Barack Obama

Obama Wanders Around Alaskan Glaciers Searching for Climate Catastrophe

But research suggests the president may seek in vain.

|

Exit Glacier
NPS

Later today, President Barack Obama will tour the Exit Glacier at Kenai Fjords National Park with TV survivalist Bear Grylls. The president hopes that his made-for-TV moment will help persuade Americans and the rest of the world to endorse his climate change policies.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama addressed an international conference in Alaska at which representatives from many nations with interests in the Arctic region were meeting. In his remarks, President Obama mentioned his worries about how melting Alaskan glaciers are adding to sea level rise:

One new study estimates that Alaska's glaciers alone lose about 75 gigatons—that's 75 billion tons—of ice each year. 

To put that in perspective, one scientist described a gigaton of ice as a block the size of the National Mall in Washington—from Congress all the way to the Lincoln Memorial, four times as tall as the Washington Monument.  Now imagine 75 of those ice blocks.  That's what Alaska's glaciers alone lose each year.  The pace of melting is only getting faster.  It's now twice what it was between 1950 and 2000—twice as fast as it was just a little over a decade ago.  And it's one of the reasons why sea levels rose by about eight inches over the last century, and why they're projected to rise another one to four feet this century.

ExitGlacierReceding
USGS

In January, 2015 Nature published a study that found that average sea level was rising between 1901 and 1990 at a rate of about 1.2 millimeter per year. After 1990, the rate increased to 3 millimeters per year.

In 2010, another Nature study reported that melting mountain glaciers from around the world were contributing about 0.5 millimeter annually to the increase in average sea level. Of that amount, the researchers calculated that Alaskan glaciers were adding 0.12 millimeter per year. The president was citing a newer study that found that runoff from melting Alaskan glaciers is more recently boosting sea level rise by 0.2 millimeter per year.

If this trend were to continue for the rest of the 21st century, how much higher would sea level be expected to rise? At a rate of 1.2 millimeters per year, average sea level would have gone up by 4.2 inches between 1901 and 1990. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Physical Science report estimated sea level rose from 1900 to 2010 at a rate of 1.7 millimeters per year which suggests a 7.4 inch increase over that period.

If Alaska's melting glaciers continued to contribute 0.2 millimeter per year to future sea level rise, that would amount to 0.7 inch by 2100. Overall, at a rate of 3 millimeters per year, sea level would rise by another 10.2 inches by 2100.  If humanity managed to cope with an increase of 8 inches that president cited for the 20th century, it seems likely that much richer people living in 2100 will not be overly inconvenienced with 10 more inches.

On the other hand, climatologist James Hansen and 15 colleagues released an non-peer reviewed scenario in July warning that runaway climate feedbacks could boost average sea level by 5 meters (over 16 feet) in as few as 50 years. Interestingly, Hansen was worried about a 5 meter sea level increase more than 30 years ago.

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.

222 responses to “Obama Wanders Around Alaskan Glaciers Searching for Climate Catastrophe

  1. Why are the rates in metric and the final values in Imperial? It hurts my head.

    1. Doesn’t really matter since it is quite questionable if the average sea level was known to within 2mm at any time, ever.

      1. Or whether the global temp was known to 0.1 C ever

        1. Piling on is under-appreciated.

      2. It is not questionable at all. Average sea level is an extremely difficult thing to calculate and has only recently been anywhere close to accurate with the advent of precision GPS and advanced satellite radars. 3 to 4mm accuracy has only been available since 2001.

        1. 3 to 4mm accuracy

          PRECISION

          1. Actually, it’s neither accuracy nor precision. It’s just range of variation.

            1. …That’s what precision means.

            2. Accurate and precise shooting is getting all your shots in the 10-ring. Accurate but imprecise fire is all over the black. Precise and inaccurate is a small group way far away from the target.

