interesting hunting.

  • ||

    And hey, my dogs are only medium size but they can cause some serious damage when things get out of hand. I got a 2in cheek-scar from trying to break them up to prove it. Now, imagine if instead of 1/2in claws, they were over 2in long...

    Yeah sure i can imagine the fact that wolves exist in the wild...of course they are not medium sized.

    Coyotes are mediums sized and i have no doubt that a wild coyote is sleeping within a mile of where I type this. As you can probably tell I am paralyzed with mind numbing fear.

    how can i possibly be calm knowing that a predator superior to a velosoraptor lays so close to me...ready to hunt me down and devour me. How could anyone sleep knowing that?

    Of course, these are the cousins of the velociraptors, the ones which survived, not the velociraptors themselves.

    I have seen a cousin of the velociraptor read the NYTimes from cover to cover.

    You forget we descended from dinosaurs as well.

    Personally I would rather hunt an animal that reads the NYT then some long extinct puny dumb blind lizard.

  • ||

    I don't think that's right. I believe our line split away from the one that produced the dinosaurs before the dinosaurs came around. We're related, of course, like we are to everything alive, but the reptiles we came from weren't dinosaurs. Unless I'm wrong or something.

  • Lord Jubjub||

    You are correct. The proto-mammalian reptiles evolved from the ancestors of crocodiles and dinosaurs. By the time dinosaurs appear in the fossil record, so do creatures reminiscent of the duck-billed platypus.

  • ExLoony||

    Our last common ancestors with dinos, reptiles, and birds were the amniotes about 300M years ago. Both dinosaurs and mammals were over 100M years later than that, a lot of divergence.

  • jayburd||

    The Chevy Corvair was the deadliest turkey ever!

  • Name is required.||

    Why are you worried about them? I'm sure they'll be a protected species.

  • juris imprudent||

    Perhaps we'll need (and get) an Endangering Species Act.

  • ||

    Pretty much what we have for deer and other overpopulated, underhunted critters.

  • Old Mexican||

    Ultimately, the Melting Snow and Ice report offers a lot of good evidence that the planet has been warming up.

    Provides no evidence, though, that the warming is man-made. Or does it?

  • Chad||

    What could such evidence consist of?

    Be specific.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    It would require evidence that excludes any other reason for the warming except man made gases (methane, CO2). There is no such evidence, only an inference that the supposed current period of warming can only come from man made sources, by correlation.

  • ||

    "It would require evidence that excludes any other reason for the warming except man made gases (methane, CO2)."

    Exactly how many negatives would you like them to prove?

  • ||

    That statement implies that nothing need be proven at all, you know. Who is making the claim here?

  • Chad||

    How can we prove that there is NO other reason that hasn't been excluded?

    Every known reason has been found to be inconsistent with the data. Are you willing to risk your planet on the hope that some as-yet-unknown mystical magic force will turn out to be the cause?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    Every known reason has been found to be inconsistent with the data.

    Which data? You mean the invented one coming from the CRU?

  • Chad||

    It has nothing to do with CRU.

    Read any of the hundreds of papers on the topic. It would really do you some good.

    What is causing the warming it if it NOT greenhouse gases. It ain't the sun. It ain't cosmic rays. It ain't any of the other crap you guys wildly speculate about.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    Whenever a person has NO idea of what he or she is talking about, he or she always resorts to purported (but unspecified) big numbers of supporting papers that agree with him or her:

    Read any of the hundreds of papers on the topic. It would really do you some good.

    Like saying "Study after Study" and "Poll after poll" in the universe of punditry - it is equally meaningless.

    BTW, I have been reading Warmist claims for years, ever since the 80s. Th only thing that they have in common is that their claims have grown in the preposterousness of their claims, almost making "Day After Tomorrow" into a documentary.

  • Old Mexican||

    What is causing the warming it if it NOT greenhouse gases. It ain't the sun.

    Yeah, that fuckingly useless sun . . .

  • ||

    It ain't the sun.

    Ummm, pretty sure the sun is responsible for any/all warming on earth.

  • JoshInHB||

    The true prophet Al Gore (blessings be upon him) recently discovered the source of warming on earth. And it aint the sun.

    http://www.tonightshowwithcona.....9/1175411/

    The EARTH IS A STAR

  • ||

    What is causing the warming it if it NOT greenhouse gases.

    What caused the Medieval warming period?

    What caused the roman warming period?

    What caused the ice ages?

    If you cannot explain those then you cannot remove what caused those events as a potential cause of what is happening now.

  • ExLoony||

    The MWP could have been caused by the sun, we don't know yet. But (a) it was not as warm as today and (b) the sun is not overly warm today, it's been measured and hasn't budged since the early 70's.

    Meanwhile it is fairly easy to measure, from a satellite, how much energy is going into the earth and how much comes back out. There is about a 3W/sq.m. accumulation of energy. Some goes into warming the air, some into the ocean (you noticed, in the article, that half of the observed rise is traceable to expansion of the oceans as they warm up?) and the fractions will vary as the climate bucks and shakes under the excess.

    Oh and the ice ages seem best explained by the conjunction or orbital precession changing combined with climate instability probably caused by the lifting of the Himalayas and/or tuning of ocean currents which shift heat around. But those changes are on 30,000 year cycles and not scheduled to have much effect on us at the moment.

  • JoshInHB||

    The MWP was much warmer that we currently are.

  • ExLoony||

    Best evidence is the MWP was about as warm as the mid-20th century, a bit cooler than now.
    You can find it discussed at length here:
    http://www.skepticalscience.co.....period.htm

  • ExLoony||

    Oops, memory error. Not 3W/m^2, but 0.9W, see:
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects.....725-06.pdf

    To put this in perspective, the solar irradiation increase from Maunder minimum to now is about 0.1% or about 0.34 W/m^2. So the retained heat due to current imbalance is about 3 times more significant than 400 years change in solar radiation.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    Are you willing to risk your planet on the hope that some as-yet-unknown mystical magic force will turn out to be the cause?

    I don't answer loaded questions.

  • ||

    Are you willing to risk your planet on the hope that some as-yet-unknown mystical magic force will turn out to be the cause?

    The planet is at risk? Could you please provide one piece of evidence that the planet is at risk from AGW?

  • ||

    Are you guys so bored that you actually enjoy arguing with a dumb shit like Chad?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    To start, the really preposterous idea that the Sun has nothing to do with the current warming, as some of the Warmist scientists alleged (seriously) in Nature not so long ago. That's for starters.

    I mean, really, wouldn't YOU ask for extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that a SINGLE VARIABLE, in a really REALLY complex system, is the only cause for a perceived change in temps?

  • Chad||

    How are CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases "a single variable"?

    Learn to count past one, please.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    How are CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases "a single variable"?

    The origin is the single variable. Don't be disingenuous. Where do you get the term "Anthropogenic" from, if not to designate a SINGLE cause?

    Learn to be honest. I stopped being dishonest after I shedded my marxoid underpinnings after college. Maybe you should shed yours...

  • ||

    As the kids say these days, LOL.

    "Learn to be honest. I stopped being dishonest after I shedded my marxoid underpinnings after college. Maybe you should shed yours..."

    vs.

    "Which data? You mean the invented one coming from the CRU?"

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    Mine is a fair question. I am not going to accept the term "the data" as if it were something written on the very face of the Moon for all to see. This is NOT the case and has been found to be NOT the case after the despicable behavior of the CRU scientists came to light. So who's being dishonest?

  • ||

    But but but, our anthropogenic outputs are from multiple sources, so its still not a single variable!

    (Just saving Chonyrris the effort.)

