Has the global warming hysteria finally been put to bed?

[CorvusCamenarum]

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been picked up here yet.

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

rest of story and other associated goodies here (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6)

[leekohler]

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been picked up here yet.



rest of story and other associated goodies here (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6)

Who knows? I would be extremely wary at this point. People have been doing a lot to cut down on emissions already. I also don't see how melting polar caps is going to help their position much either.

[hulugu]

I'm sure it will still ask for a glass of water and a bedtime story.

One thing that strikes me as odd is the comparison between the number of dissenting scientists and the number who authored the paper. Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare the number of dissenting scientists with the number who are affirming such a paper?

Also, the tone of this web-page seems incredibly unprofessional. For a Senate page to the Committee on Environment & Public Works I'd expect something more even-handed and not simply advocating a particular side. Maybe I haven't worked through enough of these pages, but this bothers me.

[yojitani]

There's nothing wrong with them expressing their opinions - which is all that I see, I don't find anything yet with a strong counter-argument. The problem is when their opinion is politicized to favor industrialization. Not being a scientist I take a kind of pascalian wager approach: whatever is happening to the atmosphere, it surely can't be bad to reduce emissions while it could be bad not to.

@hulugu: it's the minority page.

[leekohler]

There's nothing wrong with them expressing their opinions - which is all that I see, I don't find anything yet with a strong counter-argument. The problem is when their opinion is politicized to favor industrialization. Not being a scientist I take a kind of pascalian wager approach: whatever is happening to the atmosphere, it surely can't be bad to reduce emissions while it could be bad not to.

@hulugu: it's the minority page.

Exactly. This is one of those situations where it is far wiser to err on the side of caution.

Anyone ever ask yourself this question? How many people did you know with asthma 30 years ago as opposed to now? It seems that almost half the people I know these days have asthma. No one I knew had it 30 years ago. It was much more rare. Are there any studies regarding pollution and asthma?

[hulugu]

There's nothing wrong with them expressing their opinions - which is all that I see, I don't find anything yet with a strong counter-argument. The problem is when their opinion is politicized to favor industrialization. Not being a scientist I take a kind of pascalian wager approach: whatever is happening to the atmosphere, it surely can't be bad to reduce emissions while it could be bad not to.

I think there are a host of net-benefits to reducing emissions and I agree, the opposition seems determined to create false choices. Industry can and will evolve as conditions demand and that includes CO2 (and other emission) reductions.



@hulugu: it's the minority page.

I see that now.

[CorvusCamenarum]

There's nothing wrong with them expressing their opinions - which is all that I see, I don't find anything yet with a strong counter-argument. The problem is when their opinion is politicized to favor industrialization. Not being a scientist I take a kind of pascalian wager approach: whatever is happening to the atmosphere, it surely can't be bad to reduce emissions while it could be bad not to.

Is it really any better when the other prevailing opinion is politicized to favor more government intervention and inevitably higher taxes?

[yojitani]

Is it really any better when the other prevailing opinion is politicized to favor more government intervention and inevitably higher taxes?

Well, when it comes to balancing a destroyed environment, health problems, loss of land, vs higer taxes and government intervention the choice doesn't seem that hard. Of course, both sides are politicized. Only in a (delusional) utopia is science not political though.

[Sun Baked]

I like the ones which say that it isn't global warming, but signs the poles getting ready to shift again in 2012 -- reserve your space in the alien bunker or spaceship.

[miloblithe]

Is it really any better when the other prevailing opinion is politicized to favor more government intervention and inevitably higher taxes?

What assumption are you positing here, that those arguing that climate change exists

1) as a matter of principle strongly desired more government intervention and higher taxes
2) decided that in order to increase government intervention and raise taxes, they would need a plausible excuse to do so
3) invented the hoax of climate change
4) bribed, threatened, connived, or otherwise convince the vast majority of the world scientific community to propagate this hoax along with other paid surrogates in a grand conspiracy of big-government, high-tax lovers.

[Anuba]

Anyone ever ask yourself this question? How many people did you know with asthma 30 years ago as opposed to now? It seems that almost half the people I know these days have asthma. No one I knew had it 30 years ago. It was much more rare. Are there any studies regarding pollution and asthma?
I don't know, but there are studies that link the rise in asthma to pertussis vaccination: http://www.vaccines.net/Asthma/allergie.htm

There are other similar studies that link various allergies to vaccination against this and that. It seems that in an effort to vaccinate the hell out of children to keep them safe from everything from measles to chicken pox, we've created a generation of people who have no natural resistance to anything.