              Accuracy: the center of the distribution
              Precision: the spread of the distribution

                1. *narrows gaze*

              1. Another way to think of it: imprecision gives you random errors, inaccuracy gives you systematic errors.

                1. Also, I may be being a dick here. Sorry.

                  1. Maybe so, but that’s a small price to pay for correct terminology usage.

                  2. Also, I may be being a dick here. Sorry

                    No, no, this is an important topic on a sciency article. Now if we could just get half the science reporters out there to read this thread we’d be getting somewhere… (Bailey not included.)

                  3. No, not at all.

              2. Different definitions are used in engineering applications for accuracy and precision.

                1. Do you mean the trueness thing? I don’t cotton to that.

                2. stating that without explaining that is NOT a major contribution to the thread…
                  Just sayin’…
                  And I’ve got a degree in Engineering… 🙂

                  1. that was for kinnath… piss on this user interface…

                    stating that without explaining that is NOT a major contribution to the thread…
                    Just sayin’…
                    And I’ve got a degree in Engineering… 🙂

              3. Except we’re talking about measurement, not shooting. I understand the analogy and it makes sense for students taking a 101 class. But the precision of an instrument and the range of variation in the measurements are not the same thing. I can have a scale that’s precise to 1g but if I put my finger on it, or don’t account for air pressure, or if I measure the gross but treat it like the tare, and do so inconsistently, then my range of variation will be greater than the precision of the instrument. Moreover, if I measure the same quantity repeatedly and get values in a very narrow band, that doesn’t mean the instrument’s precision is equally narrow. Instruments can be biased in ways that vary with the magnitude of the measurement and other factors as well.

                Furthermore, we are talking here about an aggregate, as in a quantity derived from measurements by computation, and so the exact measure of its precision is impossible to quantify. A rigorous mathematical estimate of the precision would be based upon the instruments’ precisions and the specific computations made. That is quite divorced from the naive concept of “precision = range of variation”.

                1. if I measure the gross but treat it like the tare

                  Meant net, not tare. Net + tare = gross.

                2. I can have a scale that’s precise to 1g but if I put my finger on it, or don’t account for air pressure, or if I measure the gross but treat it like the tare, and do so inconsistently, then my range of variation will be greater than the precision of the instrument.

                  So you’ve introduced a systematic error. That doesn’t have anything to do with the precision of the instrument, or even really the instrument.

                  1. So you’ve introduced a systematic error. That doesn’t have anything to do with the precision of the instrument, or even really the instrument.

                    But it does have to do with my perception of the precision of my measurement.

                    1. Yeah, but that’s just a methodology error. It’s going to affect your measurements, sure, but there’s no defense against measuring things wrong.

                    2. there’s no defense against measuring things wrong

                      And that’s my point. Looking at the range of variation in the final numbers and calling it precision assumes perfect methodology and infinitely precise instruments.

                    3. I don’t think it does, though. Methodological errors are inherently unmodellable because you don’t know about their existence, so you might as well abstract them into a statistical measure.

                    4. If you can’t at least bound your precision with certainty, then your numbers are worthless.

                    5. So the natural sciences’ version of True Score Theory, basically.

                    6. And that’s my point. Looking at the range of variation in the final numbers and calling it precision assumes perfect methodology and infinitely precise instruments

                      If your methodology is perfect and your instruments infinitely precise then your precision is going to be zero. Looking at range of variation and calling it precision only implies that your methodology is perfect.

                    7. If your methodology is perfect and your instruments infinitely precise then your precision is going to be zero. Looking at range of variation and calling it precision only implies that your methodology is perfect.

                      Variation can arise from sources other than instrument imprecision, but I guess you could chalk those sources up to methodological imperfection.

                    8. but I guess you could chalk those sources up to methodological imperfection.

                      yeah, either way most people use “variation of measurements” and “precision” interchangeably. In the GPS world, for example, a very important term is “dilution of precision”. It’s essentially an estimate of what your “variation of measurements” will be given the current satellite locations and your estimated equipment precision.