  • Chad||

    Now, if you think humanity and our wildly complex economy are a "single variable", you are even dumber than I thought.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, Chad, you sure are ignorant. I never mentioned the economy, and single individual humans acting independently are not a "single variable."

    Instead, we're made to believe that human activity is the SOLE REASON for Global Warming by accumulating man-made greenhouse gases. That makes no sense.

  • Chad||

    Actually, if you read the IPCC report, you would know that they do NOT consider it the sole reason, just the overwhelmingly primary one.

    But I am sure it is above your reading level.

  • ||

    So, OM points out that "human activity" would count as a single variable.

    Chonyrris then counters with "well, human activity isnt the SOLE contributor".

    Nice redirection. Oh, and questioning his reading level is just icing on the cake.

    I know debate is only for like highschool, but we really need a grade system for that like we have for reading.

    Chonyriss would define the bottom of said scale.

  • Chad||

    Actually, if you read the IPCC report, you would know that they do NOT consider it the sole reason, just the overwhelmingly primary one.

    But I am sure it is above your reading level.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Anything to blame mankind, eh, Chad?

  • ||

    Beat Chonyrris by 8mins with my prediction.

  • ||

    And what, exactly, would it take to satisfy you that that was the case? Obviously, you've made your mind up already that AGW just can't be real. But in theory there ought to be some condition that could be met which would result in you reevaluating your position. I just want to know what it would take.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    Fair enough:

    a) A Theory that can explain the warming period of 500-1200, the little ice age of 1300-1800 and the current, supposed period of warming based SORELY ON HUMAN ACTIVITY. Otherwise you cannot exclude other variables.

    b) A Theory that relied on ACTUAL past temperatures going back 10,000 years, at LEAST, to give a more precise frame of reference. If you don't have them, well, tough - your hypothesis is untestable. At least when it comes to Paleontology and Biology, there is an AMPLE SUPPLY of evidence.

    Last, I would first take ANY politics from Climate science - otherwise, no evidence will be convincing nor SHOULD be convincing for an honest, objective person. "Cold Fusion" comes to my mind . . .

  • ||

    How fun would it have been if enviros had latched onto the lie of cold fusion instead.

  • ||

    How fun would it have been if enviros had latched onto the lie of cold fusion instead.

    It would have been much cheaper.

  • ||

    /highfive

  • Jed Rothwell||

    Cold fusion is no a lie. I suggest you learn something about it before commenting on it. You will find about 1,000 papers on it here:

    http://lenr-canr.org

  • Jed Rothwell||

    I meant to say cold fusion is NOT a lie. Or if it is, thousands of experts are participating in a conspiracy to perpetrate this lie, including ~100 in the U.S. military and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, and hundreds of others in the Italian Physical Soc., Chemical Soc., ENEA, BARC, Oxford U., the NSF, Los Alamos and many others. You will find hundreds of papers from these organizations at LENR-CANR.org, as I mentioned.

    Some readers here may be inclined to believe these organizations are engaged in a massive conspiracy to commit fraud and convince the public that cold fusion is real. Readers here apparently imagine that global warming evidence is faked, and -- for example -- the ice at the North and South poles is not really melting. If you believe that, you will believe any damn thing. But if you trust scientific information from mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals then you will know that cold fusion is real, and global warming is real.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Watch out Wylie, there's wooly-eyed cold fusioneer on these threads. I got ambushed last week.

  • Chad||

    Old Mexican|12.29.09 @ 7:28PM|#

    a) A Theory that can explain the warming period of 500-1200, the little ice age of 1300-1800 and the current, supposed period of warming based SORELY ON HUMAN ACTIVITY. Otherwise you cannot exclude other variables.

    There are lots of theories, OM. Perhaps the sun changed. Perhaps ocean currents changed. Perhaps the warming and cooling cycle that you are concerned about is just a phantom. What relevance does this have NOW.

    IF SOMETHING CAUSED PAST CLIMATE CHANGE, SO *BLEEPING* WHAT? YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT IT IS HAPPENING **NOW**.

    Are you that stupid?

    You have NO plausible alternative cause that stands up to scrutiny.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    Perhaps the warming and cooling cycle that you are concerned about is just a phantom. What relevance does this have NOW.

    I know that your marxoid dishonesty does not allow you to see your basic contradictions in what you are writing, Chad, but I am a sport and will point them out:

    They are relevant now because whatever made the changes THEN could be happening NOW and yet all of us are being distracted by a politicized cadre of so-called scientists into believing HUMANS have the power to radically change an enormously complex and MASSIVE system. Instead of looking for other variables which could lead to REALLY USEFUL findings, people are being fed a different picture to acquiesce to such demands from people like a certain shaggy, oily Hindu into stopping drinking ice water (and other equally silly "recommendations".)

  • ||

    "...and yet all of us are being distracted by a politicized cadre of so-called scientists into believing HUMANS have the power to radically change an enormously complex and MASSIVE system."

    Oy. Next you'll tell us that acid rain, ozone depletion, and ocean acidification are in no way anthropogenic either. I mean, OF COURSE human beings can have a big effect on complex systems.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    Oy. Next you'll tell us that acid rain, ozone depletion, and ocean acidification are in no way anthropogenic either.

    . . . Well, the facts on the natural origin of that phenomena notwithstanding - like when scientists found that the so-called "acidity" of lakes and water bodies was actually natural, or that the ozone hole is actually a natural phenomenon (has been a very long time since I have seen a SINGLE PAPER on the "ozone hole" because of the fact that the manufacture of freon has not really stopped)

    And, just for your info, acid rain and the ozone layer are NOT the whole system.

  • ||

    I'm not prepared to take your word for it, but I am prepared to change my mind given sufficient evidence. Superficial Google searches have uncovered no backing for your claims. If you're willing to cite sources, I'm willing to read and reevaluate.

  • Old Mexican||

    EN, I found this one at first try:

    http://www.fortfreedom.org/n15.htm

  • ||

    Hey, that was pretty interesting. It didn't actually address anything that I was saying, but it was still interesting, and I can appreciate that. Got one to back up your ozone claim?

  • ||

    Rain was acidic before the industrial era.

    As long as there is CO2 in the atmosphere, some of it will dissolve into rain-drops in clouds and form Carbonic Acid, which lowers the pH.

  • ||

    Well, yes. But that's sort of pedantic and misses the point, no? I'm talking about greatly increased acidity due to human industry, although Old Mexican appears to claim that there is no such phenomenon.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, there is such a thing as Acid Rain. It is just not the problem purported to be by marxoid environmentalists and the EPA Statists. Nor is it anything resembling a near example of a world-wide, systemic change that Climate Change is purported to be.

  • ||

    But that's sort of pedantic and misses the point, no? I'm talking about greatly increased acidity due to human industry

    What IS your point? That acidity has been coming down since the turn of the last century. As soon as people realized that burning a bunch of shit near their cities turned it black and dissolved the stonework back in the end of the 1800's. Unless you live in a major city or other hydrocarbon burning center, i bet your rain is probably the same pH as it was pre-industrial era.

    All that industry we've added in the past 100 years hasn't hasn't kept decreasing the pH.

  • Chad||

    If whatever changes happened back in the past are happening now, wtf are they? Why can't anyone find them, despite no lack of people looking?

    What happened in pre-industrial times is largely trivia. Ironically, you miss two key points about it, however.

    1: Analysis of past times indicates that a doubling of CO2 alters the climate by about 3C on the scale of decades and perhaps a bit more on the scale of centuries....in close agreement with modern models.

    2: The harder you argue that there was lots of "natural variability" in the past, the more you are arguing that the climate is MORE sensitive to changes...anthropegenic or otherwise.

