2

sorry to double post, but I passed my edit time and I feel this needs to be said.

This whole 'scare people in action thing' the skeptics are up in arms about is getting on my nerves. Look, no one's gonna scare anybody into recycling, use less paper, etc. People are still gonna pollute and be wasteful. The changes needed are in the government because only they can regulate the laws that can directly and significantly affect CO2 levels.

and as for my source if some readers find it lacking: What was depicted on the last page was done by a long term research collaboration called EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) and the findings were released by none other than AAAS. These aren't treehugging moonbats. They're the biggest nerds you'll ever come in contact with and there's no "pseudo-scientific generalizations" here. The ice doesn't lie.



[Edited on November 21, 2008 at 10:40 PM. Reason : < ----]

11/21/2008 10:31:56 PM

You know what I see here? I don't see skepticism of global warming/climate change/whatever. Not really.

I see skepticism of science itself. I see this anti-science, anti-intellectual, irrational fear of change harbored by conservatives.

They fear that global warming will force them to change their habits, and to accept more government intervention, when ironically government intervention would mostly be required to force these people to change.

They think in principles, principles that can be summarized as the freedom to be irresponsible. And they will follow them even if they lead to disaster.

I think I've got a lot of you "skeptics" pegged if you look deep down.

The science is not the problem here. You are.

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/22/2008 12:18:21 AM

^ Who is that directed at? Me? If so, please tell me where have I ever been anti-science? You, on the other hand, have been spouting off a lot of insults and innuendo at anyone who disagrees with you. Hubristic self-righteousness doesn't make your argument any stronger.

^^ supercalo, what the fuck are you babbling about? I'm not a global warming skeptic. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM. Reason : 2]

11/22/2008 4:14:00 PM

Quote :

"I doubt someone would go through the trouble to make up numbers that would support a movement which could possibly worsen an already declining global economy unless it was for a reason, especially if it were the top prestigious scientific institutions like NAS or AAS. Theres no ground that would make a 'fake' global warming scenerio advantageous to anyone in that regard."

Are you seriously that stupid? the GlobalFearmongering argument has been going on for far longer than the past 2 months. it's been going on since at least 2000. don't be a fucking moron.

Quote :

"The "worse case scenerio" of action against global warming is global economic decline, yet many believe it possible to maintain our standard of living within reasonable means. - In comparison to "the worse case scenerio" of inaction against global warming (in all fairness we must compare them both) is not only global economic decline but also a myriad of other catastrophic events such as climate destabilization, famine, drought, flooding, resource wars, and political upheaval on a global scale."

Hey, there's this thing called Man-Bear-Pig. The worst case scenario of responding to it is a little wasted money. The worst case scenario of inaction is the raping and pillaging of millions of villages. Clearly we must respond!

Quote :

"You must realize that in the scientific field, passing off bogus numbers is not looked upon lightly as scientist are constantly trying to out do each other in terms of correctness. In other words a scientist's legitimacy translates to the funding and livelihood to continue doing said 'science'. This isn't religion where people can just come up with stuff out of their ass. [Edited on November 20, 2008 at 9:51 AM. Reason : I mean they can, but its a hell of a lot more likely that they'll get called out on it.]"

Actually, they HAVE been passing off bogus numbers. And they have been called out on it. But no one gives a fuck. The fact is, all of the short-term "predictions" have proved to be flat out WRONG. They can't even reproduce historical data with the models on which they are basing their dire future predictions! Look, if this were a Creationist argument using this kind of evidence, we'd be throwing it under the bus and laughing at it.

Quote :

"Ummmmm. Because even if you don't believe that climate change is a driven by human activity, you can't deny that global temperatures have been rising over the last century? And that if this is part of a continuing trend, we can invest in ways that may help us (and particuarly poorer countries) adjust?"

And therein lies the problem. You are looking at a small slice of time and trying to claim some terribly dramatic trend. The beginning of the century starts at a minimum in temperatures, which then goes up to a maximum in the 30s, which then goes down to a minimum in the 70s (global cooling, OMFG), and then, shocker, 30 years later, we have a maximum. STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Quote :

"But look back at your previous posts it looks like you deny that even this trend may exist because you think that temps have been stable for all of 8 years. This is not only a bit of a silly approach, but actually ignores the continued upwards trend in temperatures."