            3. Actually, it’s neither accuracy nor precision. It’s just range of variationbullshit.

              FIFY

          2. From vague memories of 1st semester chemistry 30+ years ago.

            Precision relates to the scale of the instrument used to make measures relative the the thing you are trying to weigh. So a scale incremented in 2 lb markings used to weigh a 1,600 lb bull is far more precise that a scale incremented in 1 oz markings used to weigh a 16 oz steak.

            Accuracy is about how close to truth the scale is. If a scale is miscalibrated, it doesn’t matter how precise the measurement is.

            1. Right.

              There’s also this “trueness” shit that the ISO invented recently. I had forgotten all about it. I hate it.

              1. “Trueness” refers to the closeness of agreement between the arithmetic mean of a large number of test results and the true or accepted reference value.

                Wherein ISO throws the Scientific Method out the window.

                1. So that whole experiment where we shoot alpha particles at gold foil needs to be thrown out. The results can’t possibly be true.

                  1. So that whole experiment where we shoot alpha particles at gold foil needs to be thrown out. The results can’t possibly be true

                    What does this have to do with anything?

                    1. agreement between . . . . test results and the true or accepted reference value

                      Sound to me like test results aren’t true unless the match the “true” reference. Which means that tests can only be used to confirm what you already believe.

                    2. So are you fer or agin’ using this ISO concept of “trueness”? I’m having trouble understanding you. If the gold foil comment was snark, then I think we’re on the same page that “trueness” is circular reasoning with an ISO seal of approval.

                    3. If the gold foil comment was snark

                      yes it was

              2. I had not seen that before… trueness. Begging the question for scientists.

          1. So this ‘science’ is at the mercy of the sobriety of Irishmen and other port dwellers scattered in random points about the shore.

        2. 3 to 4mm accuracy has only been available since 2001.

          Wasn’t that accuracy available with the Block I constellation back in 1985, though? Of course, back then you needed the secret military codes.

    2. rts: Journals generally use metric and American readers generally use US standard units.

      1. Translation: Humans use regular, reporters use French.

        Thank you Mark Twain.

        1. Humans = American readers?

          1. Sure, that works. Sorry, Canada!

    3. because in Kenya they use metric and in UK they use imperial…and bear grylls is from the UK and and Obama is from…

      oh I better shut up…just listen to my hero:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ

  2. One new study estimates that Alaska’s glaciers alone lose about 75 gigatons — that’s 75 billion tons — of ice each year.

    Glaciers receding? I don’t like the sound of that.

    1. The tide comes in, the tides go out – you can’t explain that…

      1. Fucking magnets . . . . . .

        1. How do they work?

        2. A donut magnet works best for that.

          1. mmmm…. donuts…..

            1. Donuts! Why should I work?

            2. Yes donuts. . . . after the 16oz steak promised earlier!

    2. Exposing more land is going to be framed as horrific, until rich white lefties decide they like that land.

    3. Because it reminds you of your hairline?

      1. MAYBE IT REMINDS ME OF THE HAYMAKER THAT’S ABOUT TO RECEDE INTO YOUR FACE

  3. “President Barack Obama will tour the Exit Glacier at Kenai Fjords National Park with TV survivalist Bear Grylls.”

    Who better to help Obama appreciate the wonders of the American Wilderness than a British Reality TV Show Host?

    1. Hitler?

    2. Andrew Zimmern?

    3. Timothy Treadwell?

      1. +1 grizzly indigestion.

    4. The rich kid who got et by that bear?

    5. Those Duck Dynasty guys?

    6. Yogi and Boo-boo?

    7. I ALREADY SAID “HITLER” PEOPLE – IT’S OVER

      1. Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don’t turn it off! It wasn’t my war! You asked me, I didn’t ask you! And I did what I had to do to win!