  • Old Mexican||

    How about the FUCKING SUN, Chad?

    http://www.tgdaily.com/general.....ate-change

  • ||

    Climate science is politicized because climate science involves the polity. There is simply no way to disentangle the two. And if you would call yourself an objective observer while going around and calling everyone a "marxoid" who disagrees with you, well, check your premises.

    You seem to be saying that because we cannot easily separate the greenhouse effect from a variety of other factors, we must act as if the greenhouse effect is negligible. Suffice to say that I consider this position deeply ill-advised. Given the choice between thousands of nerds and their (admittedly flawed) computer models, and Old Mexican throwing his hands in the air, I choose the nerds every time. You may be right. But I am a professional gambler, and I say that probabilistically my expectation stands to be greater by looking to the boffins.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    Climate science is politicized because climate science involves the polity.

    Is there something wrong with you, EN? Where did you get that lame, ad hoc explanation?

    Are you really telling me that a science is politicized because there are people involved? You think other sciences do not involve people? You're nuts.

  • ||

    Apparently I did not make myself sufficiently clear. To rephrase: climate science is politicized because its outputs potentially stand to have a tremendous effect on essentially political questions, such as civil liberties, economic policy, and international relations.

    You seem to be under the impression that climate science has been politicized by the nefarious environmentalists as part of their plot to enslave us all. This is, uh, simplistic. Liberals have their biases, but libertarians and conservatives have theirs as well, and every bit as much reason to spin the data in their direction.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    To rephrase: climate science is politicized because its outputs potentially stand to have a tremendous effect on essentially political questions, such as civil liberties, economic policy, and international relations.

    But you are still facing the same problem, EN - the above is NO justification or excuse to politicize the science. It would like saying quantum mechanics is politicized because of its implications on human rights - that's called a non sequitur. It is not valid to justify any political restraint or bias on an activity that is supposed and seeks to be free of bias, regardless o the possible or purported implications it may have, so long as the activity follows ethical and moral guidelines (like "do no harm", for instance.)

    What I am saying is: Why make the implications important for whatever concerns the science of climate? Any politicizing of science should be considered by objective people as undue and harmful - you seem to accept it in a rather creepy matter-of-fact fasion.

  • ||

    Perhaps I've misunderstood you. You said:

    Last, I would first take ANY politics from Climate science - otherwise, no evidence will be convincing nor SHOULD be convincing for an honest, objective person.

    What I took from that was that so long as climate science remains politicized, you will remain resolutely unconvinced of its results. To which I say that climate science will always be politicized, for reasons I've already stated. Complaining about it accomplishes nothing. All we can do is hope to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Throwing out the whole endeavor because it's been (unavoidably!) politicized strikes me as hugely counterproductive.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Emperor Norton,

    To which I say that climate science will always be politicized, for reasons I've already stated.

    If Climate Science will always be politicized, then it is NOT science. Pure and simple. Either CS is science, or it is not. If it is politicized, then it is not. If you believe that places me and the "science" in an impasse, then that it is how is going to be, because I cannot simply suspend my disbelief for "good causes."

  • ExLoony||

    "To start, the really preposterous idea that the Sun has nothing to do with the current warming, as some of the Warmist scientists alleged (seriously) in Nature not so long ago. That's for starters."

    Are you referring to the Denmark 1991 paper which was retracted a few years later by its authors after errors in their arithmetic were found, which when corrected eliminated the trend they claimed? But which like any urban legend echos in its 1991 form forever?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: ExLoony,

    Are you referring to the Denmark 1991 paper which was retracted a few years later[...]?

    I am a bit more up to date than what you are willing to give me credit.

    http://www.tgdaily.com/general.....ate-change

    Or in other words - don't try to be cute, my child...

  • ExLoony||

    That paper which you keep quoting merely points out that we are currently in an unusually low sunspot level. Which is well known. It is part of the pattern that the sun's output has very slightly declined since 1970.

    Which takes the sun out of discussion as a cause of the warming since 1970, which has been the most rapid on record. So this reference supports your position how?

  • thumb's up||

    Ol' Mex, is man-made even an official issue anymore?

    As long as there's warming... we gotta do something™...right?
    reply to this

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: thumb's up,

    I believe you're right. For the marxoid ideologues (the ones that dress up as "environmentalists"), it would not matter if global warming was man-made or not. ANY crisis will serve their purposes, as Aesop said once in the fable of the Wolf and the Lamb:

    WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me." "Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born." Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture." "No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass." Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well." "No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me." Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supper-less, even though you refute every one of my imputations."

    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

  • Attorney||

    +1

  • Old Mexican||

    And it would be a good idea for builders and insurance companies to keep the projected rise in sea levels in mind.

    Sure, especially with such precise estimates as "projected that global sea levels could rise by 1 meter (39 inches) by 2100, plus or minus half a meter (20 inches)."

  • anonymous||

    If you're insuring something against circumstances in 2100, you've got a lot of uncertainty to deal with already.

  • anonymous||

    How exactly useful are the models for predicting how much ice loss will result in sea water gained? That is, how much of the extra water is going to go into other bodies of water, or clouds and water vapor, or be physically stored within living beings, or be chemically converted into other substances?

  • Chad||

    The oceans contain nearly all the liquid water, and will contain nearly all of it after the ice melts. The amount held by living beings is trivial, and and I don't think you even WANT to argue that a lot of it would wind up in the atmosphere (which would worsen the warming!). Fortunately, the latter can't happen - the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature.

  • ||

    the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by the temperature.

    I think Death Valley in August would disagree with you

  • Chad||

    Globally, dumbass.

    Water vapor takes a few days to equilibrate with the oceans, which allows pockets of air to deviate from the global equilibrium.

  • ||

    The oceans contain nearly all the liquid water, and will contain nearly all of it after the ice melts.

    Sounds like earth maintaining the status quo to me.

  • In Time Of War||

    Oh, and we need to watch out for Viking invasions. With the decrease in pack-ice we should expect more Scandinavian raiding parties.

    Vikings vs. Velociraptors, that should be interesting.

  • ||

    *stocking up on popcorn and beer. need to buy really comfy spectating chair*

  • VikingMoose||

    nah - kicked the krap out of 'em.

  • jayburd||

    After seeing who they picked for a Nobel, I ain't worried about Vikings.

  • thumb's up||

    Ol' Mex, is man-made even an official issue anymore?

    As long as there's warming... we gotta do something™...right?

  • Paul||

    What about Gore’s Copenhagen prediction of an ice-free Arctic Ocean by 2014? The researcher whose work Gore said he was citing, Wieslav Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, repudiated Gore’s assertion the next day.

    I'm telling you, all snark aside, Al Gore set the notion of Global Warming back at least ten years.

    It's like having a full-retard idiot child with an overactive imagination taking your side in an argument, making incoherent statements and parading patent falsehoods in front of the media.

    Gore was repudiated on Kilimanjaro, Gore's personal 'icon' of global warming.

    The Stupid never stops with this guy.

  • Chad||

    Ahh, now if only:

    1: The rate of ice sublimation was not dependant on temperature

    and

    2: The drought in Africa had nothing to do with AGW

    you might have a point.

    You are right, though. The ice on Kilimanjaro is not melting. It is simply sublimating faster than new snowfalls refresh it. And the difference is...?

  • Paul||

    Reading is hard for you?

    But most scientists who study Kilimanjaro's glaciers have long been uneasy with the volcano's poster-child status.

    Yes, ice cover has shrunk by 90 percent, they say.

    But no, the buildup of greenhouse gases from cars, power plants and factories is not to blame.


    "Kilimanjaro is a grossly overused mis-example of the effects of climate change," said University of Washington climate scientist Philip Mote, co-author of an article in the July/August issue of American Scientist magazine.