Actually, the stability of temperatures for the past 8 years is damning, Socks. If CO2 really were this horrible thing, then we should see temperatures continuing to climb. CO2 hasn't been removed from the atmosphere, has it? And yet, we're told that the past 100 years has a warming trend due to all of the evil CO2. Then, at the end of that, we see the next 8 years, with all of that evil CO2 still there, bucking the trend, and, in fact, reversing the alleged previous 30 years of warming. What part of that seems credible to you? How can CO2 be so evil for 100 years and then take a 10-year break?

Quote :

"It should be called "Global Climate Change", not Global Warming. "

Of course, because you can't even prove that there is any WARMING any more. It should be "Global Stuff Is Different Than From When We Were Kids But Probably The Same As When Our Great-Great-Grandparents Were Kids" at best.

Quote :

"What about this do you not understand? If there hasn't been any supervolcanoes going off in the past 60 to 100 years what else could be the reason?"

No one denies that there is more CO2 in the air right now, fuckstick.

11/22/2008 5:35:54 PM

^Sources?

11/22/2008 7:11:25 PM

Sources for what?

11/22/2008 7:22:26 PM

Your claim that the warming has stopped, perhaps?

11/22/2008 8:24:24 PM

well, there are plenty of sources out there that note the trend in temperatures for the past 7-8 years. Google it. And, I'm being honest and ignoring the 1998 el Nino spike.

11/22/2008 9:54:00 PM

Believe me, I've Googled. I see the overall warming trend continuing.



Of course you'll get spikes and dips because of weather variation. You can't use those to defeat Al Gore. He'll only grow stronger.

For more information on why global warming hasn't ended, click the following link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mind-the-gap/

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 10:24 PM. Reason : OMG RealClimate]

11/22/2008 10:19:15 PM

Prawn Star I never called you a skeptic did I, get some reading comprehension yourself. I responded to the anthropogenic evidence you asked for and then in the subsequent post I talked about skeptic idealogy. Plain as fucking day. What message board are you reading?

I know you recognize climate change from these two statements alone:

Quote :

"I think that we've been dumping carbon dioxide into the air for centuries, and any reduction at this point would be largely symbolic. I think that we could nullify the warming effects of greenhouse gases with stratospheric injection of reflective aerosols for a fraction of the price of the more radical solutions. "

Although I feel you're not taking in all the possible outcomes. Reflective aerosols is an interesting solution but how are we gonna get rid its traces once its done its job. There are many things that can help us slow down rising CO2 level trends. Among them, the biggest is probably a switch to nuclear energy in the midterm. What we need is infrastructure change, but sadly it wont be easy.

Arranburro. Talking tough and feigning logic for ignorance again I see. Not surprised.

Quote :

"the GlobalFearmongering argument has been going on for far longer than the past 2 months. it's been going on since at least 2000. don't be a fucking moron."

Just what in the fuck are you talking about. Climate change was an issue back in the 90's with el nino like you said. You dont have to get all cospiracy nuthead crazy on me, i'm informed enough as it is.

We get it, you dont believe that humans are responsible for climate change and that even if we were mother earth will still stay stable. Its a possibility, I'll give you that. But its a small one and a lot more smarter people than you say otherwise. I've already debunked your "small slice of time" argument on the last page with fact.

So to put it as lightly as I can

STFU ya maroon, come back when you have some credibility

11/22/2008 10:28:35 PM

Yeah I remember when we all died because of El Niño

That sucked

11/22/2008 10:33:40 PM

I can pull up the story about la nina being attributed the hottest summer ever in the mediterranean killing several people in spain. And thats just off the top of my head. Should you be scared, no. But you shouldn't be ignorant either.

11/22/2008 10:39:36 PM

I just realized that aaronburro mostly just looks at pretty graphs and tries to make arguments based on what he sees in them.

11/22/2008 10:41:22 PM

Quote :

"Believe me, I've Googled. I see the overall warming trend continuing."

Sure. If you cherry-pick the start date, like you did with that graph.

Quote :

"Arranburro. Talking tough and feigning logic for ignorance again I see. Not surprised."

can't even spell my name right. not surprising that you would resort to ad hominem instead of actually addressing my points. good work.

Quote :

"Just what in the fuck are you talking about. Climate change was an issue back in the 90's with el nino like you said. You dont have to get all cospiracy nuthead crazy on me, i'm informed enough as it is."

You'll note that what you quoted me on was in reference to someone asking why anyone would fake something that would make the currently declining global economy even worse. It only stands to reason from that statement that the poster is implying that GW was a relatively new issue, as in, within the past 2 or 3 months. Good work, fool.

Quote :

"I've already debunked your "small slice of time" argument on the last page with fact."