        1. I was so hoping you were going to go with the Belushi!

          1. Belushi is best served cold. Actually, that is the only way these days.

    8. … who, it is noted, did the first episode of his “HOW TO KILL YOURSELF AS FAST AS POSSIBLE IN THE WILD”-show in Alaska, where he purposely descended into a crevasse to show how unbelievably stupid that is, because, you know “death”… but then manages to worm his way out! Then, immediately decides to slide on his ass down a rocky hill, shredding his wet-weather gear, then proceeds to explain how Hypothermia is the #1 killer of man in the wild….so, “Hey, Let’s Get Really Wet Right Before Dark Now!” Then he drinks his own pee, and then he and his TV crew discover Civilization Again… right near the Motel 6 where they’ve been staying every night.

      1. Clearly you’ve never been to a Motel 6, if you equate that with civilization.

        Now, back to your regularly scheduled climate change denial…

    9. Red riding hood?

    10. Emile Hirsch?

    11. Grizzly Adams?

    12. The Ghost of Euell Gibbons?

      1. He has an ectoplasm that reminds me of wild hickory nuts.

    13. And one who’s been shown to be a fraudulent TV host. I’m sure Bear is a badass, but his show is make believe.

      1. Of the various criticisms of Bear Grylls show (Man vs Wild)…

        …the one that its “fake” i find silly. Yes! he travels around national parks with a TV crew and pretends he’s DEEP IN THE WILD…or puts a smoke grenades in a crack in the ground and *pretends he’s on a live volcano*… but that’s presuming that any “reality” shows are “real”, which none are… *of course* they’re fake. Its a bloody show.

        What I found horrible about him and his program was that it was originally intended as a “survival” show…but then the editors insisted he do more “DANGER SEEKER” stuff… and they ended up producing sequences that could aptly be described as “How to kill yourself” in the outdoors.

        i.e. running down mountains with no idea what’s ahead of you… descending into glacier crevasses… getting wet before dark in the tundra, with no fire… eating random stuff you have no idea what the effect might be…

        Yes, they had a warning “don’t be an idiot”, but they didn’t clarify that what he was doing was “Anti-Survival”. It made a mockery of any notion of basic self-preservation, while touting him as an “expert”.

        Sure, people found “Survivorman” boring… but at least he made some basic attempt at “this is how dangerous stuff actually is when its cold and wet”.

        1. Sure, people found “Survivorman” boring…

          I didn’t, at least until he went off the deep end with the Bigfoot bullshit…

  4. If this trend were to continue for the rest of teh 21st century, how much higher would sea level be expected to rise?

    Isn’t that our schtick? TEH COMMENTARIAT HAZ BEEN DONE STOLED FROM!

    1. Picky, picky.
      Just narrow your gaze at him….

      1. No, no. His gazes are narrowed, not fixed…he moves them around as necessary

        1. *applauds so hard, hands hurt. throws garlands*

    1. The global warming’s coming right for us!

  5. It’s weather!

  6. Sea level has been rising since the end of the peak of the last ice age, which we are currently in the tail end of. There are lots of remnants of life on dry land, including human habitation, on the sea bed as deep as 100 feet.

    1. Yup, there have been finds of Indian encampments under the water off the coast of New Jersey.

      1. Fortifications have been found way out from shore in the Red Sea.

        1. I initially read that as “Fornications have been found…”

          Hmm. Just noting this for the record…

        1. Luckily bronze doesn’t rust so everything the find should be in perfect condition.

          1. Well, the wooden homes are long gone?

            1. What part of “bronze age” don’t you understand? Wooden homes? HA!

    2. All thanks to those deniers in Atlantis driving Suburbans and Navigators.

    3. I think the rate of sea-level increase has been higher in the 20th Ce than before.

      I had heard some findings that the sea-level increase has decelerated in recent times, but the article seems to contradict that.

      1. I think the rate of sea-level increase has been higher in the 20th Ce than before.

        I’m curious as to whether we have the tools to measure this. I mean, we’re talking inches per century here, on a global scale, with confounding variables all over the place.