    Mote is concerned that critics will try to use the article to debunk broader climate-change trends.

    Repeat concerns about idiot children taking your side.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    And the difference is...?

    And the relevance is . . . ?

    Who cares?

    Ahh, now if only:

    2: The drought in Africa had nothing to do with AGW

    It has nothing to do with AGW. There COULD be GW, but AGW is a fraudulent hypothesis (as has been proven by the fraudulent CRU and their fraudulent, made-up "historical" data.)

  • ExLoony||

    The CRU do not appear to have been fraudulent. Clumsy perhaps, but all the explanations make sense.

    Yeah, the changes at Kilimanjaro go back a hundred years. There are human effects on climate before that. The oldest one may have been the deforestation of large parts of Australia 40,000 years ago, and certainly deforestation of North Africa and all around the Mediterranean beginning about 2500 years ago. But Kilimanjaro represents a marker of changes perhaps not directly linked to the current greenhouse gasses.

    One of the things which this GW investigation has made plenty clear is that climate does change. In the past that has caused peoples to migrate (read up on the Avars) and it produces the same forces today. If you take a fertile place and make it a desert, its people need to move somewhere else. If that water now makes some desert fertile, they may want to move there. This is not going to work out well given the recent invention of national borders... well it never did work out well even before that.

    Still the current GW looks set to make the historical fluctuations seem like just small change.

  • Chad||

    You make an excellent point. Any climate changes in the last few thousand years could well be anthropogenic. Particularly, wide-scale deforestation and planting of rice fields could have, and probably did, begin influencing the climate.

    Kilimanjaro glaciers melting for the first time since the last ice age is clearly a sign. Yes, it may be in part due to a "natural" dry spell (many of which they have survived before), but we are certainly adding on top of it.

  • ||

    The drought in Africa had nothing to do with AGW

    Ah, i forgot about how the Saharah started forming during the industrial era. I should've known it was AGW and not the arrangement of the continents in the world ocean that makes much of Africa dry.

  • ||

    It's the selectivity that bugs the hell out of me. Drought in Africa today, but yesterday it was hurricanes in the gulf of mexico which have been very calm the last few years. Crying wolf is making the regular Joe's like me very suspect.

  • Name is required.||

    The Stupid is aided and abetted by the Ego of this guy.

  • ||

    Obviously you forgot the math: 15 inches, there are 12 inches in a foot, so 15/12= 20 feet. Clearly.

  • Tman||

    I still don't understand why everyone treats the flooding of coastal areas as some sort of unprecedented global disaster. The ocean has been flooding coastal areas for as long as there has been oceans. The tsunamis from 2004 uncovered remnants of temples that were once part of the coast but had since been underwater (and sand). Egypt has countless examples of former entire coastal cities that used to be above water.

    Why is this so "unprecedented"?

  • Old Mexican||

    DENIER!

  • ||

    For one thing, there are a lot more people living on the planet now than there used to be. Altering existing settlement patterns in response to rising sea levels will entail enormous economic loss (although admittedly, most of the cost will not be borne by Americans).

  • Tman||

    Just because there are more people living on the planet than there used to be doesn't change the fact that the coastlines have always been flooding and swallowing up cities with them, and it's an entirely natural process.

    Every seaside culture has figured out what to do in this situation, FUCKING MOVE.

    None of this makes the flooding of coastal areas "unprecedented" nor something that I should care about. If you live near the beach and your ancestors used to live where the ocean is now, I think you already know what's going to happen regardless of global warming.

  • ||

    Humans have already spent huge amounts of resources moving away from advancing sea levels over the past 10,000 years. The difference between then and now is that our ability to rebuild and resettlement has increased immeasurably.

    You do not have to dig foundations by hand not....you use an excavator.

    Plus there is the fact that most of the rebuilding will be happening over a 100 year period....a vast expanse of time in which much of that rebuilding and redevelopment will be happening anyway as old buildings are worn out and new buildings are made to replace them.

    Don;t belive me?

    Watch this demonstration of humans adopting to sea level change from 1775 to 2009 using technology far inferior to what we have now.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.w.....mation.gif

  • ||

    +100. Very well said. We have the technology to adapt now. But all the warmist can do is whine and cry. Let them go extinct, the rest of us will be fine.

  • JoshInHB||

    The warmists don't care anymore about the environment that the commies cared about the working class.

    God help the environment of any country that the warmists get control of.

  • ExLoony||

    There are many reasons why coastal locations rise or fall. Alexandria, for example, is both on silt and in an earthquake zone. It appears it was subject to major flooding and abandoned after which the silt sinking took it permanently under. Venice is doing the same thing. Changes have to be examined case by case. Measurements of ocean level are relative to rock formations believed to be quite stable.

    Some of the more spectacular ocean level problems are not just the ocean. For example, seamounts both rise and fall. Coral atolls are actually caused by seamounts sinking slowly while coral crowns grow layer on layer above. The Bermuda formation has coral as much as a km thick, and Much of Florida is a reef which has built up over eons of intermittent flooding (alternating with ice ages). That is why it is so close to sea level and has such a sponge of caves and underground aquifers.

  • Tman||

    So, what you're saying is the change in coastal erosion of land is due to factors besides simply rising ocean levels?

    Not to say rising ocean levels won't have a generalized effect, but clearly arguments from people like Gore who scare people in to thinking that Florida will be under water because of AGW are a bit too, um, dramatic?

  • ExLoony||

    Coastal erosion, sinking silt, new silt from runoff, yeah the coastlines are constantly changing. Most of it nothing to do with the current 3mm rise of the oceans per year.

    The point of the 3mm rise is it is an inexorable background on top of which other effects add. If you are in Bangladesh or in the Mississippi delta your immediate woes probably have more to do with deforestation, agriculture, and river regulation in the drainage system behind you. In your grandkids time the ocean rise will be dominant. If you are in Vanuatu or Florida coast then you have no real issues today but sea level rise means your property is a 99 year lease, not an outright ownership.

    Which effects you worry about will depend on where you live.

  • Tman||

    You contradict yourself.

    Coastal erosion, sinking silt, new silt from runoff, yeah the coastlines are constantly changing. Most of it nothing to do with the current 3mm rise of the oceans per year.

    This was my point. Whether the oceans rise or not, coastal erosion is a constant part of the earths geography.

    In your grandkids time the ocean rise will be dominant.

    So right now it isn't dominant, but in my grandkids time it will be?

    Does not compute.

  • ExLoony||

    You are right, in the sense that the day to day worries for them in 2100 will not be the amount they lose that year.

    Still, there will have been an accumulated loss between now and then which in some parts of the world will be significant, a noticable reduction in what we leave them.

  • jayburd||

    The key to mitigation of coastal flooding is to cut them a fricking check NOW!

  • ed||

    Time is the enemy of dictators. They have to strike quick, lest the rubes and hayseeds catch on to their schtick. This fortuitous time lapse, incidentally, is what all the lefties are decrying in this moment of breathless power-grabs. They moan about the tyranny of "checks and balances." The "democrats," it seems, fear actual, slow, deliberative democracy.

  • Al Gore||

    I bought a beachfront home, so I know I've been lying through my teeth about global warming raising sea levels.

    But it's still true. ManBearPig told me.

  • ||

    ManBearPig did Tipper also.

  • Bill Clinton||

    I saw the videotape, but it was burned when we were shredding files before Dubya took over. HOT video.

  • ||

    I don;t know guys...i mean i only have 4 generations to get out of 12 inches of water....if nothing is done i think i might drown.

  • ||

    Can we get back to building houses on stilts if you're settling within 10ft elevation of a nearby body of water? "12in? Pfft, i still got another 3ft on my house stilts."