[Aea]

What assumption are you positing here, that those arguing that climate change exists

1) as a matter of principle strongly desired more government intervention and higher taxes
2) decided that in order to increase government intervention and raise taxes, they would need a plausible excuse to do so
3) invented the hoax of climate change
4) bribed, threatened, connived, or otherwise convince the vast majority of the world scientific community to propagate this hoax along with other paid surrogates in a grand conspiracy of big-government, high-tax lovers.

As much as I dislike his brazen assessment, I don't think putting words into his mouth will help your case. I think that it's inevitable that some issues will require big government intervention. But on a side note I hate this whole idea of "OH NO, BIG GOVERNMENT!" Because right now it's absurd, we have big government all around us, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. We can't just follow the ideologies of "no big government" nor can we follow the ideologies of "big government," we will have to find the golden mean. There are some issues that require a large government commitment; this isn't about some liberal fantasy of "saving the environment," the environment is in more ways then one bent over and has been for the past hundred years. The discussion is about stabilizing the environment so that we don't become the victims of our own mess a few decades down the line.

I respect the need to preserve industry, but I think we need to start focusing on short term profits and looking at long term, inexpensive solutions. The sooner we start the less it will cost. Unless of course we as humanity like creating catastrophes and then asking "how could this have happened," before blaming the political opposition for all the world's problems.

[.Andy]

I don't know, but there are studies that link the rise in asthma to pertussis vaccination: http://www.vaccines.net/Asthma/allergie.htm
You'll note that all the references on that page are well over a decade old and are small studies. There are far more modern and sophisticated studies with greatly increased numbers of participants that do not show a correlation. As it stands we do not know why there has been an increase in asthma in developed countries. If it were as simple correlation as between a vaccine and asthma the epidemiologists would have picked it off easily. If a correlation exists (no evidence) it is likely extremely weak and would not account for the increases in asthma we have seen.

Some more up to date articles;
Pediatrics. 2007 Nov;120(5):e1269-77. Links
Is childhood vaccination associated with asthma? A meta-analysis of observational studies.

Balicer RD, Grotto I, Mimouni M, Mimouni D.
Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. rbalicer@netvision.net.il
BACKGROUND: The possible link between immunization and atopic diseases has been under intense debate in the last decade. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the available evidence on the association of whole-cell pertussis and BCG vaccination with the risk of asthma in childhood and adolescence. METHODS: The major medical electronic databases (Medline, National Library of Medicine Gateway, and Cochrane Library) were searched, and reference lists of the relevant publications were reviewed for relevant birth-cohort studies and randomized, controlled trials from 1966 to March 2006. Only studies that directly compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children, validated vaccination status by medical charts, and used preset criteria to define asthma were included. Data were abstracted by using a standardized protocol and computerized report form. Results were analyzed by applying a fixed-effect or random-effect model, according to the heterogeneity of the studies. Sensitivity analyses by scoring criteria were performed. RESULTS: Seven studies of pertussis vaccination (with a total of 186,663 patients) and 5 studies of BCG vaccination (with a total of 41,479 patients) met our inclusion criteria. No statistically significant association was detected between either whole-cell pertussis or BCG vaccination and incidence rates of asthma during childhood and adolescence. This lack of a significant association proved to be robust on sensitivity analyses for BCG but not for pertussis vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available data, based on observational studies, do not support an association, provocative or protective, between receipt of the BCG or whole-cell pertussis vaccine and risk of asthma in childhood and adolescence.

Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. Volume 18 Issue 1, Pages 5 - 9 Published Online: 7 Feb 2007
Early BCG and pertussis vaccination and atopic diseases in 5- to 7-year-old preschool children from Augsburg, Germany: Results from the MIRIAM study
Matthias Möhrenschlager 1 , Victoria M. Haberl 2 , Ursula Krämer 2,3 , Heidrun Behrendt 2 and Johannnes Ring 1,2
1 Department of Dermatology and Allergy Biederstein, Technical University of Munich, Munich , 2 Division Environmental Dermatology and Allergology GSF/TUM, Department of Dermatology and Allergy Biederstein, Technical University of Munich, Munich , 3 Institut für Umweltmedizinische Forschung (IUF), Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany
Correspondence to Matthias Möhrenschlager, Department of Dermatology and Allergy Biederstein, Technical University of Munich, Biedersteiner Str. 29, D-80802 Munich, Germany
Tel.: + 49 89 4140 3172
Fax: +49 89 4140 3572
E-mail: moehrenschlager@lrz.tum.de
KEYWORDS
preschool children • vaccination • bacillus Calmette-Guérin • pertussis • atopic • eczema • hay fever • asthma
ABSTRACT
The role of immunization in the development of atopic disorders is still under debate. One reason might be, that because of high vaccination coverage in most countries only few and selected children are not immunized, leading to unstable and often biased effect estimates. In Germany, the situation was different between 1985 and 1991: bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and pertussis vaccination were not officially recommended leading to high numbers of non-vaccinated children in the 1990s. We report on a cross-sectional study with 1673 participants among 5- to 7-year-old preschool children conducted in 1996. We found no hint that BCG vaccination or whole-cell pertussis (WCP) vaccination may lead to higher prevalences of asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema or allergic sensitization at preschool age. None of the associations was significantly positive. WCP vaccination may be protective against asthma OR 0.55 (95% CI: 0.31–0.98) and against symptoms of eczema in boys.
If you're not familiar you can search the scientific literature free yourself at Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/). It's a simple way to double-check the claims made by third party websites. Alternatively there is always google scholar.