        Maybe they can. Maybe they can actually tell us that the sea level rose 4 inches from 100 – 200 AD, 3 inches from 200 – 300 AD, etc. I’m . . . what’s the word? . . . skeptical, though.

        1. Agreed. They can probably estimate how the seabed is moving (these estimates may have been quite good over the last century or so), but we obviously have no actual measurements of that movement before the satellite era. And at this point I would trust a plate movement model about as much as I trust an atmospheric forcing model: Not much. Anything touched by the CAGW movement is suspect at this point.

    4. Yep, we drove by a lake last month. Our summer has been warm and dry, and the lake level is very low compared to recent years. The funny part is there are old growth stumps 100 feet off shore that are now exposed. Since trees generally don’t grow from the bottom of lakes, I could only conclude that at some point in the murky past, the lake was much smaller, and it must have been smaller for a while for trees of that size to have grown there.

      1. Is it a natural or man-made lake?

        1. Only God can make a lake, heathen.

          1. You’ve never been to Texas. Only one natural lake in the entire state.

            1. God hates Texas?

              1. Nope? at least 2.

                Reelfoot Lake and Lake Isom are both natural.

                (I was curious if Lake Nickajack was the natural lake? it’s not.)

                1. I only knew of Reelfoot, made by a big earthquake, as natural. Then again, pre-fracking syndrome could be responsible.

            2. Man makes the dam, God makes the lake behind it. Duh.

      2. Hey, stopping using ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ to analyze a situation that is all about feelings and emotion. Our wicked consumerism has made the Earth sick, and now we must atone–by paying a lot more in taxes. That’ll fix everything…

        1. You forgot to add it should be people with jobs paying a lot more in taxes. It’s important that we penalize the productive class at every possible turn.

          1. Everything is taxed and businesses pass their taxes onto the consumer. Everyone pays taxes, even those who don’t work. But working people (especially ambitious ones) pay substantially more because we must pay for the ‘crime’ of our success. It’s only ‘fair.’

      3. Lake levels generally change for quite different reasons than sea level. Which should be pretty damn obvious.
        Is the lake controlled by a dam? Where I live, just about all of the natural lakes of any size are regulated by dams. It’s very interesting to try to figure out what the natural level would have been, and to think about how much the natural variation would have been.

    5. Doggerland FTW. (Just did some reading on that the other day)

    6. Damn Babylawnz, an dey Caddilacs!

  7. Wait, wait, I thought January 2009 “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”?

    1. That is what Obama is doing now, healing Alaska by walking all over it. He just renamed a mountain after a GM truck too. Miracles in our time.

      1. I thought Sonoma was in SoCal or something?

      2. He named a mountain Jimmy?

          1. Oh, goin’ old skool. Legit.

          2. “Huh?”

            /millennial

        1. *borrows Swiss’ narrowed gaze*

    2. It would have been except the Teathuglicans and Koctopus keep wrecking things.

  8. “…If humanity managed to cope with an increase of 8 inches that president cited for the 20th century, it seems likely that much richer people living in 2100 will not be overly inconvenienced with 10 more inches….”

    Ron, I think you may be on to something here.

    1. 8″, 10″ – sounds like the women will be happy.

      Ladies?

      Oh, wait….TIWTANFL….

  9. Goddamn climate deniers! You know how else thought there were to many Bergs in the world?

    1. The Titanic?

    2. The anti-Illuminati conspiracy theorists?

    3. The members of Shackleton’s Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition?

      1. All of whom miraculously survived.

    4. Ronald McDonald

    5. Hilter! its Hitler, right!?

  10. Re: Hansen’s hysterical study: anybody got critiques of it?

    1. He’s a douchebag.

      /end critique

    2. Here.

      One of the most satisfying parts:

      Meanwhile, Climate Depot reports: Former NASA lead global warming scientist James Hansen’s new sea level rise scare study gets ‘cold shoulder’ from climate establishment.