    As for hurricane/tornado alley, how about y'all just live underground. Keep a nice garden on top of your bunker. Or just keep rebuilding, what ever. Just a thought.

  • ||

    Sorry wylie, we can't do those things, because we are helpless you know? How can we count on the government to save us if we actually pretend like we can help ourselves?

  • ||

    I forgot, my bad.

    Just a pet peeve of mine that we build practically the same sort of house everywhere, regardless of local climate differences.

  • ||

    yeah, I know, in tornado alley areas, I know I lived there, we tend to build all houses square, and out of wood. You know, the kind of structure that is assured to assume maximum wind damage? But, I am not suggesting that we actually do things on our own that could improve things, that is up to our federal government because we don't really know what is good for us...

  • ||

    Now i'm really curious how much better a round house would fare. What a simple modification. Just change the geometry. Wooo!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    yeah, I know, in tornado alley areas, I know I lived there, we tend to build all houses square, and out of wood. You know, the kind of structure that is assured to assume maximum wind damage? But, I am not suggesting that we actually do things on our own that could improve things, that is up to our federal government because we don't really know what is good for us...


    It is a habit.

    In the past, it was much cheaper to rebuild a wooden house than to build a much more durable structure.

  • Al Gore||

    And don't forget... the 2004 tsunamis were caused by global warming.

    Would I lie to you?

  • ||

    Well, and you know, the center of the earth is actually hotter than the sun, and um, the earths crust is extremely hot too! And I believe you Al, after all, you got a Nobel prize, yes? I just can't figure out why we haven't taken advantage of all that potential geothermal energy available from our earths super hot crust. I guess I am just not as smart as you Al.

  • Chony||

    HERETIC!!! BURN HIM!!!

  • ||

    Which part of the sun are we talking about.

    Another pet peeve: comparing anything to temp of the sun without mentioning which part. The temperatures vary wildly depending on what layer you measure.

  • ||

    Ask Al Gore, he is the one that said it:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n.....n-degrees.

    You should debate Gore on this point wylie, I am sure he will be willing to elaborate... oh, that's right, he refuses to debate anyone...

  • ||

    We need the Cheerios Bee or Tony the Tiger, to counter when Gore is "totally cereals."

  • Mr. ?||

    Which part of the sun are we talking about

    The part that's supposedly cooler than any part of Earth?

  • ExLoony||

    Probably the part that we see (nooooo .. don't look at it!) which also happens to be the coolest part, around 6500K. The atmosphere above that (corona) which we only see in an eclipse is whipped by magnetic fields do a mega-K or more, while going deeper gets hotter too.

    But, for all normal purposes the surface is the only part we see, so it is quite reasonable for it's temperature to be the default.

  • ||

    Would I lie to you, just to get into your pants?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Interesting, since Tipper and Al were in on the infamous PMRC record-labeling fiasco back in the 80s...

    http://www.joesapt.net/superlink/shrg99-529/toc.html

  • ||

    I hate you Al Gore. And you're fat, and ugly. And I did Tipper back in 85.

  • Bill Clinton||

    Wow! I never did Tipper... but then, in those days I was more into pudgy white chicks from the steno pool...

  • ||

    Damn Willy, I thought Tipper was a pudgy white chick! I was drunk damnit!

  • ExLoony||

    Actually he is remarkably slim and trim these days.

  • Chad||

    *sigh* I know... isn't he dreeeaamy?

  • ||

    Climate has always changed, and many times dramatically. To think that this will not continue by natural processes is foolishness. What is the perfect climate? For whom, in what location on this planet, is the perfect climate? The perfect temperature? The perfect sea level?

    What can we do? Well, we could listen to the socialist whiners with their always a victim complex and rely on slimy corrupt politicians to save us with ridiculous schemes that will do nothing but line their pockets. Or, like our ancestors we could get tough and decide to survive whatever gets thrown our way. If we could get rid of the helpless victim mentality and start to develop technologies now that may allow us to survive as a species we may have a chance. If we instead decide to go back to the stone age like the greenie religious zealots want, then we are doomed, it is just a matter of time. I had such hope for us a a species back in 69 when we landed a man on the moon. But now, I think that we are inevitably going to have to divide into 2 camps. Those of us who are for human progress through technology, and those who would rather go into extinction than to take a chance on hurting some rare species of fish. To me, humans are more important that fish and I'd like to say a big fuck you to those who don't. I'm so sick to death of their incessant whining. As far as I am concerned the neanderthal like socialist can go extinct and the rest of us can get tough and forge ahead.

  • Old Mexican||

    DENIER!

  • ||

    Worse than that! I am a climate change INFIDEL!

  • ||

    FATWA!

  • Jeffersonian||

    Algorah akhbar!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Score!!!!

    ROTFL!

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Algorelujah!!

  • ||

    What is the perfect climate?

    I'd like to vote for the world jungle we had during the carboniferous. Everyone start shoving your continent towards a central spot. (Of course, it will take a decade or two for everyone to agree what central point to move the continents to.)

    Hell, screw that. If we're gonna move all the continents, lets do something cool. Like make a few belts of land, 1 at the equator, and like 2 north and south of that belt. Then we'll have a few climates to choose from. And will look cool from space. It might create crazy-powerful storms along the boundaries (thinking of Jupiter) so might not work.

  • ExLoony||

    Actually our ancestors mostly picked up sticks and went to beat the crap out of neighbors in good climates when their own climate got bad. Or failed to beat the crap, and died in famines instead (well, our actual ancestors survived but the relatives died off a lot). In theory this might not be happening any more but you don't have to look far through today's news to see that yep, still happening.

  • TP||

    I was soooo looking forward to having beachfront property in 2000 years.

  • ¢||

    I've got dry balls, and I'm running out of time!

  • ||

    *as cent's balls poof to dust*

  • The Man||

    "In contrast, a recent article in Energy & Environment (a journal, it is fair to say, that is editorially skeptical of catastrophic global warming projections) suggests that the “best guess” for sea level rise over the next century is 23 centimeters (about 9 inches)."

    It's interesting, Ron, that the only journal whose editorial position you have chosen to identify (and in an obliquely negative manner at that) should be the non-catastrophic one. Surely Nature and Science have expressed some editorial opinion that is germane to this discussion. I think that there *is* evidence of warming but (as your article shows) by how much and with what consequences there is no "consensus." So skepticism is warranted. And of course, skepticism in the pursuit of truth should be no vice ...

  • ||

    Hi all. I am the spokesman for the newly founded AGW INFIDEL ALLIANCE. We have sworn allegiance in a JIHAD against global cooling! We are freezing our asses off damnit! We have identified the cause of this global cooling. All of the bullshit coming out of Washington DC, The UN and Al Gore(the great Satan!)s mouth is trapping in all of the heat in our earths super hot core and crust! We need to stop the bullshit and unclog this natural source of warming! JIHAD! JIHAD!

  • ||

    Iceberg Humping Polar Bear!

  • Old Mexican||

    For the marxoid ideologues (the ones that dress up as "environmentalists"), it would not matter if global warming was man-made or not. ANY crisis will serve their purposes, as Aesop said once in the fable of the Wolf and the Lamb:

    WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me." "Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born." Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture." "No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass." Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well." "No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me." Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supper-less, even though you refute every one of my imputations."

    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

  • ExLoony||

    The parable makes equally good sense pointing out that the folks who want to consume and couldn't give a shit about how their waste is fouling things up will not listen to any contrary evidence, and just go on taking whatever they want.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The parable makes equally good sense pointing out that the folks who want to consume and couldn't give a shit about how their waste is fouling things up will not listen to any contrary evidence, and just go on taking whatever they want.