It seems that in an effort to vaccinate the hell out of children to keep them safe from everything from measles to chicken pox, we've created a generation of people who have no natural resistance to anything.
No. Vaccination by its very definition increases your bodies natural resistance. We're also not "vaccinating the hell out of" anyone. Vaccination is a very precise, continuously researched, and extremely highly monitored science. All vaccination recommendations are first and foremost driven by caution. I wouldn't take any stock at all in what you read at vaccines.net. There are far better sources including your doctor, the CDC, and the medical literature.

[leekohler]

No. Vaccination by its very definition increases your bodies natural resistance. We're also not "vaccinating the hell out of" anyone. Vaccination is a very precise, continuously researched, and extremely highly monitored science.

I agree. I'm vaccinated against just about everything, including meningitis and hepatitis A and B. I wish I had been able to get vaccinated against shingles, but since I had it recently, no go. :(

[freeny]

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

I personally know at least 9 people that are opposed to the content of the Kinsey Reports which was written by 1 person.

So It must be wrong :rolleyes:

[.Andy]

I agree. I'm vaccinated against just about everything, including meningitis and hepatitis A and B. I wish I had been able to get vaccinated against shingles, but since I had it recently, no go. :(
Post-herpetic neuralgia is awful Lee :(. I've seen patients completely incapacitated :(. It's a good example of vaccine and scientific research however - we'll have to wait and see how the new generation chicken pox and shingle vaccines work in the long term. Just like climate change. It's the long term trends that matter.

[CalBoy]

I thought we had settled this issue already? No? Fine, then I'll argue from the skeptics point of view:

Imagine that man-made climate change is just hype. It's all caused by the changes in solar output, shifting winds, and other factors over which man has no influence. Fine.

Knowing that, imagine the consequences. Oceans rise, deserts expand, and a large percentage of the world's fresh water (in the form of ice) is lost to the salty depth of the sea. This has the ability to drastically alter our ability to survive on the planet, let alone the ability of innocent species to survive.

Now imagine that a series of steps can be taken to slow down this effect, and possibly even limit it. While taking these steps, your economy is also less reliant on fuels that come from oppressive regimes, your population produces less trash (which lowers the cost of putting that trash somewhere), the air is cleaner (nice for the scenery at least), and people spend less time in traffic (better for everyone, I think).

The question is, why wouldn't you do this? It seems like a no-brainer.

Unless of course you are an oil/coal company with plenty to lose.

[leekohler]

Post-herpetic neuralgia is awful Lee :(. I've seen patients completely incapacitated :(. It's a good example of vaccine and scientific research however - we'll have to wait and see how the new generation chicken pox and shingle vaccines work in the long term. Just like climate change. It's the long term trends that matter.

Yes, I have PHN. I guess it takes about a year to get over. I got shingles in July and the pain and tingling is still going on, though not nearly as bad as it was. My cousin got shingles right before his wedding last summer. He said it takes about a year.

[takao]

[snip]
The question is, why wouldn't you do this? It seems like a no-brainer.

exactly i don't get it either ...

[mactastic]

Hey, as long as there are at least a handful of scientists who claim that global warming is real and is man-made, this issue isn't settled.

I mean, we've had years of global-warming deniers claiming that a relative few dissenting scientists was proof that the issue was open for debate, and that no policy changes should be made.

Yet now the claim is that because (supposedly) more scientists are claiming that global warming needs to be "put to bed" than are claiming it's a real and human-caused phenomenon, that we need to call the issue closed.

Interesting logic, that...

[Demosthenes X]

I don't care about "dissenting opinions" particularly. How many of those 650 have published peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals? Opinion is nothing without evidence, and so far I've got to say the evidence I've seen has been in favour of climate change.