      Warmist AP climate reporter Seth Borenstein said he ‘would not cover’ Hansen’s paper.
      UN IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth calls Hansen’s study ‘rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios’ and based on ‘flimsy evidence.’
      NYT’s Andrew Revkin: “Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian..among those who steered clear of [Hansen] study”
      Even Michael Mann admits Hansen’s sea level rise estimates are ‘prone to a very large ‘extrapolation error’

      Even the faithful won’t touch that study.

      1. Wow never thought I’d see that network work towards better science. Even in a small way. Course, this might just be blowback from the hockey stick in the nineties. Climate scientist have never quite recovered from making such obviously false claims in public. They might not want to be on the hook for something that can so easily be falsifiable. Better to make estimates that won’t be testable until 100 years down the road when they are already dead.

      2. ‘extrapolation error’

        Hilarious. “I fitted an exponential function to this sea level data, and it shows that the sea level will increase exponentially!”

      3. It’s like Hansen isn’t even trying anymore. Either he’s a defeated man, just going through the motions, or he’s so used to getting friendly reviews and friendly media coverage that he thinks he can just phone it in now. Either way, here’s hoping he fades from view as quickly as possible.

      4. When you’ve lost Mann…

        I am a bit wary of WUWT but that’s a fairly damning section.

  11. So, 3mm/yr current trend would have to quadruple, if it gets started now. If it’s an exponential increase, it would have to reach 20mm/yr towards the end, almost double what we think the fastest rate from the far past has ever achieved.

    So, I’m calling their ~1m increase by 2100…extremely unlikely.

    1. The thing that confuses me is that many of these same people predicting these catastrophic rises in sea level over the next 100 years also tell us that essentially all of the ice will be gone from the world within 50 years.

      Where is all this sea level rise going to come from if the polar ice is gone and all the mountain glaciers have melted?

    2. Also, sea level rise isn’t linear. With every millimeter of rise it takes more volume for the same level of rise.

      1. so a linear sea level rise would necessarily require some kind of exponential increase in ice melt, world-wide… which would reach its limit when ‘all the surface ice is gone’ even faster than if the loss of ice mass were linear…

        Someone’s going to run their sea level forecasts head-on into a self-contradiction, there!

        If ALL the surface ice were to melt, how much would the average ocean level rise, anyway?! THAT estimate has GOT to exist somewhere, other than up Hansen’s butt.

  12. Later today, President Barack Obama will tour the Exit Glacier at Kenai Fjords National Park with TV survivalist Bear Grylls.

    Is this the Church of Carbontology’s equivalent of a pilgrimage to Mecca? Actually, now that I think about it, flying a carbon-spewing private jet off to some conference on how middle class people should consign themselves to mud huts, cold showers, and candles is probably that equivalent.

    1. Yes, their Mecca is movable and is in Paris this year.

  13. If there is more water in the oceans does that mean there is more evaporate and thus more rain and thus more green-ness on land?

    1. No,

      The surface area of the oceans will change hardly at all if sea levels rise a few meters. The volume of the oceans is irrelevant, since evaporation takes place at the surface only.

      More CO2 should increase vegetation growth, which means that the biological component of the water cycle will be expanded. Thus there will be more humidity due to the moisture evaporating off of plants. But that’s a local effectl and not really a global one.

      1. But if we’re greening everywhere, then the humidity is increasing everywhere, so that should result in a global effect. At least that is my understanding.

        1. Not really; remember all the change is in the margins. Land with lots of vegetation doesn’t really change.

          And the moisture really is that which is close to the ground.

          1. Alright, that explanation makes sense to me.

            1. That reasonable, “I’m willing to learn from others” attitude means you have no place talking about climatology, Illocust!!! 😉

  14. I hope Obama gets the world to stop being in denali about climate change.

    1. *SMACK*

    2. *scowls…cannot muster up a narrowed gaze, wanders off to get snack*

    3. I hope Obama gets the world to stop being in denali about climate change.

      And get people to stop thinking “I’d love to make a difference, but what Kenai do?”