    Why shouldn't we?

    We have the might, so we have the right.

  • ExLoony||

    Spoken like a true dictator.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    Huh?

    Honestly I don't see that - How did you deduce a parable about one single meal implies too much consuming is bad?

    & not only bad, but goes on further to imply those doing so won't listen?

    Your help is appreciated.

  • ExLoony||

    You imagine the wolf will remain without supper tomorrow, or the day after, or any day? His character is clearly one to allow no reason to interfere with his appetite.

  • The Peermen||

    Time is the enemy of dictators. They have to strike quick, lest the rubes and hayseeds catch on to their schtick. This fortuitous time lapse, incidentally, is what all the lefties are decrying in this moment of breathless power-grabs. They moan about the tyranny of "checks and balances." The "democrats," it seems, fear actual, slow, deliberative democracy.

    The tyrants better get their shit together by the Mexico City summit this coming Summer as the evidence on the ground is not looking good for them.

    The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (what Chad refers to as magic) has gone negative, the North Atlantic Oscillation (a well known reoccurring event measured by empirical minded types whom Chad refers to as sorcerers) has gone negative, Arctic Oscillation (a magical event that had a similar pattern to the current pattern back in the 30/40's) is now entering a negative phase

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/produc.....index.html

    meaning you can render the studies in this article pretty much mute, as ice prediction will have to take these reversals into account. I would expect based on these changes that in the next decade a lowering sea level trend will be evident.

    Bring a snuggly!

  • ||

    PLEASE PEOPLE! Don't go and build on that NEW beachfront property created when the sea level drops.

    God, if we learn anything from this boondoggle, let it be that.

  • Chad||

    Why would ice melt over a hundred year time span be dependant on the current values of trends that operate on much shorter time scales? They all will swing back and forth several times this century, as far as we know.

    In any case, when it comes to short term natural fluctuations, El Nino/La Nina is dominant. Want to make bets concerning average temps for 2010?

  • The Peermen||

    Ah, the warmist latest hopeful monster*. I wouldn't get to carried away with that, the current one wont have the PDO trending in a positive direction as the last one did so the results will likely be discordant.

    * A bit of science humor, so it probably went over your head. I bet Bailey gets that one!

  • Chad||

    Umm, which would make 2010 topping 1998 all the more telling of AGW, wouldn't it?

  • g4m3th3ory||

    lol Chad - so your basic argument is that short term fluctuations might not impact long term trends (a good statement), but at the same time act like temperature trends over the course of a few decades can be indicative of a long term trend.

    Do you see the paradox?

  • ||

    Here's the giveaway: "...melting arctic sea ice...". Fill your glasses with scotch and ice. Mark the level. Wait for the ice to melt. Check the level of the scotch and water. Same level as when it was scotch and ice. If the ice is floating on the sea, then the level won't be raised by the melting of the ice. That does it for the Arctic ice.

    Antarctica? Oh, yes. Vast temperature increases from minus 50 to minus 40. Check the references - and no I won't give a link! - melting temp of water is? 0 Centigrade = 32 F. Minus what? No increase in melting. No, wait, West Antarctica has ... yeah. Sea ice, nearly all of it. See the part about Arctic sea ice. *sigh*

  • ||

    Excellent point. Most people forget/dont-know that there's actually a continent of land under most of Antarctica. Also, the very practical demonstration is very nice.

    I'm sayin, if we're worried about this ice melting, lets go harvest it, and melt it where we want fresh water.

  • The Peermen||

    Through a process that Chad calls magic, sea levels have risen and fallen over the eons.

    Imagine if you will that the average line of zero centigrade moves in a expanded fashion more North, more South, and further up in latitude, you would have a steepen degree of water flowing from rivers and basins into the oceans.

    Fortunately, we are on a downward trend at this time that I elaborated on in an earlier post and if previous trends are taken into consideration this one will last about three decades.

    Oceans have risen in the past and that is just my point, there is nothing magical about it, climate is in a constant state of flux due to large scale patterns of oscillations that were established when the earth cooled from a molten mass and the gravity well firmed into it's current near constant.

    I know that sounds like a lot of wizardry to Chad, and empirical methodology where you observe and record what you do not understand in order to better grasp it seems like magic to him, but I still believe that is the best means to obtain scientific understanding versus the more modern method of whatever fearmongery gives the public sector the greatest amount of control over people's lives defines the veracity of that scientific field.

  • The Peermen||

    further up in latitude

    Altitude, I mean, where the mountains get toasty (funny though, how Tanzania actually got colder).

  • Chad||

    The Peermen|12.29.09 @ 11:24PM|#
    Through a process that Chad calls magic, sea levels have risen and fallen over the eons.

    No, it has risen and fallen for *reasons*. If you have any other plausible *reason* that explains the observations other than AGW, please, let us know.

  • The Peermen||

    No, it has risen and fallen for *reasons*. If you have any other plausible *reason* that explains the observations other than AGW, please, let us know.

    For some astounding reason, on a very fundamental level, you do not get empiricism.

    As I stated just after that quote you take from me:

    Oceans have risen in the past and that is just my point, there is nothing magical about it, climate is in a constant state of flux due to large scale patterns of oscillations that were established when the earth cooled from a molten mass and the gravity well firmed into it's current near constant.

    Here is a further elaboration on how one of those naturally occurring, not needing the assistance of man in the slightest to obtain current conditions, events transpired:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

    The Arctic Oscillation refers to opposing atmospheric pressure patterns in northern middle and high latitudes.

    The oscillation exhibits a “negative phase” with relatively high pressure over the polar region and low pressure at midlatitudes (about 45 degrees North), and a “positive phase” in which the pattern is reversed. In the positive phase, higher pressure at midlatitudes drives ocean storms farther north, and changes in the circulation pattern bring wetter weather to Alaska, Scotland and Scandinavia, as well as drier conditions to the western United States and the Mediterranean. In the positive phase, frigid winter air does not extend as far into the middle of North America as it would during the negative phase of the oscillation. This keeps much of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains warmer than normal, but leaves Greenland and Newfoundland colder than usual. Weather patterns in the negative phase are in general “opposite” to those of the positive phase, as illustrated below.

    Over most of the past century, the Arctic Oscillation alternated between its positive and negative phases. Starting in the 1970s, however, the oscillation has tended to stay in the positive phase, causing lower than normal arctic air pressure and higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia.

    When these cycles are weighed against one another with overlapping troughs or patterns going in opposite directions, you can do a pretty good job of predicting weather extremes.

    Since it was only a few weeks ago on this very blog you learned the difference between convection and radiant heat transfer, you are not likely to be up to a reasonable understanding of these things, but just as a matter of pride, try to keep up and familiarize yourself with these events. Schmidt, Hanson and Gore have kept you in the dark for far too long.

  • The Peermen||

    When these cycles are weighed against one another with overlapping troughs or patterns going in opposite directions, you can do a pretty good job of predicting weather extremes.

    Before you go barking 'weather is not climate', I'm describing the manifestation of weather from climatic conditions.

  • Chad||

    Why are you even concerned with the Arctic Oscillation in the first place? It has little net impact on global temperatures, as it involves cooling in some places and warming in others.

    Weighing overlapping cycles while ignoring an underlying trend will NOT do a good job of predicting anything over the long term.

    What part of "My empirical observations result from real physical phenomenon which can also be observed and measured, not magic or voodoo" reasoning is inconsistent with empiricism?

    Please, if you have another explanation for the observations, please list your empirical observations that support it.

  • The Peermen||

    Why are you even concerned with the Arctic Oscillation in the first place? It has little net impact on global temperatures, as it involves cooling in some places and warming in others.