No you haven't. You posted one fucking graph of CO2 levels. To which I posted "no one doubts there is more CO2, shitface."

Quote :

"STFU ya maroon, come back when you have some credibility"

haha. "STFU, you color!"

Quote :

"I can pull up the story about la nina being attributed the hottest summer ever in the mediterranean killing several people in spain. And thats just off the top of my head. Should you be scared, no. But you shouldn't be ignorant either."

Really? Hottest summer ever? You have temperature records for the entire existence of the Mediterranean Sea? Wow! Tell me, if you can use one isolated instance as evidence for AGW, can I use similar isolated incidents as evidence against AGW? It snowed in Raleigh, NC this week. Clearly AGW is a lie.

Quote :

"I just realized that aaronburro mostly just looks at pretty graphs and tries to make arguments based on what he sees in them."

The irony in this post is that is pretty much what the entirety of AGW proponents do. Good work, fool.

11/22/2008 10:51:25 PM

Quote :

"Really? Hottest summer ever? You have temperature records for the entire existence of the Mediterranean Sea?"

aaarrrrannburro, please spare me your tired debating style. You know that was simple hyperbole on my part. If you want to discredit me then please address the meat of my remarks.

You still fail to realize that isolated events are not the argument. Its the trend, and the trend shows the global climate is out of whack. Until you can provide credible evidence to the contrary, that will show global warming is not a threat then you'll just have to stick to your idiotic manbearpig analogy.

[Edited on November 22, 2008 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

11/22/2008 11:09:22 PM

Quote :

"Sure. If you cherry-pick the start date, like you did with that graph."

We exist in an orchard of cherry trees. There's nothing else to pick. But I imagine you prefer your drupes served cool.



Is that better?

11/22/2008 11:23:37 PM

Quote :

"If you want to discredit me then please address the meat of my remarks."

What meat? Isolated events? Look, if you are going to point to a myriad of isolated events as evidence, then I will point to the current record low temperatures as evidence against. The whole problem with AGW at this point is that everything remotely "not normal" is being pointed to as a sign of AGW. Katrina was pointed to as evidence, yet even hurricane scientists admit that Katrina had nothing to do w/ AGW. Google it.

OMG, a seal just farted. It must be due to AGW. All of this despite the fact that all of the vaunted models fail to reproduce something incredibly important: past observations. And you call this "science." Show me a scientific theory of any sort that can't predict past observations.

^ Actually, I've refused to cherry-pick 1998, as it is unfair. nice try, though

11/23/2008 12:01:40 AM

Ah, you're a picky cherry picker. So which arbitrary date appeals to you? Does 2002 work?



Is that one fair?

11/23/2008 12:10:43 AM

Quote :

"The irony in this post is that is pretty much what the entirety of AGW proponents do."

No, they don't. They look at many metrics and the whole of the scientific analysis available. They do not arbitrarily cherry-pick to suit their personal bias (and if they do, they are filtered out). Cherry-picking is the only way to make it look like the science doesn't work.

Why is it really that you are so skeptical of the science behind this? You have expressed this before. You're fearful. Fearful that these scientists and elitist liberals will take away your way of life, and collapse the economy through over-regulation. But there is no basis for this. There is every reason to think the change will be very gradual, as pollution regulation always has been. Nobody is going to pull the rug (or the SUV) out from under you. You rationalize this fear by trying to dispute the science, which is futile. The changes will happen around you and you can come kicking and screaming or you can adapt and participate.

11/23/2008 12:41:44 PM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438755

11/23/2008 6:03:17 PM

Quote :

"No, they don't. They look at many metrics and the whole of the scientific analysis available. They do not arbitrarily cherry-pick to suit their personal bias (and if they do, they are filtered out). Cherry-picking is the only way to make it look like the science doesn't work."

Actually, that's exactly what they do...

Quote :

"Why is it really that you are so skeptical of the science behind this?"

Well, #1, there is no science behind it. Just a bunch of people running around yelling there is science behind it. Tell me what kind of science can't reproduce past observations? Tell me what kind of science would ignore observational data when it doesn't suit the conclusions it desires.

11/24/2008 9:47:54 PM

Ahhh. I love the negotiation process. At the Pozan talks, the blame game is starting all over again. And wouldn't you know it? The failure to make progress is all the US fault.