[aethelbert]

If it has been put to bed, then I guess that we'll all have to brace ourselves for the oncoming movements to stop global cooling. Then, repeat the cycle.

[.Andy]

I don't care about "dissenting opinions" particularly. How many of those 650 have published peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals? Opinion is nothing without evidence, and so far I've got to say the evidence I've seen has been in favour of climate change.
You said it perfectly. Lists like these are nothing more than a cynical attempt to obfuscate the science in the eyes of the public. And unfortunately it works. Like lists of "scientists" that reject evolution or lists of "scientists" that don't think HIV causes AIDS or lists of "scientists" that think vaccination causes autism. It's a appeal to authority in the battle for public opinion and political power, not science. They are as free to anyone to put forward data or logical interpretations of the data for peer review. Scientific advancement is that last motivation of those joining these lists and those creating these lists.

[mkrishnan]

I don't know, but there are studies that link the rise in asthma to pertussis vaccination: http://www.vaccines.net/Asthma/allergie.htm

I think it's generally well accepted that environmental exposure to ambient pollution increases the base rate of asthma (but not quite to the extent that it seemed to Lee, at least not in the US). Other factors also play a role, such as obesity (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070402101857.htm).

What's not agreed on as well or as well understood is the extent to which environmental triggers can cause a person with a relatively low genetic risk for asthma to develop it and maintain it even if the triggers are removed, vs. the extent to which it just increases the number of genetically predisposed individuals who actually express asthma.

With respect to pollution, though, I think the issue of the quality of the global warming proof honestly is not that important. There are all kinds of understood consequences of pollution already, not to mention those which are not well understood (including, perhaps, climatalogical changes). The bottom line is that, were we to get closer to a zero impact policy in terms of human changes to the atmosphere, it would certainly do us no harm and most likely would do us some good.

Arguing against global warming is just a means to skirt the core issue that we're introducing poorly understood changes to the atmosphere and that's a risky game to be playing.

[leekohler]

I think it's generally well accepted that environmental exposure to ambient pollution increases the base rate of asthma (but not quite to the extent that it seemed to Lee, at least not in the US). Other factors also play a role, such as obesity (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070402101857.htm).

What's not agreed on as well or as well understood is the extent to which environmental triggers can cause a person with a relatively low genetic risk for asthma to develop it and maintain it even if the triggers are removed, vs. the extent to which it just increases the number of genetically predisposed individuals who actually express asthma.



Interesting. It seems there are quite a few causes.

[EricNau]

Reminds me of Project Steve (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve).

Who are you going to believe, the list of several hundred dissenters of evolution, or the list with nearly 1,000 supporters just named Steve? :D

But please, I was merely illustrating a point. This isn't the thread to address evolution, so please do so elsewhere.

[.Andy]

But please, I was merely illustrating a point. This isn't the thread to address evolution, so please do so elsewhere.
I think this is a great example EricNau. The techniques used to dismiss science that isn't palatable to any political viewpoint is surprisingly similar. What Project Steve is illustrating is entirely applicable to the logical fallacy in the OP.

[shu82]

Its snowing in Alabama right now. That hasn't happened in a while. We need more data points until we can truly see a trend. But far be it from us to think that we can't affect our environment. The result and the impact is the only thing up for debate.

[robanga]

Now it's just " Climate Change" that way it can cover anything, anyone wants the term to :D

...as if the climate hasn't been changing back and fourth since the beginning of time.

[Counterfit]

Now it's just " Climate Change" that way it can cover anything, anyone wants the term to :D

...as if the climate hasn't been changing back and fourth since the beginning of time.

It doesn't change this fast naturally without some sort of major event (meteroid, Krakatoa-level eruption, etc.).

[mysterytramp]

Knowing that, imagine the consequences. Oceans rise, deserts expand, and a large percentage of the world's fresh water (in the form of ice) is lost to the salty depth of the sea. This has the ability to drastically alter our ability to survive on the planet, let alone the ability of innocent species to survive.

This is why I hate the global warming issue.

First, if temperatures rise and ice melts, there's a strong likelihood the oceans won't rise, they'll fall. Ice floats because it displaces more volume than liquid water. Melt the ice, volume of water falls. Unfortunately, lots of people quick to join in the global warming debate don't remember their fifth-grade science classes.

Second, let's say the ice does melt, a greater volume of liquid water exists within the closed ecosystem of the Earth. That means more water vapor, that means more rainfall. Deserts don't expand, they shrink. (This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811) is old but I can't find anything that refutes it.)

(More water vapor also means more energy in the atmosphere, which would help explain some recent hurricane seasons in the U.S.)