      1. *DOUBLE SMACK*

    4. HEY, DENALI ISN’T JUST A MOUNTAIN IN ALASKA, SMART GUY!

    5. Icy what you did there.

    6. I’m calling that in to Howie’s Chump Line.

    7. These mountain jokes have peaked

      1. Want to make summit out of it?

  15. If humanity managed to cope with an increase of 8 inches that president cited for the 20th century, it seems likely that much richer people living in 2100 will not be overly inconvenienced with 10 more inches.

    *If* humanity managed to cope? I can’t wait until I can set my grandchildren on my lap and stun them with the story of how we survived a 3 foot rise in less than a year.

    1. See? Lake Michigan is surrounded by CORPORAZIONZ! Or Michael Moore took a dip and everything will be fine as soon as he gets back on the beach.

    2. It’s behind a wall. The article that is.

      1. Google “lake michigan rising” and go from the Google link.

  16. YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!

  17. “Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it.

    He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.”

    -Ezra Klein, 2008

    1. The man embiggens. That’s all there is to that!

      1. It sounds like Ezra’s pants were embiggened, anyway.

        1. More or less.

      2. We appreciate your cromulent vocabulary.

    2. I don’t understand why Bezos didn’t give him the money.

    3. -Shriek, any given day of the week

    4. This actually makes a lot of sense if his legacy ends up being legal weed.

    5. Well, he started off well.

      1. Yeah, I was in total agreement for the first three sentences….

    6. Of Bullshit over Substance…

    7. Ezra should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas

  18. I wonder if in the year 2525…

    1. *narrows eyeslits*

    2. DON’T finish that thought!

  19. Later today, President Barack Obama will tour the Exit Glacier at Kenai Fjords National Park with TV survivalist Bear Grylls.

    Is Bear going to leave him there to see how long he can survive? *crosses fingers*

    1. My people would like to talk to this Loki person and see if his death wish is a serious threat. Loki hate speach and death wish threats on the president are a serious matter. Your woodchipper license will be put under review by my team.

  20. Did he find manbearpig or not????

  21. So how much carbon did he produce getting his entourage to the edge of glacier?

    1. Enough to melt a Jefferson Memorial, I’ll make it simpler for dumb people, that mean it was equivalent of one hundred cows farting for the length of 100 entire seasons of America’s Got Talent TV show! If that doesn’t convince you to volunteer for a carbon tax then you are just too unsciency to understand science and stuff.

  22. Everyone was having fun with wordplay, and then the science nerds had to saunter on in and ruin it. SMH.

    1. Nothing ruins a parade like moraine

      1. I got the moraine runnin’ all ’round my brain,
        and it really, really is a big pain!

        (Kinda like Emperor O-Bummer).

  23. As I wondered last night regarding this story, if the ‘deniers’ have an increasingly untenable position and their numbers are dwindling, why does President Stumblebumble pay so much attention to them?

    Personally I think the man is from another dimension. It is the only explanation for why everything that comes out of his mouth is the inverse of truth.

    1. if the ‘deniers’ have an increasingly untenable position and their numbers are dwindling

      It’s group think enforcement.

      Every year, the sensitivity of temps to CO2 is reduced. There is speculation that the cooling effect of aerosols has been overestimated by an order of magnitude (IIRC). It was thought that the increase of CO2 in the 1950 – 1990 time frame was counteracted by aerosols, the emission of which was slashed in the subsequent years. If the cooling effect of aerosols was overestimated, guess what that does to the estimate of CO2’s heating effect? 😉

      The upshot is that with each passing year, the AGW hypothesis gets less certain. We know there is some effect – the direct effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty straightforward from a physics standpoint – but the feedbacks and reactions of the various major systems that comprise the Earth’s climate clearly are reacting differently than guys like Hansen thought they would.

      The problem is that the cultists have a vested interest in the outcome. Many of them want CO2 to be a pollutant, some because they have a moral problem with people who consume lots of energy, some people are getting very, very rich off of the hysteria.

      The people benefitting from the hysteria don’t want rationality to reimpose itself. So they try to paint anyone who doubts the theory as being an enemy of society. That way the believers who are at risk of wavering are scared off from leaving the reservation.

      1. “he cultists have a vested interest in the outcome. Many of them want CO2 to be a pollutant,…”

        and they’re rushing to get some kind of tax-mechanism in place, because at the current rate of the science, it will be clear its nothing of the sort, and billions of $ in potential energy-industry graft will slip through their fingers.

  24. In my experience, the ladies seem to like 10 inches…

  25. wow 75 gigatons…I can barely even imagine blocks of ice the size of the national mall!…hard to believe 75 of those!….holy shit we need more taxes immediately!

    1. When this kinda of science knowledge is being dropped on us it is almost too much to try and comprehend how we can let the conspiracy nuts prevent us from actually addressing the problems that are obviously facing our society.
      It is like Bush was really ahead of his time when he said this:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ

      The world would be so much better if we could just eliminate a certain poisoned mindset that is hindering our progress.

  26. “… will not be overly inconvenienced with 10 more inches”. With that meager assurance, Tiffany did a quick bump then wearily returned to the set of “Bung Spelunkers 43”.

  27. The Mall is 1.9 statute miles long, and 1586 feet wide.
    The Washington Monument is 555 feet tall.
    The block of ice described by the President has a volume of 44,152,336,800 cubic feet.
    Let’s assume it’s the same volume of water (although the actual volume of water would be a little less).
    Seems like a lot, but when spread out over the 3,608,691,600,000,000 square feet of oceans, it only adds a small fraction of a millimeter (about 0.004 mm) to the oceans’ depth, if I did the math correctly.
    Not quite an OMG! situation.

    1. Apologies to Anacreon at 2:05 p.m.

      1. Sorry – to Antilles.

    2. Oh, but there are 75 of those blocks, so the added depth is more like 0.3mm. A thick human hair is about 0.1 mm.

  28. So, Ronald, let me get this straight. Above you say there was a rate of sea level rise for nearly 100 years of 1.2 millimeters. And then since 1990 (25 years) we more than doubled that rate to 3 millimeters.

    Then you conclude your back of the envelope calculations by saying “of the trend of 3mm continues…”

    If the rate more than doubled in just the last 25 years, your assumption is it stopped doubling? It stopped increasing and we’re good now for a continued 3mm? Why? Because we’ve done so much to stop adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere? Rediculous.

    1. You are completely right and have utterly convinced us all. Thank you for your insight.

      It is clearly true that poorly-measured sea levels in the past coupled with wildly inaccurate prior predictions are the best way to embrace communism.

      Wait – did I say communism? I meant fair-share taxation to save Mother Gaia.

      1. I admit I was a denier of climate change before this Bear Grylls and Obama show yesterday…but when I saw him next to that sign that said 1950….and it was just rocks! and then the sign for 1914…more rocks….and this is in alaska folks….hundreds of yards of ices have simply evaporated!…

        Obama is in alaska and it doesn’t even look cold. I wil be surprised if there is any ice at all there next year!. If global warming keeps melting a national mall sized gigaton every year then how many years until ALL the water in hellholes like Texas is gone?

        It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand this science! Why can’t people understand we need to put a carbon cap and free market trade program in place ASAP!

  29. A prediction of 10 more inches by 2100, based on current rates, is just a lower limit. As the temperature keeps rising, the melting of ice sheets will accelerate. The rate of temperature rise may increase too, due to positive feedback loops that result in more global heating. Playing with melting the ice is playing with fire.

  30. A prediction of 10 more inches by 2100, based on current rates, is just a lower limit. As the temperature keeps rising, the melting of ice sheets will accelerate. The rate of temperature rise may increase too, due to positive feedback loops that result in more global heating. Playing with melting the ice is playing with fire.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.