Quote :

"Environmentalists criticized the United States and other rich countries Tuesday for failing so far to make meaningful commitments at a U.N. conference on climate change. Some 190 countries are meeting in Poznan, Poland, for talks that are part of the attempt to reach a new climate-change treaty in the Danish capital of Copenhagen next year. ... "That's the shared vision," Meyer said. "The reason we can't get it is because the Bush administration has refused to put on the table any meaningful target and any meaningful financial package from the U.S." Meyer said until a U.S. president is "willing to talk about doing that, you're not going to get consensus in this hall on a shared vision.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28016904/

Personally, I hope Barack does mark a change from the Bush status-quo. But, at the same time, I really have my doubts that other developed countries will suddenly jump on board for drastic cuts in GHG emissions just because Obama made a political promise to "heal the earth".

If you look at the data on GHG emissions for 1990 to 2006, it's pretty clear that most western countries are not doing much at all to curb their emissions (despite EXISTING targets to do so). So I think this whole "blame the US" thing is political BS. And that's pretty scary.


http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/items/4146.php

[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ``]

12/2/2008 1:37:52 PM

2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since NASA started taking satellite measurements in 2003.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28249708/

Why is this a problem? Because it is leading to more GHG gases (specifically methane) being released.

Quote :

"Two other studies coming out at the conference assess how Arctic thawing is releasing methane — the second most potent greenhouse gas. One study shows that the loss of sea ice warms the water, which warms the permafrost on nearby land in Alaska, thus producing methane, Stroeve says."

Scary stuff.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 4:36 PM. Reason : ``]

12/16/2008 4:34:14 PM

I know. That's why it's called "fearmongering." Too bad much of that ice has, you know, returned.

12/16/2008 5:20:31 PM

Its a good thing the scientific tide is finally starting to turn to the sensible side.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

12/17/2008 12:58:11 AM

^^^ The temperature changes in the arctic circle are certainly alarming.

But I don't see why people make such a big deal about sea levels rising a few millimeters. They've been rising a few millimeters per year for thousands of years, ever since the last ice age. If there has been any acceleration in sea level rise, it's barely even measureable. Stop with the fearmongering about New York City under water, please.

12/17/2008 1:03:53 AM

I did not mention it.

But New York suddenly being under water is hardly the worst consequence of global warming or even rising sea levels. After all, people can always move inland (though this obviously poses problems of its own). Worse than that is that rising sea levels can also shrink our supply of fresh ground water. And this could happen pretty quickly because at least some scientists believe that the rate that polar icecaps melt can increase fairly suddenly.

But if you really think all this rising sea-level stuff is just something out of an Al Gore slideshow to scare people, rest assured that I agree that there are other possily more frightening consequences of climate change. In particular, I'm concerned about how it will impact our food supply, how it might increase the spread of tropical diseases like malaria, among other things.

The big reason I think we should e worried about melting polar ice is that by releasing all this methane, it is actually creating positive feedback effects that may make it harder for us to control global climate change. In other words, the world gets warmer, causing arctic ice to melt, causing more methane to be released into the air, causing the world to get still warmer and so on.

[Edited on December 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM. Reason : ``]

12/17/2008 5:54:32 AM

Quote :

"In other words, the world gets warmer, causing arctic ice to melt, causing more methane to be released into the air, causing the world to get still warmer and so on."

And now you understand why anchient records show CO2 rising a few hundred years after the planet warms. Sure, Gore and others use this as proof that CO2 rising causes the planet to warm, but I digress.

12/17/2008 10:06:25 AM

^^Most studies have shown the world to be overall better off if the global average temperature rises a few more degrees. And these studies always mention how malaria outbreaks would not increase. They also talk about how roughly 41,000 (in the US alone) fewer people would die from milder winters as a result of GW.

12/17/2008 10:48:00 AM

Here's an article from cnn about a study conducted by the University of Illinois which surveyed 3,146 scientists from various backgrounds on their views of global climate change.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Quote :

" However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it. "The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran."

1/22/2009 7:11:31 PM

Quote :

""The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran."

hmm.... sounds like another "scientific controversy" - Creationists trying to convince the public (largely successfully, unfortunately) that there is intense debate upon scientists if evolution has and is happening or not.

1/22/2009 8:12:40 PM

^^LOL, if they are such experts why don't any of their models work with even a hint of accuracy?

I guess all those physicists, environmental researchers, geologists, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, geophyisicsts, chemists, and OTHER climatologists are wrong

They must be, b/c there already is a consensus. My mistake. I guess the declining global temperature missed the memo too.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 8:54 PM. Reason : I had no idea I was a creationist!]