    You make an assertion that goes counter to the research that I cite at length without any proof backing you and ignoring what the cited text clearly states. (A Hint: Over most of the past century, the Arctic Oscillation alternated between its positive and negative phases. Starting in the 1970s, however, the oscillation has tended to stay in the positive phase, causing lower than normal arctic air pressure and higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia. That has been the pattern of every thread we have engaged in thus far. Like I said previously, you are sketchy.

  • ||

    The thing Gore needs to drop most is his politically expedient opposition to nuclear. He's only doing it to cater to the biases of his audience, and it's street value is declining.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    And stop being such a hypocrite. Gore burns shitloads of fossil fuels jetting and limo-ing to and fro, and owns at least two huge-ass homes. His carbon footprint isn't absolved by buying carbon credits from his own company, no matter how much the AGW rubes buy his bullshit.

  • Chad||

    And then he pays to have his messes cleaned up. What's wrong with that?

    Nothing, other than how it embarrasses people like you, who are too cheap to do so.

  • Flyover Country||

    You don't even try to make sense anymore, do you?

    You make less sense than anonymity (sp?) bot.

  • Flyover Country||

    You don't even try to make sense anymore, do you?

    You make less sense than anonymity (sp?) bot.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Cheap shot from a supposed compassionate liberal. Not at all surprising.

    Gore would do better if he didn't create a mess to clean up in the first place, IF he were truly as concerned about global warming as he claims.

    But you, Chad, will defend his ilk because they preach The Holy Word. He can lie his ass off about the disappearance of the entire northern ice cap, and you'll still believe his every utterance, without question, because it fits your goals as well.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    BTW, Chad... do you clean up your own messes? How pristine is your carbon footprint?

    Not that it matters... mankind isn't destroying the climate. But you believe otherwise, thus your fervent zeal and fealty towards fools like Gore.

  • Chad||

    I purchase 100% green energy from my local provider (most Americans can, for a trivial fee), offset any personal flights I make and offset my gasoline consumption twice over (just in case). Being green costs me maybe $300 a year. Yep...that's surely an economic apocalypse.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    But you still live and breathe, and you DO pollute to some extent. If you really cared, you'd shoot yourself so as to not leave any footprint at all.

  • Chad||

    I don't eat oil or coal, so my breathing is carbon neutral.

    Did you miss your carbon cycle lesson in 3rd grade?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Keep talking down to me, Chad. It proves the liberal = elitist attitude you people keep saying isn't prevalent.

  • Chad||

    I'll quit talking down to you when you pass elementary school science.

  • Chad||

    Actually, I see no difference between making a mess and cleaning it up immediately (hell, you can clean these messes up *beforehand*) and not making one in the first place.

    What do you think the difference is?

  • jayburd||

    Do better? He's at 200 mil and climbing! How can he do any better?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chad,

    And then he [Al Gore] pays to have his messes cleaned up. What's wrong with that?

    That's a bold statement - how is he supposed to do that? Because if you mean through his personal racket (the Cap and Rape scheme), he is making us pay for HIS rapacity.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    +1!

  • The Man||

    Hazel, Al Gore *will* drop his politically expedient opposition to nuclear the instant it becomes politically expedient to do so. And, T.L.Guy, Gore is a politician he will stop "being such a hypocrite" when he stops breathing.

    The issues here aren't really about science, honesty or consistency, they're about power and as long as there exist rubes, like the guy who posts here too often, willing to follow people like Gore over the cliff, there will be people like Gore ready to lead them to it (but people like Gore never go over themselves *sigh*).

  • ||

    No, no, he'll drop his opposition to nuclear as soon as his investments in nuclear power companies, purchased through fronts of course, make it economically expedient to do so.

  • Old Mexican||

    From a few posts up:

    Re: ExLoony,

    Are you referring to the Denmark 1991 paper which was retracted a few years later [and purported to show a correlation between temperatures and sunspot activity ...]?

    I am a bit more up to date than what you are willing to give me credit.

    http://www.tgdaily.com/general.....ate-change

    Or in other words - don't try to be cute, my child...

  • ExLoony||

    Yes, I know about sunspots. You might try brushing up on your reading comprehension and deductive skills, instead of speculating whether I am cute or young.

    What he is saying is that we are in a sunspot minimum, actually a fairly deep one. And this means the sun is a bit cooler. Indeed it has been on a cooling trend (slight) since the early 1970s. This is what has generally been agreed since the 91 Denmark paper got corrected.

    The point being, this should actually cause the opposite of GW, and yet in those 30 odd years the GW accelerated. Which should make you wonder what will happen if instead of a continuing minimum we simply get an upswing, as is more common. So then we get the sun making it worse, kicking in on top of the greenhouse gasses.

  • The Peermen||

    What he is saying is that we are in a sunspot minimum, actually a fairly deep one. And this means the sun is a bit cooler. Indeed it has been on a cooling trend (slight) since the early 1970s.

    I haven't seen one single AGW claim stand up to even modest scrutiny. This is recovered from about five minutes of looking into your claim.

    Take a look:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....more-13611

    The 20 most sunspotless years occurred as follows with the number of spotless days listed:

    1911 -- 211
    1912 -- 254
    1913 -- 311
    1914 -- 153
    1922 -- 134
    1923 -- 200
    1924 -- 116
    1932 -- 108
    1933 -- 240
    1934 -- 154
    1944 -- 159
    1953 -- 131
    1954 -- 241
    1964 -- 112
    1976 -- 105
    1986 -- 128
    1996 -- 165
    2007 -- 163
    2008 -- 268
    2009 -- 262+

    One event occurs in 1970's, one event occurs in the 1960's and one event occurs in the 1990's. Three events occur in recent years.

    Given the lowest number of days on the list occurs in 1976 at 105 that means 1970-1975 must have been days with less than 105, 1977-1985 less than 105 sunspot free days, 1987-1995 less than 105 days, 1997-2006 less than 105 days.

    From that you want to interpolate a goddamned thirty year spotless day trend? You realize from just looking at these numbers if I went through the probability calculation of this trend it is going to turn up a negative correlation, right? You at least have that much a grasp of science and statistical analysis, right?

    I spent another twenty minutes checking that list against this list of days with sunspots:

    ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SO.....ERS/YEARLY

    The correlation is high enough to back the article's argument.

    I do see a pattern here, a pattern of warmist being full of shit.

  • ExLoony||

    No, I did not say 30 year spotless, I said the solar energy input to the earth has slightly declined over the past 30 years. On the whole your posts are good but in this case you have wasted an essay upon a strawman.

    See a thorough and up-to-date review:
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects.....725-06.pdf

  • The Peermen||

    Thanks, and an apology from me as well. I was having so much fun being a prick to the prick Chad that I lost sight of the fact not everyone in the other camp is like him, nor as sketchy with the facts as he has on numerous times shown.

    Sunspot activity has been the traditional means of measuring peak and declining activity from the sun, and from it we can see the 'conveyor belt' in action. However, I'll have to give your suggestion a read (as the two factors (heat/activity) are co-related but not necessarily the same) when I get off my current working assignment later this evening.

  • ExLoony||

    The article has a lot to say about validating various models of sunspot activity (which have been directly observed since the 1600's, and can be estimated from C-14 levels in tree rings before that) to try to calibrate a model for how sunspots should best be used to estimate solar radiation.

    So, you might enjoy the read. There are a few errata corrections here:
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects...../data.html
    but they do not seem to change the results reported in the publication.