Third, most of the glacier melt would be in ocean-going icebergs, which would never be a source of fresh water anyway. Terrestrial snow and ice that would melt from rising global temperatures is far enough inland that most of it should be (or already is) impounded in reservoirs.

Greater oceanic liquid water also means greater habitat for aquatic species. Yes, it might suck for polar bears, but it's great for krill and halibut and creatures at critical points in the food chain. Some species might have trouble, many more should benefit.

None of this means global warming doesn't exist, or that man isn't contributing to global warming. But wild-ass assertions about oceans rising have no scientific basis. (Even the IPCC is wishywashy on this.)

Ask yourself this, the last time you heard someone mention sea levels rising, was it a scientist in a relevant field, or was it a lawyer? The sorry thing is, too many lawyers are posing as environmentalists.

mt

[robanga]

Indeed. A lot of people do not understand the fact that we live in a giant terrarium. Water does not go away.

[EricNau]

This is why I hate the global warming issue.

First, if temperatures rise and ice melts, there's a strong likelihood the oceans won't rise, they'll fall. Ice floats because it displaces more volume than liquid water. Melt the ice, volume of water falls. Unfortunately, lots of people quick to join in the global warming debate don't remember their fifth-grade science classes.
You incorrectly assume that all of the ice is floating in the ocean. If you remember back to your fifth second grade geography class, you'll remember that Antarctica is a continent (i.e. land mass) covered in ice about 1 mile thick.

[CalBoy]

First, if temperatures rise and ice melts, there's a strong likelihood the oceans won't rise, they'll fall. Ice floats because it displaces more volume than liquid water. Melt the ice, volume of water falls. Unfortunately, lots of people quick to join in the global warming debate don't remember their fifth-grade science classes.

The problem is, a great deal of the ice is currently resting on land, not in the oceans.

If the oceans have to handle new water from ice that used to be on land, then the oceans will undoubtedly rise.

Second, let's say the ice does melt, a greater volume of liquid water exists within the closed ecosystem of the Earth. That means more water vapor, that means more rainfall. Deserts don't expand, they shrink. (This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811) is old but I can't find anything that refutes it.)

Deserts would for the most part expand because the new rainfall would not be consistent.

Large weather systems (like Asia's monsoons or the Caribbean's hurricanes) would become more intense as those weather systems have access to more water, but areas that are already suffering from lower precipitation would have no expectation of increased rainfall.

As for your link, at the end of the article it also mentions that the African farmers have implemented better irrigation and farming techniques. This would make the area more hospitable for agriculture, as would phosphorous, which is being used in greater amounts in the developing world.

Yes, it might suck for polar bears, but it's great for krill and halibut and creatures at critical points in the food chain. Some species might have trouble, many more should benefit.

And who are we to make that decision? When did humanity become anointed with the title and powers of a god? We are single-handedly causing the largest mass extinction this planet has ever seen. By the time were done more species will have died at our hands than ever lived in any of the prior ages of the earth.

We can't go on trying to rationalize our behavior with a "some will live" mentality.

[mysterytramp]

The problem is ...

Where to start ...

Yes there are issues with ice melt, but there's no data to show that sea levels are rising. Check with the IPCC. They're studies (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/424.htm) show a 2 millimeter/year increase. Millimeters ... Compare that with the assertions at the pledge drive of your run-of-the-mill organization trying to clean up the environment. I've heard screeds that sea levels will rise 20 feet in my lifetime. I'll have to live to be 3000 if the IPCC data is right.

As for species extinction, you were just a little bit hyperbolic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction). The fossil record shows we've got lots of competition for causing the worst extinction ever.

Which gets me to my main point, the inconvenient truth is lots of people make lots of money shilling the "humans suck" line. They've polluted the debate with wild-ass claims. People who are content to let others think for them believe it and it's crap. They'd rather make scary predictions about coastal communities wiped out by rising sea levels and leave out that the data shows something far different.

It does no one any good to spout nonsense on such an important issue.

mt

[Blue Velvet]

They're studies (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/424.htm) show a 2 millimeter/year increase. Millimeters ...

In 2001, that is. But by Feb 2007 the IPCC had changed their tune...


The research shows that between 1993 and 2006, sea levels rose by 3.3mm a year on average, while the 2001 IPCC report had predicted an annual rise of less than 2mm.

This is right at the upper limit of the uncertainty in the IPCC's predictions due to very little data on how ice on land will respond to warming and how fast it will melt. If the climate follows this upper sea level prediction we will experience an 88cm rise in sea levels by the end of the century - much higher than the 14 - 43cm rise predicted under the IPCC's most likely climate scenario.

A rise of close to 1m would threaten huge areas of low lying coastal land, as well as major cities such as London, New York and Tokyo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/climatechange.climatechange

[.Andy]

Where to start ...
How about an admission that you were uttley wrong with this paragraph and that you forgot your fifth-grade geography classes :D;);

First, if temperatures rise and ice melts, there's a strong likelihood the oceans won't rise, they'll fall. Ice floats because it displaces more volume than liquid water. Melt the ice, volume of water falls. Unfortunately, lots of people quick to join in the global warming debate don't remember their fifth-grade science classes.

[Much Ado]

Because we all know snow in Alabama means the world is getting cooler.

[mysterytramp]

How about an admission that you were uttley wrong with this paragraph and that you forgot your fifth-grade geography classes :D;);

Sigh ... CalBoy's point was: "If the oceans have to handle new water from ice that used to be on land, then the oceans will undoubtedly rise."

That's a big if. Terrestrial ice melt is likely to be impounded in reservoirs or get soaked up in the soil, or evaporate, or collect in natural depressions in the topography. It could make it to an ocean, but any of the other possibilities are just as (if not more) likely as adding to the oceans. I repeat, there are issues with ice melt. Sea levels rising probably isn't one of them.

The IPCC says sea levels are rising by millimeters. Search the IPCC web site to find the report in the Guardian story Blue Velvet posted. The organization is NOT making a blanket statement on dramatic increases in sea levels. Only that the hypothesis is that it should be and the science isn't really there.

Oh, BTW, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change says North Pole ice increased this year (http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/report_aug-sept.php). Still far less than 2006, but a noticeable increase nonetheless.

What does that mean? Probably that this issue is far more complicated than we've been led to believe. Shrill statements about coastal cities getting wiped out do nothing but give ammo to the people who want you to give them money.

mt

[Blue Velvet]

What does that mean? Probably that this issue is far more complicated than we've been led to believe.


Personally, I'd much rather take the word of the Met Office and NASA over yours.

And if we're planning on making this gamble as a species, it might be better to hedge our bets, don't you think? Besides, if we threw some of the money we throw at wars, arms suppliers and weapons systems manufacturers, that might just prove a better bet over the long term. Calling such ideas as shrill is just a childish retort to the potential problem facing us, and disqualifies any input you make to a discussion.


The scientific evidence is overwhelming — our climate is changing. These changes will affect all organisations — commercial and governmental, local and international.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/


The evidence for abrupt climate change is compelling:

• Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. In the last decade, however, the rate of rise nearly doubled.

• Levels of Carbon Dioxide are higher today than at anytime in past 650,000 years.

• Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995-2006) are the warmest since accurate recordkeeping began in 1850.

• The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1955.

• The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shrunk in both area and mass. Data from JPL's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.

• Many species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving to higher elevations or closer to the poles.

• Precipitation and evaporation patterns over the oceans have changed, as evidenced by increased ocean salinity near the equator and decreased salinity at higher latitudes.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

[.Andy]

Terrestrial ice melt is likely to be impounded in reservoirs or get soaked up in the soil, or evaporate, or collect in natural depressions in the topography. It could make it to an ocean, but any of the other possibilities are just as (if not more) likely as adding to the oceans. I repeat, there are issues with ice melt. Sea levels rising probably isn't one of them.
Show me a scientific paper that says that ocean levels won't rise due to the melted ice being "soaked up by the soil" or "caught in natural topography". Show me where they worked out this probability that these results are just as (if not more) likely than the sea levels rising. This is a massive claim in black and white and you've been pretty vocal in only going with the science.

The IPCC says sea levels are rising by millimeters. Search the IPCC web site
to find the report in the Guardian story Blue Velvet posted. The organization is NOT making a blanket statement on dramatic increases in sea levels. Only that the hypothesis is that it should be and the science isn't really there.
This is in complete contrast with the rest of your argument. First you said that melting ice won't cause sea levels to rise (5th grade science). You were wrong. Then you said that the IPCC estimates are by 2mm. You were wrong. Then you changed that to likely not rising at all rising at all due to soil and topology (no reference). And now your own quote by the IPCC is at odds with what you're saying. And all of a sudden you no longer are keen on the science as nothing more than a hypothesis? I thought it was lawyers who we had to avoid, not scientists?

Oh, BTW, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change says North Pole ice increased this year (http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/report_aug-sept.php). Still far less than 2006, but a noticeable increase nonetheless.
And as has been said time and time again, climate change is about long-term trends. The data you are showing here is cherry-picked for one month out of the year. You aren't looking at what constitutes that ice thickness (i.e. not all ice is the same). If you followed even a single link from the page you posted you'll realise your bent is wrong.

Here's (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html) the 2008 report from the same group you linked.
The continued significant reduction in the extent of the summer sea ice cover is a dramatic illustration of the pronounced impact increased global temperatures are having on the Arctic regions. There has also been a significant reduction in the relative amount of older, thicker ice.

Many authors have recently acknowledged that a relatively younger, thinner ice cover is more susceptible to the effects of atmospheric and oceanic forcing (e.g. Gascard et al., 2008; Stroeve et al., 2008; Kwok, 2007; Ogi and Wallace, 2007; Maslanik et al., 2007; Serreze et al., 2007; Shimada et al., 2006). In the face of the predictions for continued warming temperatures (Christensen et al., 2007), the persistence of recent atmospheric (Comiso et al., 2008; Kwok, 2008) and oceanic circulation patterns (Steele et al. 2008; Polyakov et al. 2007), and the amplification of these effects through the ice albedo feedback mechanism (Perovich et al., 2008), it is becoming increasingly likely that the Arctic will change from a perennially ice-covered to an ice-free ocean in the summer.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#really_declining
Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record. As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year. Although the 2008 sea ice minimum was slightly above the 2007 record, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.7 percent per decade. September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions. However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the decline is greater and the rate faster than natural causes could account for. For more on the basics of sea ice, read Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice.

2008 had more sea ice than 2007; why?

For details concerning why summer of 2008 shaped up differently than previous summers, please see our analysis archives and ongoing analysis updates.
A more general question might be, if sea ice is declining, how can it be that a single day or month decades ago could actually have had less ice than the same day or month in recent years? For more accurate results, scientists avoid comparing a historical single day or month (for example, May 1980) with a recent single day or month (for example, May 2008). Comparing longer trends and averages is more appropriate because natural variability, or natural shifts in the climate system, cause changes from one day or month to the next. Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of trends. This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.


What does that mean? Probably that this issue is far more complicated than we've been led to believe.
"Probably" :confused:. Show me some science that backs you up. Stop drawing conclusions on your own.

Shrill statements about coastal cities getting wiped out do nothing but give ammo to the people who want you to give them money.
So decreasing my energy usage is giving them money? I think you might have a problem here. Unless climate change is a ruse by bicycle companies. Because I bought a new one of those to stay out of my car.

[mysterytramp]

Personally, I'd much rather take the word of the Met Office and NASA over yours.

And if we're planning on making this gamble as a species, it might be better to hedge our bets, don't you think? Besides, if we threw some of the money we throw at wars, arms suppliers and weapons systems manufacturers, that might just prove a better bet over the long term. Calling such ideas as shrill is just a childish retort to the potential problem facing us, and disqualifies any input you make to a discussion.

Do people not read? I never called it shrill to study and hopefully resolve our environmental mess. I don't disagree that global temperatures aren't rising. The best working hypothesis is that human beings are responsible, but at the moment, that's all it is, a hypothesis. It needs more study. Until it's conclusive, there's nothing wrong with trying to live more lightly upon the land. That's just common sense. Nothing I've said contradicts that.

What bothers me is that the debate is infected with lots of bad information. Like "a large percentage of the world's fresh water (in the form of ice) is lost to the salty depth of the sea." I'm sorry, but to ignore the basic science of the water cycle is shrill.

And shrill is the wild claims about sea levels rising. Even if sea levels do rise (and, yes, I am extremely skeptical on this point), it'll happen slow enough that coastal communities can be protected. To state otherwise, is just an attempt to scare you.

This discussion had nothing to do with the allocation of resources, but if it were up to me, I'd redirect the money we're spending in Iraq to more productive uses, especially environmental protection. Nothing I've said states otherwise. And to say my input should be disqualified was over the line.

mt

[Dont Hurt Me]

Wild claims of sea level rising? thats very funny. You need to talk to people in Venice or take a bowl 3/4 full of water and put in a large chunk of ice and then let it melt. Presto science. Now think of earths polar caps and what happens when they melt. Stop listening to spin masters like Bush,Cheney and Rove and all the Scientific liars they bought off.

[mysterytramp]

Show me a scientific paper that says that ocean levels won't rise due to the melted ice being "soaked up by the soil" or "caught in natural topography".

I've done my best to annotate my posts. You show me a paper that says the natural action of water flowing downhill toward a seashore won't happen.

"Probably" . Show me some science that backs you up. Stop drawing conclusions on your own.

I'm just repeating what I read in the IPCC:

"Because understanding of some important effects driving sea
level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood,
nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. "

Emphasis mine. Other statements on sea level rise, from the IPCC, are all couched in similar language. They make no blanket assertions; everything is conditional. Like I said upstream, it needs more study; until then, people are too willing to assume the data says what it doesn't.

BTW, the best the IPCC comes up with is millimeters. I think the organization does a lot of good work, but I'm willing to bet that getting that degree of precision on something as large as the world's oceans is a trial at best.

mt

[hulugu]

....Deserts don't expand, they shrink. (This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811) is old but I can't find anything that refutes it.

Well, actually deserts can expand or shrink depending on the conditions. For example, the African deserts are shrinking, but there are deserts that are growing by leaps and bounds in China for example.

(More water vapor also means more energy in the atmosphere, which would help explain some recent hurricane seasons in the U.S.)

Well, that's just part of it, you also need a disturbance and warm-ocean water.

Third, most of the glacier melt would be in ocean-going icebergs, which would never be a source of fresh water anyway. Terrestrial snow and ice that would melt from rising global temperatures is far enough inland that most of it should be (or already is) impounded in reservoirs.

Greater oceanic liquid water also means greater habitat for aquatic species. Yes, it might suck for polar bears, but it's great for krill and halibut and creatures at critical points in the food chain. Some species might have trouble, many more should benefit.

None of this means global warming doesn't exist, or that man isn't contributing to global warming. But wild-ass assertions about oceans rising have no scientific basis. (Even the IPCC is wishywashy on this.)

Ask yourself this, the last time you heard someone mention sea levels rising, was it a scientist in a relevant field, or was it a lawyer? The sorry thing is, too many lawyers are posing as environmentalists.

mt

Unfortunately, those who argue for Anthropogenic Climate Change (Global Warming is inaccurate and misleading), can fall into the trap of looking for a punchy idea over an accurate one. It is possible, if all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland melt that sea-levels will rise and because of tidal effects simply swamp coastal communities. You won't see Waterworld, but cities like Venice, for example, could be almost completely lost.

However, the loss of costal real-estate is a minor problem compared the possibility that melting ice in Greenland (and the rest of the Arctic) may halt the movement of the Great Conveyer or thermohaline circulation. Currently, this system brings warm water up to Europe, helping to stabilize the continent and keep it warmer than it should be considering its latitude. The loss, confusion, or reversal of this cycle would have possibly deleterious effects on the European climate.

Furthermore, many critics of Climate Change continue to fight over the complexities of the climate and weather what I consider one of the most serious aspects of carbon production, which is the rapid acidification of the world oceans. As the ocean absorbs carbon a chemical reaction creates carbonic acid. This acid happens to break down the skeletons of coral, and thus destroys a major part of the world's fish nurseries.

Lastly, one of the things that also seems to escape a great many is the creation of runaway-systems, wherein for example, the ocean stops absorbing carbon and suddenly all the carbon-dioxide produce suddenly stays in the atmosphere. We're not sure exactly how fast something like this can happen, but I think this should be incorporated into our reactions. Few systems maintain linear progression for long.

[Badandy]

And who are we to make that decision? When did humanity become anointed with the title and powers of a god?

Indeed.



Imagine that man-made climate change is just hype. It's all caused by the changes in solar output, shifting winds, and other factors over which man has no influence. Fine.

Knowing that, imagine the consequences. Oceans rise, deserts expand.....

Now imagine that a series of steps can be taken to slow down this effect, and possibly even limit it.

The question is, why wouldn't you do this? It seems like a no-brainer.



I mean, right before saying that we should not play God and decide who lives and dies you were advocating changing the climate to be better for us whether or not we were actually causing warming/climate change.

[.Andy]

I've done my best to annotate my posts.
Except for this point that you completely and utterly made up;
Terrestrial ice melt is likely to be impounded in reservoirs or get soaked up in the soil, or evaporate, or collect in natural depressions in the topography. It could make it to an ocean, but any of the other possibilities are just as (if not more) likely as adding to the oceans.
Annotating some points doesn't give you a free pass to make up stuff on other points.

[CalBoy]

I mean, right before saying that we should not play God and decide who lives and dies you were advocating changing the climate to be better for us whether or not we were actually causing warming/climate change.

In the first post, I was addressing mysterytramp callous statement that "some live, some die." He made it seem as if we should accept this as the natural order, even though the current extinction is being caused largely by our activity (which is incidentally not climate related in many cases; deforestation and urban sprawl can contribute to the demise of a species as much as climate change can).

As for the second point, I'm not advocating that we change the climate, but rather that we slow down its change by limiting our impact on the planet. Nature will proceed on schedule without our massive polluting, but it seems that nature speeds things up when we aggravate it.