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 8:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/22/2009 8:53:59 PM

Agent,

I hate to say it, but that's quite true.

though as long as we're making comparisons, I would just say it also reminds me of the recent attempt by folks on the left trying to convince the public that there is no credible disagreement on the economic prospects of a fiscal stimulus.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/01/krugman-on-stimulus-skeptics.html

political biases can be very frustrating.

[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 8:58 PM. Reason : ``]

1/22/2009 8:58:11 PM

i wasn't accusing anybody of being a creationist. i was just drawing a parallel.

1/22/2009 8:59:05 PM

I hate it when people say I don't care about the earth or energy independence b/c I don't believe in AGW

1/22/2009 9:08:51 PM

^ But why do you doubt AGW when the vast majority of climatologists disagree with you in poll after poll (and after major scientific institutions without any nominal political agenda put their reputations on the line to issue statements supporting the theory)?

If the presence of a small number of skeptics makes you doubt the hypothesis, why don't you also doubt evolution? Why don't you doubt the ability of neoclassical economic models to describe the behavior of individuals in markets (as there is indeed a small minority of academics that make this argument)? Why doesn't the presence of skeptics change your mind in other situations (UFOs man!!!)???

And please do not say you like to "think for yourself." Thinking you can second guess a collection of experts that study an issue for years based on a few minutes of googling is not what those after school specials were about (they meant meant don't let peer pressure cloud your judgment, and acknowledging that groups of specialists know more than you in their specialty is not peer pressure, it's humility). The division of knowledge is simply too great for someone to be an expert in everything. This is why most people go to doctors for a diagnosis instead of med school.

So, could you please describe your reasoning for disagreeing with the majority of climate experts on this issue? And again, please don't post any links to "scientific" articles. Unless you majored in this stuff and are working on a grad degree, you simply don't have the right to think you can jump head first into a complex scientific issue and think you can sort the good science from the bad science.

[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 7:18 AM. Reason : ``]

1/23/2009 7:08:08 AM

Quote :

"Unless you majored in this stuff and are working on a grad degree, you simply don't have the right to think you can jump head first into a complex scientific issue and think you can sort the good science from the bad science. "

That would go for you too (and for most people). Except that you do have the right to think that. You shouldn't have to be a Priest of Science to delve into the mysteries of climate.

1/23/2009 9:11:15 AM

^ Actually, no, you shouldn't have that right. You SHOULD be well educated in a subject if you are going to pretend to argue with the conclusions of the vast majority of experts on that subject. And I don't think you really disagree with me. For example, if you were sick I'm sure you could hire "medical enthusiasts" off the web for close to nothing (check out some free diagnosis forums sometime), but for some reason I bet you prefer to go to see Doctors that have verifiable credentials and degrees. I WONDER WHY!!!!

Anyways, you're right that this rule applies to me. That's why I do not claim to know more than the scientific consensus on CC--I accept it. I have a basic knowledge of the mechanics involved, but lack the expertise to parse the true nuances of the subject.

That isn't to say I totally discount the input of skeptics. Even proponents of CC admit there is a range of possible scenerios associated with different probabilities. And there is a definate possibility that proponents are either wrong or that consequences wont be as dire as predicted. Again even proponents *admit this*. However, they argue that there is much larger possibility that they are at least some what right and that things can get very very bad. Why shouldn't I listen to the majority of experts on this??

Back to the medical example, I've never seen a germ, and I don't know really know how germs make me sick, but I still trust the doctor when he tells me this or that bacteria is making me throw up. Why shouldn't the same logiic apply??? Embrace the diffusion of knowledge, friend. It's the only way to live in this complicated world.

[Edited on January 23, 2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason : ``]

1/23/2009 10:19:30 AM

For thousands of years, expert doctors claimed that bloodletting was effective in curing all sorts of ailments.

1/23/2009 3:12:34 PM

^ Does that mean you don't go to doctors and prefer to treat yourself??? Haha I doubt it.

If your only point is that experts can be wrong too, then thanks for stating the obvious. Proponents themselves already admit this. And I already addressed that previously (we can split policy priorities between prevention and adaptation).

Hopefully you can do better on a second draft.

I look forward to it.

1/24/2009 1:59:12 AM

Socks, while there is a consensus that AGW is occuring, there is not a consensus on it resulting in an armagendon to rival the end of days. There is no consensus beyond one to three degrees warming over the next century, about as much warming we already experienced over the past century without noticing till the end of it.

1/24/2009 11:43:24 AM

^

Quote :

"Even proponents of CC admit there is a range of possible scenerios associated with different probabilities."

Thanks for the info.

The fact that we are not sure about what exactly will happen is why I personally believe that we should pursue a variety of policies that focus on both preventing cc (which have the potential to slow economic growth by essentially "taxing" economic activities that produce carbon emissions) and being better able to adapt its potential consequences (policies that promote economic growth, particularly in poorer US areas and other countries, see Lomborg).


[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ``]

1/25/2009 10:37:15 AM

What a lot of people do not know is the shrinking arctic sea cap has little effect on ocean levels. Beyond a some polar bears being our of place and home a melted arctic ice cap would only raise ocean levels by a mere couple inches. This is because the arctic ice cap is the ocean and already displaces XYZ amount of water. Most of the doomsday ocean flooding scenarios the global warming camp speaks of is only possible if the Greenland ice sheet melts and the good amount of the ice cap in the antarctic. Since this ice is currently on a land mass once melted this water will cause the displacement that will ensure rising sea levels.

Fortunately for us the antarctic is currently in a cooling trend. Scientists are not quite sure why this is occurring but due to the polar vortex that somewhat isolates the airmass over Antarctica with that of the rest of the world.

1/25/2009 11:34:51 AM

^ Actually, a recent study published in Nature is starting to overturn the notion that Antarctica as a whole is cooling.

1) The studies that came to that conclusion were focused on cooling in East Antarctica from 1969-2000. However, the more recent study shows that even though East Antarctica cooled during this time, West Antarctica grew much warmer.


2) When looking over a longer time period (1957-2006) East and West Antarcica both grew warmer. The changing trend in East Antarctica (from warming to cooling) might be explained by previous research that suggests that the cooling trend was linked to the formation of the hole in the ozone in the 1970s.

Here is one of the paper's co-authors discussing the results:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/

Here is a recent report from MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28693329/

This new info really scares me, for exactly the reasons you described. It could make flooding scenarios more likely. How does it make you feel?

[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM. Reason : ``]

1/25/2009 1:44:39 PM

I don't buy into the flooding scenarios, and neither does the IPCC. They have predicted that sea levels would rise less than 2 mm per year over the next century, which is pretty much in line with measured rise over the last few millenia. As for diminishing freshwater supplies, there's always desalination plants, which are expensive but proven to work, and they'll get cheaper as the technology matures.

1/25/2009 2:37:56 PM

^^ that's a pretty preliminary report and even Mann (the hockey-stick guy) was somewhat reserved in his initial discussions of the findings.

There is some evidence it MIGHT be volcanic activity under the surface:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41171/117/

1/25/2009 7:07:15 PM

Quote :

"If your only point is that experts can be wrong too, then thanks for stating the obvious"

My point is that experts can be wrong and non-experts right. It is obvious, and you are welcome. I am happy to provide the obvious to those who need it, now and then.

1/25/2009 10:15:58 PM

moron,
i'm not sure what you mean "preliminary". It isn't like there is a revision scheduled, it's a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. These are the final results.

If you mean it isn't totally conclusive, I would agree. After all, the authors note that they are having to construct data in some cases where there is none, which is always tricky. But a lack of complete data over the past 50 years isn't a problem that will go away or be resolved in the future. Plus, previous studies were not conclusive either. We can only go with the evidence we have at any given time and this paper is one piece of evidence among many, but its implications are not rosy.

Prawn Star,
I'm not sure what you mean by "the" flooding scenarios, but the IPCC actually DOES project that flooding will increase in coastal areas as a result of sea level changes. And they believe that the consequences will be a little worse than what you let on.

Quote :

"Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s. Those densely-populated and low-lying areas where adaptive capacity is relatively low, and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence, are especially at risk. The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia andA frica while small islands are especially vulnerable"

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf

radu,
Well, that actually isn't what your example illustrated. Non-experts had no better clue about how to cure people when blood letting was in vogue than doctors did. Your example only shows that experts can be wrong, not that non-experts can correctly second guess experts in a systematic way.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 6:28 AM. Reason : ``]

1/26/2009 6:23:54 AM

So you are saying non-experts are not capable of second guessing experts in a systematic way?

1/26/2009 10:25:29 AM

I dont know the 'good' science from the 'bad' science but I have just one simple question.

Based on scientific procedures, how can anyone claim to have anything much more than anecdotal evidence for either side of the argument? The sample size is so small, how can 200 years+ of measuring speak to a planet that is billions of years old? How can anyone be certain we are having any impact at all?

That said, I am all for cleaner technology and research.

1/26/2009 11:03:38 AM