  • The Peermen||

    Incidentally, the science nerd side of me was very excited to see the appearance of cycle 24, and how it overlapped with cycle 23 phasing out. The policy wonk inside me wasn't entirely thrilled with how that likely meant the shift to lower temperatures in the climate would not be a clean enough break initially to shut up the policy makers so we could better spend the next twenty years improving our technology in a non politically directed way and quietly bribe the Chinese and Indians to clean up their factories. I'm actually more concerned with the localized effects of soot than CO2. You still have the possibility of quickly melting Himalayas and a rise in the delta basin even if the over all affect to the climate turned out to be negligible given the SO2 accumulation in that region. Some Indian scientists say that Himalayan melting has been exaggerated, but I'm not entirely convinced of their case.

  • The Peermen||

    Airborne sulfates, of course, have a cooling effect (ie. volcanoes), but once particulate intermixes with snow, the heat absorption of that snow increase ;)

  • ExLoony||

    What will drive the Chinese and Indians to clean up will be domestic politics. A lot of Chinese coal comes from deep mines, where people die, a risk for political unrest, and anyway willing young workers will migrate to the cities instead. Coal fired energy plants are not good long term policy since fuel will increasingly need to be imported. China is putting a lot of effort into wind and solar and it seems likely they have no aversion to nuclear too. India could use a lot of solar power and is also one of the places doing research on thorium reactors. Since they must import any fossil fuels, their incentives to switch to renewables are already clear.

    The main barriers to renewables are the capital investment and the fluctuation in generation. The fuel itself is free. If storage systems and intelligent use timing improve, the economics naturally take over.

    I doubt either India or China will really budge due to the political efforts from GW. The only real way to shift them from the outside is by proactively developing the technology which can be sold to them.

  • Chad||

    When have I been "sketchy with the facts"?

    I would like to know, seriously.

  • jayburd||

    Where are those original temp records again?

  • ||

    Why, oh why, do people argue with a pathetically obvious sockpuppet like Choad?

    He's pushing your buttons. Perfectly. Unfortunately it/he/she lacks even a shred of humor, so this isn't even entertaining sockpuppetry like a classic such as Neil.

  • The Peermen||

    Well, this does sound like sock puppetry --

    And then he pays to have his messes cleaned up. What's wrong with that?

    Nothing, other than how it embarrasses people like you, who are too cheap to do so.

    But, usually, he comes across as an all too earnest guy who read too many Al Gore books, got sucked into the cult futurist technocrat mind set, and now he is trying to pass himself off as an educated scientist (not successfully, look at how he conflate empiricism with magic).

    Oh, and I'm a sock puppet too so I can't complain much about that!

  • The Peermen||

    And more much-a-do about nothing.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Somehow, I just can't get too excited about the latest claims coming from the AGW camp.

  • The Peermen||

    What is up with that squirrel, no auto-linky ?!?

    I'm going to try a tiny fix -

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.html

  • The Peermen||

    oh, squirrel, no acorns for you!

  • JohnF||

    Let's focus on the big picture: Is the proposed cure (draconian economic restrictions and massive taxes on energy consumption for, say, 100,000 years till the interglacial ends) more costly to humanity than merely retreating from the water's edge and enjoying the warmer weather?

  • ExLoony||

    Climate is not simply sunning yourself on wherever the beach happens to be. GW means changing the pattern of the globe. Places that have been fertile become infertile. Hundreds of millions of people suddenly want to move to somewhere better (yes, some other places may become fertile: generally those were sparsely populated and the inhabitants will jealously guard their windfall rather than letting the neighbors in).

    Not all changes are ridiculously expensive. Wind power is approaching the cost of conventional installations. Thorium reactors (the flouride salt variety) can produce cheap power with much less nasty waste and no proliferation issues. Solar power will probably become cost effective soon, faster if we put serious money into it. Storage systems with batteries or fuel cells are getting much better on durability and compactness. It is all simply economic activity which makes our life better.

    Quite competitive with sunning on the beach, really.

  • eric||

    sounds really good.

  • sara||

    I like the article.

  • Poop Slinger||

    rising sea levels & coastal residents = guard in 1st austin powers movie & steamroller

  • ||

    All any of this "proves" is that the planet has continued it's long term gradual warming that has been happening since the "little ice age". Gore the IPPC and most of the global warming rent seekers have been screwing with data, shutting out debate and trying to sell this load of dung for a very long time. With the media as their willing side kicks.

  • Sid the Science guy||

    Journal Entry:

    Sept. 21 2009
    Today, Teacher Susie wanted us to design and implement an experiment to prove that global warming is caused by mankind, specifically greedy capitalist.
    I said, 'oh boy!', and literally jumped up at the chance to make my contribution to science. My friend, Joe, however, raised his hand and asked, 'don't you mean, prove whether or not man made global warming has occurred?'.

    Teacher Susie gave Joe a stern look, and told him, 'That is not how science is done. Consensus!' She then sent him to a corner so he could think about the bad things he was doing to the environment.

    Sept 22 2009
    I set up my experiment.

    1. Turned off the central air unit of our house, and normalized the air in my room to the outside condition of a temperature of 27C.

    2. I put a thermometer on the North facing wall of my room. My room was going to represent the Earth for the purposes of Science!

    3. I recorded the temperature, and left my room for ten minutes. 27C

    4. Holding my breath, I reentered my room, and recorded the temperature. 27C

    5. I stood in the middle of my room, representing the affect of mankind, I breathed out CO2 with ten large breaths. Temperature still 27C.

    6. CO2 not being the only green house gas mankind defiles the earth with, I stood in the center of the room and let out a long, windy fart. Still 27C.

    7. To represent the contribution of air molecules to the climate, I brought in a glass of water, and put it on a stool in the middle of the room. Still 27C.

    Sept 25 2009

    After reading my paper on the experiment, Teacher Susie gave me an 'F'. By not proving man's contribution to global warming, she said, I have no future as a scientist, and she sent me to the corner beside Joe.

    Stupid Chad brought in an aquarium with warm water, melting ice cubes, a drowned toy polar bear at the bottom, and a miniature of the Exon Valdez floating above the polar bear with many men in business suits on the deck pointing to the poor bear while laughing. Teacher Susie said he will make an excellent scientist one day.

    Stupid teacher's pet Chad!

  • Chad||

    I think you need to learn the difference between conduction, convection, and radiation.

    Oh wait, according to Peerman, I am not supposed to know this either.

  • ||

    when you are gambling on human life on Earth

    Wheeee!

  • ||

    I think this global warming thing is just the seals telling the polar bears that payback is a bitch.

  • ||

    1 click = 1 tree is a wonderful initiative which I came across which takes on the issues on hand. It is run by an agency in Asia which is involving people in their drive to plant trees. I worked with the wonderful agency in Asia and thats how the email came to me.

    People can choose their tree and the agency actually plants it for them and then sends them a picture of their tree sampling along with the GPS location.

    I loved my little "Neem" tree. They are planting thousands of trees - so go ahead and make an effort of clicking on the link below and get involved.

    http://141sercon.com/1click1tree/index.html

    To the team at 141SERCON - keep it up.

  • ||

    Wow, thats gonna be sad to lose the FLorida Keys! I love the Keys!

    Jess
    www.invisibility-tools.pl.tc

  • ||

    Why are the folks at AccuWeather.com saying that the globe is cooling?

  • kilroy||

    good news,Web Frog Related Posts Designer Earrings | Handcrafted, Artisan Jewelry Top Quality.

  • battery||

    Un iversity of Copenhagen gla ciologist Dorthe Dahl Jensen, speaking at the session in which the report was released

  • wffwe||

    People can choose their tree and the agency actually plants it for them and then sends them a picture of their tree sampling along with the GPS location.

    I loved my little "Neem" tree. They are planting thousands replica omega of trees - so go ahead and make an effort of clicking on the link below and get involved.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...
    reply to this

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement