Scientists wrong on global warming

[a_unique_person]

Damn those models, they got it wrong again. And those scientists for erring on the side of caution. The arctic is melting much faster than predicted.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Arctic-ice-melting-faster-than-expected/2007/05/02/1177788174493.html



Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture from that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the intergovernmental panel.
"The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur," Scambos said.
The wide possibility of what might occur included a much later melt up north, or a much earlier one, Scambos said.
"It appears we're on pace about 30 years earlier than expected to reach a state where we don't have sea ice or at least not very much in late summer in the Arctic Ocean," he said.
He discounted the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles. "There aren't many periods in history that are this dramatic in terms of natural variability," Scambos said.
He said he had no doubt that this was caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he said was the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes.




That's downside of assuming the models will only overestimate global warming.

[joe1347]

Stupid Computer Models.

Looks like the Geophysical Research Letters needs a political appointee from the Bush Admin to do a little fine tuning of the 'facts'. Don't they (the Geophysical Research Letters) know that Global Warming is still an unproven theory and is disputed by many notable scientists.

[corplinx]

Let's take off the troll hats for a minute. I read the link, read more links, more links, and a few more. Apparently, a heavily weighted factor was the observation of glaciers moving faster after the Larsen B shelf broke off?

Am I reading this right?

[Schneibster]

OK, no troll hat.

I read the report itself, and my take is, we just found out that the Arctic ice is melting far faster than we thought. The data is satellite pictures of the Arctic, and visual confirmation of the satellite data (by aircraft and ships, and from land). No models; this is pure data, from pictures. It says that the models are wrong, far too conservative, and the ice will all be gone 20-30 years before the models said it would. Because that ice keeps the Arctic Ocean cool, by reflecting sunlight, and because open water will absorb heat much faster than ice, this means that the models will all have to be adjusted. We will most likely be in very, very serious trouble by the last quarter to third of this century as a result.

I didn't see anything about the Larsen B ice shelf, which is in Antarctica, at the other end of the Earth; that is, around the South Pole, not the North Pole, which is what this report is talking about. Nor anything else about the Antarctic either. That's a completely separate subject.

[corplinx]

OK, no troll hat.

I read the report itself, and my take is, we just found out that the Arctic ice is melting far faster than we thought. The data is satellite pictures of the Arctic, and visual confirmation of the satellite data (by aircraft and ships, and from land). No models; this is pure data, from pictures. It says that the models are wrong, far too conservative, and the ice will all be gone 20-30 years before the models said it would. Because that ice keeps the Arctic Ocean cool, by reflecting sunlight, and because open water will absorb heat much faster than ice, this means that the models will all have to be adjusted. We will most likely be in very, very serious trouble by the last quarter to third of this century as a result.

I didn't see anything about the Larsen B ice shelf, which is in Antarctica, at the other end of the Earth; that is, around the South Pole, not the North Pole, which is what this report is talking about. Nor anything else about the Antarctic either. That's a completely separate subject.

I was googling for the research that was part of this and was reading and someone got onto a BBC article that I thought was also related talking how they did visual verification by measuring increased glacier speed in Antartica. It must have been a seperate study.

Does anyone have more links to the actual study behind this article?

[Schneibster]

In other words, we are totally, utterly f**ked.

China and our wonderful idiot frat-boi pResident are arguing over the IPCC report right now. They keep whining about models. This ain't models. This is pictures. There's nowhere to hide. We are utterly, totally screwed. In 2040, there will be no polar bears except in zoos. There will be no arctic seals, except in zoos. If we are not very, very lucky, there will be no grey whales, because the Arctic Ocean will get warm enough for bacteria to bloom and consume all the nutrients. Do you like halibut? How about snow crab? Better get it now; in 2040, there won't be any.

Remember all those nasty predictions for 2150? Move them back to 2080. That's less than 70 years from now. And what I'm talking about is less than 20 years off. We will live to see this.

[a_unique_person]

Let's take off the troll hats for a minute. I read the link, read more links, more links, and a few more. Apparently, a heavily weighted factor was the observation of glaciers moving faster after the Larsen B shelf broke off?

Am I reading this right?

Larsen B was in the Antarctic. The article was about the Arctic.

[Schneibster]

I was googling for the research that was part of this and was reading and someone got onto a BBC article that I thought was also related talking how they did visual verification by measuring increased glacier speed in Antartica. It must have been a seperate study. It was, and I was deliberately not nasty because it's an easy mistake for anyone to make who isn't familiar with the subject matter. No blame here; let there be no stress there. ;)

Does anyone have more links to the actual study behind this article?The article itself is in a paid subscription (and it's VERY expensive) scientific journal. You can get a bit more here (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml), including a pretty good graph; that's the popular science version by the media coordinators of the organization that the principle investigator (lead scientist on the project, and first name on the list of authors) works for. National Geographic, that hotbed of liberalism, has an article here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-arctic-ice.html). (Sorry, I can't help myself. I'm really, really pissed about this. Clinton and Gore tried to do something about this in 1993, but the Republican Congress spent all the time we had to do something about this on investigating blowjobs, and then we got idiot frat-boi. Please don't take it personally, it's not more than marginally your fault.) ABC (the Australia one, not the US one) has what's probably a reprint, but possibly more complete, of the Reuters article here (http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1912202.htm?enviro).

Yes, this is really quite serious, and very scary. It's thirty years too soon. There were hints in a couple of BBC articles over the last year or two, but no hard data. This is the hard data. We are hosed.

[corplinx]

Do you like halibut?

I don't eat fish caught in the wild by a commercial vessel. I eat farm raised or fresh caught by non-commercial fishers.

[peptoabysmal]

Kyoto is NOT the solution:


...
Two studies by impartial third parties show why: The Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Energy Department, found that meeting the Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent, and decrease our national gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 percent.

A study by Dr. Stephen Brown, Senior Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas, found that under a best case scenario, reducing CO2 emissions seven percent below 1990 levels - as required under the Kyoto accord - would represent a loss of between three percent to 4.3 percent of U.S. GDP. That comes out to $921 to $1,320 per person and $3,684 to $5,280 for a family of four. Under a worst-case scenario, meeting the Kyoto mandate could cost the average family of four $6,400 a year.
...
Enron and the Environmental Movement:
Global Warming Politics Makes for Strange Bedfellows (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA384.html)


Kyoto doesn't help the environment nearly as much as it hurts the US, which I suspect is it's real purpose.

[a_unique_person]

Kyoto is NOT the solution:



Kyoto doesn't help the environment nearly as much as it hurts the US, which I suspect is it's real purpose.

Can't you get over it? The cost has small compared to the cost of not complying, and for a country as wealthy as the US, comparatively small. The idea is not to make America poor, and, as the recent massive hike in fuel prices showed quite clearly, the US already had the ability, and more, to cope with such energy price rises.

[merentha]

Kyoto is NOT the solution:



Kyoto doesn't help the environment nearly as much as it hurts the US, which I suspect is it's real purpose.

Wow! A worst-case scenario of $3.60 per person per day, as opposed to a global catastrophe within 20 years. How much is the war costing the US?

[The Painter]

Asked what could fix the problem - the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok - Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.


So I guess we should hope for a huge volcano. Maybe we could be lucky and have 5 or 6 erupt at the same time. Don’t volcanoes put CO2 (green house gas) into the atmosphere? Is this like the lime in the coconut cure?

[Beerina]

It says that the models are wrong, far too conservative, and the ice will all be gone 20-30 years before the models said it would.

Which will be when?

[Beerina]

I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.

Seriously.

[a_unique_person]

I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.

Seriously.

Trantor was a fantasy, and a pretty good idea it couldn't work. We have nothing like the technology required on hand to even start it.

[andyandy]

Kyoto is NOT the solution:

Quote:
...
Two studies by impartial third parties show why: The Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Energy Department, found that meeting the Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent, and decrease our national gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 percent.

A study by Dr. Stephen Brown, Senior Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas, found that under a best case scenario, reducing CO2 emissions seven percent below 1990 levels - as required under the Kyoto accord - would represent a loss of between three percent to 4.3 percent of U.S. GDP. That comes out to $921 to $1,320 per person and $3,684 to $5,280 for a family of four. Under a worst-case scenario, meeting the Kyoto mandate could cost the average family of four $6,400 a year.
...

Kyoto doesn't help the environment nearly as much as it hurts the US, which I suspect is it's real purpose.

food for thought - for climate stabilisation it's predicted that we need an 80%reduction on 1990 levels.

The Stern report puts the figure at 1% of GDP in order to limit the temperature change to just 2degrees.

[strathmeyer]

Wow! A worst-case scenario of $3.60 per person per day, as opposed to a global catastrophe within 20 years. How much is the war costing the US?

Oh, is that the other option? Call me in twenty years and see if I'm still laughing.

[FarmallMTA]

Can't you get over it? The cost has small compared to the cost of not complying, and for a country as wealthy as the US, comparatively small. The idea is not to make America poor, and, as the recent massive hike in fuel prices showed quite clearly, the US already had the ability, and more, to cope with such energy price rises.

I suggest we raise energy prices on those who believe that Global Warming is man made.

They can then put their money where their mouths are. Fair is fair

[Schneibster]

Which will be when?So, obviously you didn't read the articles.

[Solitaire]

So, obviously you didn't read the articles.

It's rare that they do. Even material in the quote boxes gets ingored.

Anyhow, should I move north to avoid the heat or south to avoid the advancing glaciers? :boggled:

[Darat]

It's rare that they do. Even material in the quote boxes gets ingored.

Anyhow, should I move north to avoid the heat or south to avoid the advancing glaciers? :boggled:

Where ever you do better make sure it's high ground. :(

[Cuddles]

It's rare that they do. Even material in the quote boxes gets ingored.

Anyhow, should I move north to avoid the heat or south to avoid the advancing glaciers? :boggled:

Compromise. Go east or west instead.

[jdhammer]

Oh, is that the other option? Call me in twenty years and see if I'm still laughing.

Irony: In 13-23 years, it is predicted that there will be no arctic ice cap in the summer-time.

Disaster? I think so.

[Ziggurat]

OK, so the arctic ice cap is melting, and faster than expected. Now, why is this a disaster? Why does this mean we're all screwed? There's a step or two missing here.

[kalen]

Let me know when the models are better so I can find some good investment properties.

[lauraPSLI]

Wow, that's bad news. I am working through the report link now but even just reading these posts, it doesn't look good. I am curious though. What is everyone's thoughts on the feasibility of stopping / reversing the damage in order to prevent the total loss of the ice caps? Do you think it is technically possible or not? I'm talking hypothetically if everyone devoted their energy to this regardless of politics and governments...is it technically possible or is it just too late?

[andyandy]

OK, so the arctic ice cap is melting, and faster than expected. Now, why is this a disaster? Why does this mean we're all screwed? There's a step or two missing here.

depends in what timeframe you're talking, and where you live.... - we're probably not screwed.....


There is medium confidence that both ice sheets would be committed to partial deglaciation for a global average temperature increase greater than 1-2C, causing sea level rise of 4-6m over centuries to millennia." Medium confidence means about a five in 10 chance.


Such melting would raise sea levels by four to six metres, the scientists say. It would cause "major changes in coastline and inundation of low-lying areas" and require "costly and challenging" efforts to move millions of people and infrastructure from vulnerable areas. The previous official line, issued in 2001, was that the chance of such an event was "not well known, but probably very low".

and we're almost certainly locked into a minimum of a 2degrees rise.


The timeframe of the melting is a little more vague....


Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Arizona, said the key question was not whether the ice sheets would break up, but how quickly. Some models suggest rapid melting that would bring sea level rises of more than a metre per century. "That would be much harder for us to cope with," he says.

The IPCC science report predicted sea level rises of up to 0.59m by the end of the century. But that does not include the possible contribution from ice sheets, because the experts judged it too unpredictable to forecast over short timescales.http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2016243,00.html

[CapelDodger]

That's downside of assuming the models will only overestimate global warming.

It should be noted that the inaccuracy is not so much in climate models as in ice-dynamics models. Which seem to have underestimated the rate of ice-loss for both ocean- and land-ice. Obviously with much new data and lots more attention these models will be improving.

The effect on climate models is towards underestimating warming, since they assume albedo reduction according to the ice-dynamics models.

With more accurate ice-dynamics models come more accurate climate models. By the time this whole episode has played out there will be one heck of an accurate explanation of how and why it happened - in physical terms. How and why it happened in political terms will be for anthropology to explain :) .

[CapelDodger]

depends in what timeframe you're talking, and where you live.... - we're probably not screwed.....

Speak for yourself. You live up a tree; check out my location. The tidal surge that causes the Severn Bore passes not terribly far from my front-door; put a storm-surge on top of that and my whole day could be spoiled.

[CapelDodger]

What is everyone's thoughts on the feasibility of stopping / reversing the damage in order to prevent the total loss of the ice caps? Do you think it is technically possible or not?

This a ride we can't get off. I'm pretty sure it's technically possible but implementation would require a global command-economy dedicated to the task. Which is about as far from defining the human society we do have as I can easily imagine.

Buy the ticket, take the ride, as we used to say back in the day.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It should be noted that the inaccuracy is not so much in climate models as in ice-dynamics models. Which seem to have underestimated the rate of ice-loss for both ocean- and land-ice. Obviously with much new data and lots more attention these models will be improving.


Does anyone know what the sea level effects will be from the projected ice-loss in the next 20 years? It sounds like most of the loss is sea ice which has little or no effect on sea levels. Though I have to assume this means a similar loss in land ice, which does cause sea level rise.

I have to agree with the "we're screwed" assessment. Before long, everyone will have to face up to the fact that we're all in this together.

[CapelDodger]

Let me know when the models are better so I can find some good investment properties.

Siberian land is just going to take off; it's already heading up and it's still as cheap as cheese. I know this guy can get you in on the bottom rung; he's done very well by me. It's not about the hydrocarbons, it's about the 21stCE grain-belt. When a section doesn't pan out for hydrocarbons you can pick it up for pennies, then flip it to Chinese investors at 500%. And you can leverage your capital through Tokyo for almost nothing. I'm telling you, this is sweet.

If anybody out there is interested - and you should be - you can just PM me with the amount you want to invest and your bank-details and I'll get things rolling for you.

[CapelDodger]

Does anyone know what the sea level effects will be from the projected ice-loss in the next 20 years? It sounds like most of the loss is sea ice which has little or no effect on sea levels. Though I have to assume this means a similar loss in land ice, which does cause sea level rise.

Loss of ocean-ice, such as in the Arctic, won't affect sea-level. That much we know. Displacement, yadda yadda ... Zero is zero, whatever trend you impose on it.

You can't assume a "similar loss in land ice" for a variety of reasons. For instance, the volume of land-ice is enormously greater than the volume of ocean-ice. Ocean-ice is created by different processes - in fact, most ocean-ice was land-ice in its earlier career. Ocean-ice melting is dominated by phase-dynamics (liquid/solid) within the oceans; land-ice melting is dominated by insolation and reactions with the (gaseous phase) atmosphere.

Land-ice melting isn't even equivalent to land-ice loss, which includes ice that's dumped into the ocean.

Upshot is, nobody knows. Nobody knew 20 years ago how things would turn out now; they had models and estimates but no outcomes to compare them with. Now they do, and the models will have benefited. But we're still in uncharted territory.

I have to agree with the "we're screwed" assessment. Before long, everyone will have to face up to the fact that we're all in this together.

They'll realise that we're all in it. How much togetherness that will engender is debatable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Loss of ocean-ice, such as in the Arctic, won't affect sea-level. That much we know. Displacement, yadda yadda ... Zero is zero, whatever trend you impose on it.
Does an ice shelf count as ocean ice? I thought an ice shelf was at least partially cantilevered off of land (and not floating ice).

You can't assume a "similar loss in land ice" for a variety of reasons. For instance, the volume of land-ice is enormously greater than the volume of ocean-ice. Ocean-ice is created by different processes - in fact, most ocean-ice was land-ice in its earlier career. Ocean-ice melting is dominated by phase-dynamics (liquid/solid) within the oceans; land-ice melting is dominated by insolation and reactions with the (gaseous phase) atmosphere.

Land-ice melting isn't even equivalent to land-ice loss, which includes ice that's dumped into the ocean.


Oh yes--I was using "loss" and "melting" interchangeably, which they're not. D'oh!


Upshot is, nobody knows. Nobody knew 20 years ago how things would turn out now; they had models and estimates but no outcomes to compare them with. Now they do, and the models will have benefited. But we're still in uncharted territory.

So the sea level question (even 10 or 20 years out) is still beyond reliable forecasting?


They'll realise that we're all in it. How much togetherness that will engender is debatable.
Yeah--I was thinking it'll be massive revolutions that might lead to that realization. It'd be nice if it were otherwise.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Kyoto is NOT the solution:

The Kyoto Protocol was never meant to be "the solution" but merely a first step towards the objective of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

In time, the costs you cite may seem like a bargain compared to the costs of ignoring the issue.

[CapelDodger]

Does an ice shelf count as ocean ice? I thought an ice shelf was at least partially cantilevered off of land (and not floating ice).

I'm glad you brought that up.

Where ice is grounded below sea-level displacement is already maximised, however much ice sits on top. It's a transitional zone, which just complicates matters further. Worse than that, it introduces a whole new interaction zone - where ground, ice, and liquid ocean meet.

So the sea level question (even 10 or 20 years out) is still beyond reliable forecasting?

The error-bars are a lot tighter, but that's about it.


Yeah--I was thinking it'll be massive revolutions that might lead to that realization. It'd be nice if it were otherwise.

It might be that the stable society that emerges at the other end of this ride will have a greater sense of universal togetherness. It's made more likely because cultural diversity is going the same way as bio-diversity.

[Schneibster]

I don't eat fish caught in the wild by a commercial vessel. I eat farm raised or fresh caught by non-commercial fishers.You know, you can actually go find out what fish is good to eat and not, if you're concerned about the environment, here (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp). I am a member and get a card every time I go to refer to in restaurants and supermarkets.

[Schneibster]

OK, so the arctic ice cap is melting, and faster than expected. Now, why is this a disaster? Because once the ice cap is gone in summer, the rate at which the ocean heats up accelerates very quickly. All that ice reflects a lot of light, and when it's not there any more, all that light penetrates the ocean and gets absorbed. Do the math.

Why does this mean we're all screwed? There's a step or two missing here.It means we have thirty years less to react to this than we thought.

[Schneibster]

Wow, that's bad news. I am working through the report link now but even just reading these posts, it doesn't look good. I am curious though. What is everyone's thoughts on the feasibility of stopping / reversing the damage in order to prevent the total loss of the ice caps? Do you think it is technically possible or not? I'm talking hypothetically if everyone devoted their energy to this regardless of politics and governments...is it technically possible or is it just too late?If we let 2 billion people starve to death, we just might stop the Arctic ice cap from melting totally in the summer in 10 years. Not just a real great solution. We are screwed. We should have been doing something about this when Clinton and Gore tried to get something going in 1993.

Yet another Bush screwup.

[articulett]

Yep. Earth has a cancer diagnosis--delaying treatment can be fatal. Obfuscating the treatment options means dallying..and dallying makes slowing of the inevitable increasingly unlikely--and escalating disaster increasingly imminent.

[knot]

I hope the people on mars reduce their CO2 emission. Their polar caps are melting as well.

I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. - Sheryl Crow (http://www.sherylcrow.com/news.aspx?nid=7786)

[mhaze]

funny how apocalyptic prophesy has a continuing appeal to some fraction of people.

This just has the guise of science.

[a_unique_person]

funny how apocalyptic prophesy has a continuing appeal to some fraction of people.

This just has the guise of science.

In what sense does scientists measuring polar ice melting fit that guise?

[mhaze]

we can save the planet!

loss of the reflections from the ice cop must be countered by huge Man Made smog clouds over all major cities.

UN inspectors would Validate Required Smog levels!

[a_unique_person]

I hope the people on mars reduce their CO2 emission. Their polar caps are melting as well.

Only mars? Then it can't be something that affects the solar system then.

[mhaze]

I sincerely do hope our little finds of polar moon ice do not also melt away.

[Schneibster]

funny how apocalyptic prophesy has a continuing appeal to some fraction of people.

This just has the guise of science.Lots of people ignore cancer diagnoses, or heart attacks, until the damage is so major it kills them. Thanks for helping to do the same for the human race. You'll pardon me if I note that it seems pretty stupid to me to pretend something doesn't exist because you're afraid of it.

[mhaze]

You'll pardon me if I note that it seems pretty stupid to me to pretend something doesn't exist because you're afraid of it.

I thought it was the other way, those who bought into GW were driven by the fear factors. But that's a general observation about a cultural attitude of a group, and I would not stoop to asserting that was a motivator for you.

Insult away, if you like. Let's just go ad hominem.

[Ceritus]

Honestly why do we care so much about polar bears? How will it effect my chain of food?

I hope all this happens sooner so we can just get it over and done with. Then the next fear will be the refreezing of the icecaps when we have everything finally set up for the exceptionally warm earth. All in all if it is going to be so horrible and devastating to our species in the near future I should have a ton more children to try and ensure my genes survive.

[Ceritus]

Lots of people ignore cancer diagnoses, or heart attacks, until the damage is so major it kills them. Thanks for helping to do the same for the human race. You'll pardon me if I note that it seems pretty stupid to me to pretend something doesn't exist because you're afraid of it.

I don't doubt that is happening anymore, infact I am excited about it. It means I should make more babies to keep my gene line strong!

[a_unique_person]

Honestly why do we care so much about polar bears? How will it effect my chain of food?

I hope all this happens sooner so we can just get it over and done with. Then the next fear will be the refreezing of the icecaps when we have everything finally set up for the exceptionally warm earth. All in all if it is going to be so horrible and devastating to our species in the near future I should have a ton more children to try and ensure my genes survive.

It's that easy, is it? A few polar bears and it's all over :rolleyes:.

[Belz...]

Yep. Earth has a cancer diagnosis--delaying treatment can be fatal.

Nonsense. Bacteria will survive, and give them a few billion years, then BOOM!

Oh, that's right... no more sun! Never mind.

[Ceritus]

It's that easy, is it? A few polar bears and it's all over :rolleyes:.

Who knows it just might be! Besides I hate polar bears for no better reason than that they are bears and I hate bears. I had bears go in and out of my campsites when I was a boyscout and they would try to get into the food and scare the living crap out of us. Death to all bears if you ask me, and raccoons oh and mosquitos. Hell penguins suck too because they can't fly and they are birds! I mean atleast we eat chickens I wonder what penguin would taste like if it is delicious than perhaps we should keep em around if not, no big loss. Their males are so p***ywhipped anyways, standing around in the snow with the eggs while their mates get to go have a blast fishing.

[Par]

I hope the people on mars reduce their CO2 emission. Their polar caps are melting as well.


Imagine you go to see a doctor because you’re experiencing weight-loss. The doctor examines you and runs test after test. He then refers you to a specialist who runs yet more tests. Finally, he sits you down and says “I’m very sorry, but all our tests indicate your weight-loss is due to testicular cancer. But it’s not all bad news, if you undertake a course of therapy right away, there’s a good chance you’ll survive.”

Then imagine that you reflect on this diagnosis thusly: “But my friend Jane is loosing weight too and, given her lack of testicles, she definitely hasn’t got testicular cancer. So it can’t be testicular cancer that’s causing my weight loss!” You then carry on with you life as normal and never undergo any treatment.

[Ziggurat]

Because once the ice cap is gone in summer, the rate at which the ocean heats up accelerates very quickly. All that ice reflects a lot of light, and when it's not there any more, all that light penetrates the ocean and gets absorbed. Do the math.

Which means the arctic will heat up quite a bit. I'm still not seeing why that means we're all screwed.

It means we have thirty years less to react to this than we thought.

Well, no, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Our understanding of how arctic climate couples to global climate is evidently wrong: that's why this melting is happening faster than expected. Until we understand WHY we got it wrong (and there's no indication that we do), we cannot make any reliable claim that faster-than-expected arctic melting means global warming as a whole is going any faster than previously expected.

[Belz...]

Imagine you go to see a doctor because you’re experiencing weight-loss. The doctor examines you and runs test after test. He then refers you to a specialist who runs yet more tests. Finally, he sits you down and says “I’m very sorry, but all our tests indicate your weight-loss is due to testicular cancer. But it’s not all bad news, if you undertake a course of therapy right away, there’s a good chance you’ll survive.”

Then imagine that you reflect on this diagnosis thusly: “But my friend Jane is loosing weight too and, given her lack of testicles, she definitely hasn’t got testicular cancer. So it can’t be testicular cancer that’s causing my weight loss!” You then carry on with you life as normal and never undergo any treatment.

I like that analogy!

[Cuddles]

Which means the arctic will heat up quite a bit. I'm still not seeing why that means we're all screwed.

The Earth is not made up of independent parts. Change the climate of one place and you change the rest. Make a large part of the ocean heat up significantly and you change the rest of the world quite a lot.

Well, no, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Our understanding of how arctic climate couples to global climate is evidently wrong: that's why this melting is happening faster than expected. Until we understand WHY we got it wrong (and there's no indication that we do), we cannot make any reliable claim that faster-than-expected arctic melting means global warming as a whole is going any faster than previously expected.

Not necessarily. As Capeldodger pointed out, ice-dynamics models are not climate models. It is entirely possible that our climate models are fine but they had some wrong inputs because we got the ice wrong. There may be errors in the climate models as well, but that is irrelevant. Those errors can be discussed on their own merits, if you have evidence for them. As it stands, knowing we got the input for a model wrong does not invalidate the model. All it means is that the original answer is wrong, and in this case it means that the original answer was too optimistic.

[CapelDodger]

I hope the people on mars reduce their CO2 emission. Their polar caps are melting as well.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/


Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129) here on Earth...

[CapelDodger]

Kyoto doesn't help the environment nearly as much as it hurts the US, which I suspect is it's real purpose.


Well, it must all be about the US, mustn't it? Will the obsessive persecution never end?

[FenrisWolf]

So, the idea is, the arctic ice melts, then the ocean heats up due to less reflected light, and then.... what?

Some species go extinct (polar bears), which is too bad for them. But all this talk of calamity and disaster isn't motivated by concern for polar bears.

Could someone sum up in a less hysterical tone what exactly is the concern with a hotter planet?

[Cuddles]

Could someone sum up in a less hysterical tone what exactly is the concern with a hotter planet?

We are adapted to live in the current climate. If the climate changes, we have problems. Since there are far more people living on the planet than there ever have been, even a small disruption to food, water, living space, etc. can have a massive impact. For example, if the US cornfields dry out it is not just a few local tribes that will be affected, but everyone who buys US corn. Which is an awful lot of people. Essentially the problem is globalisation. Since we can get resources from anywhere, we do. Unfortunately this means we now rely on resources from elsewhere and many, if not most, places are no longer self-sufficient.

Another problem is just space. If the sea level rises by a significant amount, even just a couple of metres, there will be a lot less land. In the past this was not much of a problem since small tribes could simply move out of the way. However, we now cover most of the easily habitable land, at least on many continents. There is simply nowhere for many people to move to. Here in the UK it might just mean some bigger sea walls and a few coastal towns being evacuated. Somewhere like Bangladesh it means a whole country with hundreds of millions of people ending up under water.

It is essentially a case of better safe than sorry. We know something is going to happen. Melting lots of ice and heating up the Earth is going to have some kind of effect on the environment, and therefore on us. It is far better to work out what could happen and be prepared than just to sit around shouting at the sea to go away because we don't believe it will move.

[Ziggurat]

The Earth is not made up of independent parts. Change the climate of one place and you change the rest.

Well sure, things are going to change. But again, why does that mean we're all screwed?

As it stands, knowing we got the input for a model wrong does not invalidate the model.

We don't KNOW what we got wrong in the models, whether you're talking about ice dynamics models or global climate models. And forcing changes to the models just to make them match past behavior doesn't actually fix them, either. Just like with the stock market, matching past behavior doesn't mean you can predict the future.

All it means is that the original answer is wrong, and in this case it means that the original answer was too optimistic.

Too optimistic about arctic ice melting, yes. But as you suggest, all it means for sure is the original answer for artic ice melting was wrong: we do not know what it means for global climate change.

[mhaze]

Too optimistic about arctic ice melting, yes. But as you suggest, all it means for sure is the original answer for artic ice melting was wrong: we do not know what it means for global climate change.

That's a pretty realistic answer. We don't know what it means that some ice is melting. It's really interesting though that some people assert that they do know what it means, or that there is some consensus on that subject.

By the way, don't believe anyone that tries to tell you about the elaborate and sophisticated supercomputer modeling of weather, and how it shows blah blah blah. That modeling uses the Navier Stokes equations, and those have been used to compute aerodynamics for decades. And any CFM modeler will tell you he can get the machine to say anything he wants by juggling the input parameters and the methods of computation.

Here's the way to understand our comprehension of weather modeling.

1. Plan an outdoors activity five days in the future.
2. Actually do that activity according to the plan. In other words, if you scheduled mowing the lawn because the weather man said it was not going to rain, mow the lawn even if it rains.
3. That's only 5 days. Now mull over the basic believability of people who are all so sure about the trend of weather decades in the future.

[FenrisWolf]

Thanks for the summary, Cuddles. It seems there are two main areas of concern, then:

1) Change in temperature may have negative effects on farming in some areas.
2) Change in sea levels may render some low-lying areas of high population uninhabitable.

Would you say that's accurate? Is anything missing from this list?

There must be many possible approaches for dealing with these problems. Perhaps certain crops could be genetically engineered to thrive in hotter temperatures, or maybe areas previously too cold for extensive farming will become viable as the climate warms. Relocating large numbers of relatively poor people will be a big challenge, to be sure. That seems to be a more difficult problem to solve.

But I guess I don't think shouting "We're all screwed!" is very productive, nor very accurate. It's important to study these problems in detail and start putting into motion some viable solutions, but too often I see these kind of discussions focus on doom-and-gloom worst-case scenarios that don't seem to help anything.

[varwoche]

We don't know what it means that some ice is melting. Some ice? Taken literally, you are correct seeing as most falls within the bounds of some.

Greenland (http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=5270377&nav=0s3d)
Antarctica (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html)
China (http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2814&language=1)
Central Asia (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017233.shtml)
Kilimanjaro (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/scndkili.htm)
Indonesia / New Zealand (http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386h/indonesia/indonesia.html)
Patagonia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3662975.stm)
Andes (http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0117013.htm)
Italy (http://www.disat.unimib.it/comiglacio/glaciologicalcommittee.htm)
Switzerland (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11254319/)
Iceland (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=4794)
Arctic Permafrost (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-global-warming.html)
Rocky Mountains (http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm)
Cascades (http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/north%20cascade%20glacier%20retreat.htm) (WA state)
Glorious Republic of Kazakhstan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3077422.stm)

[Par]

By the way, don't believe anyone that tries to tell you about the elaborate and sophisticated supercomputer modeling of weather, and how it shows blah blah blah. That modeling uses the Navier Stokes equations, and those have been used to compute aerodynamics for decades. And any CFM modeler will tell you he can get the machine to say anything he wants by juggling the input parameters and the methods of computation.

Here's the way to understand our comprehension of weather modeling.

1. Plan an outdoors activity five days in the future.
2. Actually do that activity according to the plan. In other words, if you scheduled mowing the lawn because the weather man said it was not going to rain, mow the lawn even if it rains.
3. That's only 5 days. Now mull over the basic believability of people who are all so sure about the trend of weather decades in the future.

Yes, but this is for weather, isn’t it? As opposed to global climate, I mean.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, but this is for weather, isn’t it? As opposed to global climate, I mean.

Climate is just long-term weather trends. If you can do long-term weather calculations, you can do climate calculations. But we can't do long-term weather calculations: the problem is simply too hard, and will remain so for as far as we can see.

Our inability to predict the weather does not in itself prove that we cannot predict climate, you're correct about that. But it does give some flavor for the complexity involved. We actually understand the weather well enough that we can include pretty much all the relevant parameters correctly, but we still can't do long-term forcasting because it's a chaotic system. Climate doesn't look as chaotic as weather, but on the other hand we don't know if we've got a good handle on all the relevant parameters, and we probably don't.

Now, maybe it's possible that there are simplifications we can use in modelling climate which will give us the correct answer, even though no such simplifications are possible with weather. But the fact is, we don't know if climate simulations are reliable. We have no real track record of successful future predictions using climate modelling. And we can't even predict past behavior without using inputs from that same past behavior in creating our models. But just because you managed to get the model to fit past behavior by adjusting fudge factors until it matches, that doesn't mean that your model is correct, or that it can successfully predict future behavior.

[Par]

Climate is just long-term weather trends. If you can do long-term weather calculations, you can do climate calculations. But we can't do long-term weather calculations: the problem is simply too hard, and will remain so for as far as we can see.

Does this not deny the antecedent? (If LTWC then CC. Not LTWC. Therefore, not CC.)

Our inability to predict the weather does not in itself prove that we cannot predict climate, you're correct about that. But it does give some flavor for the complexity involved. We actually understand the weather well enough that we can include pretty much all the relevant parameters correctly, but we still can't do long-term forcasting because it's a chaotic system. Climate doesn't look as chaotic as weather, but on the other hand we don't know if we've got a good handle on all the relevant parameters, and we probably don't.

Now, maybe it's possible that there are simplifications we can use in modelling climate which will give us the correct answer, even though no such simplifications are possible with weather. But the fact is, we don't know if climate simulations are reliable. We have no real track record of successful future predictions using climate modelling. And we can't even predict past behavior without using inputs from that same past behavior in creating our models. But just because you managed to get the model to fit past behavior by adjusting fudge factors until it matches, that doesn't mean that your model is correct, or that it can successfully predict future behavior.

Well, if I toss a coin one hundred times, I can by no means predict whether the fifth toss will be a tail or the fifty-eighth, fifty-ninth and sixtieth tosses will all be heads, but I can say “you’ll get roughly fifty heads and fifty tails,” if you see what I mean. The analogy might well be inappropriate though. This isn’t something I’m greatly knowledgeable on!

I take your point about the models.

[Gurdur]

Loss of ocean-ice, such as in the Arctic, won't affect sea-level. That much we know. Displacement, yadda yadda ... Zero is zero, whatever trend you impose on it.
Actually, this is wrong.

Sorry, Carpel Dodger, since I've agreed with practically everything else you said here, but AFAIK large masses of melting sea-ice do affect salinity of the oceans, and thus affect thermal and other properties, affecting in turn density properties, and do in fact thus mean a rise in sea level. I'll look up the scientific papers if you are really interested, or if I have stated the causal chain wrongly.

[CapelDodger]

Actually, this is wrong.

Sorry, Carpel Dodger, since I've agreed with practically everything else you said here, but AFAIK large masses of melting sea-ice do affect salinity of the oceans, and thus affect thermal and other properties, affecting in turn density properties, and do in fact thus mean a rise in sea level. I'll look up the scientific papers if you are really interested, or if I have stated the causal chain wrongly.

I didn't realise salinity would have an effect. I was just going by what I was taught at school - not always the best policy, I know, but it did seem to make sense. Thanks for the correction :) .

[Gurdur]

I didn't realise salinity would have an effect. I was just going by what I was taught at school - not always the best policy, I know, but it did seem to make sense. Thanks for the correction :) .
It has an effect on thermal expansion. The overall effect is small but there. Mind you, I am too bloody lazy (and have too many jobs to do) to look up the scientific papers on that, so let's not go overboard. Really, I should have dug up the references before you thank me. My apologies that time does not permit me to do so right now.

You can simply say the effect on sea-level from melting sea-ice is negligable, which is probably safe enough to say.

[Solitaire]

Let me rephrase my question in a slightly less concise form.

We know that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere and that the Arctic ocean will melt because of this. It might also mean that the Arctic melt water will push the global conveyer south, notably the Gulf Stream part, thus making the continents of Eurasia and North America colder year round. As water evaporates from the Arctic ocean and a falls out as snow on the continents, it will reflect more sunlight into space cooling the continents even further collecting snow and eventually resulting in glaciers.

Does this scenario of advancing the ice age by thousands of years ahead of schedule through raising carbon dioxide levels ring true?
Or has humanity blown the curve entirely and the continents have now become too hot for winter snows to accumulate?

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for the summary, Cuddles. It seems there are two main areas of concern, then:

1) Change in temperature may have negative effects on farming in some areas.
2) Change in sea levels may render some low-lying areas of high population uninhabitable.

Would you say that's accurate? Is anything missing from this list?

There's also concern about disease-carrying nasties such as ticks and mosquitos spreading into new territory.

But I guess I don't think shouting "We're all screwed!" is very productive, nor very accurate. It's important to study these problems in detail and start putting into motion some viable solutions, but too often I see these kind of discussions focus on doom-and-gloom worst-case scenarios that don't seem to help anything.

I don't doubt it's important to find and implement viable solutions, but it's not being done nor is there any prospect of it. Which is why we're mostly screwed.

I'm sure there will be localised responses to local problems, but no coordinated global strategy. Global society's not ready for that yet.

[Gurdur]

There's also concern about disease-carrying nasties such as ticks and mosquitos spreading into new territory.
Bingo bingo bingo.

The First & Second World and the pharmaceutical industry will be forced to take malaria seriously at long last. And leischmanisis

And I will be laughing my guts out.

[mhaze]

Solitaire, those are questions worth answering, leaving aside the issue of whether humanity has blown the curve and such. My take on it is like this: Less snow, less reflection, hotter planet, more evaporation, more clouds, more reflection..... See the cycle?

By the way the thermal expansion of the oceans is very slight.

All the yak-yak-yak about CO2 and supposed greenhouse gases, and the water balance (solid/liquid/vapor) is hardly mentioned in the IPCC reports or elsewheres. I find it disturbing that so many of the "temperature proxies" referenced by IPCC, Mann et. al., etc. are really precipitation indicators and we are supposed to just believe that high CO2 --> higher precipitation ==== higher temperatures.

There are so many stretches of logic in GW it's like walking on rubber bands. But it is worth noting that the IPCC report is not as inflammatory as Boring Al Gore, or any of the true believers.

[Ziggurat]

The First & Second World and the pharmaceutical industry will be forced to take malaria seriously at long last.

It's not the pharmaceutical industry which is to blame for the lack of progress against malaria in Africa. The environmentalists have a whole lot more to do with that sad tale, including the obstruction of the best defense against it: DDT.

Edit to add: and by the way, malaria was at one point in time a serious threat in large portions of the US. It's currently a 3rd world disease and not a 1st world disease as well because we DID take it seriously here.

[CapelDodger]

You can simply say the effect on sea-level from melting sea-ice is negligable, which is probably safe enough to say.

That works for me. Almost every statement should contain a degree of equivocation. (Or "wriggle-room", in the colloquial :) .)

[Gurdur]

It's not the pharmaceutical industry which is to blame for the lack of progress against malaria in Africa.
Total bollocks.
Robert S. Desowitz and other epidemologists specialising in that area just so disagree with you (http://www.amazon.com/Malaria-Capers-Parasites-Research-Reality/dp/0393310086/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6009897-8132860?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178312365&sr=8-1), and ya know, they back it up with all the stats, knowledge and experience too, so ya know, I'll just go with them on this issue.
The environmentalists have a whole lot more to do with that sad tale, including the obstruction of the best defense against it: DDT.
First part mostly wrong, second part partly true, but only partly.

The story on DDT is long and complex, and Desowitz et al have a lot to say about that (http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Bodysnatchers-New-Guinea-Virus/dp/0393325466/ref=sr_1_3/002-6009897-8132860?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178312689&sr=1-3)too. Desowitz also, like others, has a go at the enviromentalists too -- and FYI, he also takes the pharma & pesticide industries heavily to task for cynically using the anti-DDT campaign to advance their own interests and profits.

Mind you, this is a nuanced view. That may not fit in well here.

[Gurdur]

Edit to add: and by the way, malaria was at one point in time a serious threat in large portions of the US. It's currently a 3rd world disease and not a 1st world disease as well because we DID take it seriously here.
No, really?
Big government projects, Tennessee Valley Authority, that did it, didn't it? Ya hear what I'm saying underneath?
:)

But you're wrong about the causality. Malaria was largely eliminated in the southern USA because geography allowed it to be with large-scale water-draining and control. Not too many problems in doing so.

However, with rising world temperatures, the whole task becomes a hell of a lot less easy, and malaria, just like other supposedly tropical diseases, will be able to extend much more north (like New York), and be much more resistant to eradication.

Trust me, if temperatures rise enough, endemic malaria will become a problem in much of the USA.

[CapelDodger]

It's not the pharmaceutical industry which is to blame for the lack of progress against malaria in Africa. The environmentalists have a whole lot more to do with that sad tale, including the obstruction of the best defense against it: DDT.

DDT has never been banned from use against disease-vectors (such as the mosquito). DDT use started declining long before Silent Spring, because of the emergence of DDT-resistance. DDT is still used for health reasons, but sparingly, so as not to encourage resistance.

The lack of progress on African malaria has an obvious explanation - endemic warfare, which makes eradication programs unsustainable. Pinning it on DDT serves the purposes of some anti-regulation ideologues, but it's simply not the case.

It should also be noted that Africa is where malaria - plasmodium fulciparum - evolved over many millions of years to fit the environment and the hosts. In every other location its hold is necessarily more tenuous. You can drain the Pontine Marshes; you can't drain the Congo Basin.

[knot]

Imagine you go to see a doctor because you’re experiencing weight-loss. The doctor examines you and runs test after test. He then refers you to a specialist who runs yet more tests. Finally, he sits you down and says “I’m very sorry, but all our tests indicate your weight-loss is due to testicular cancer. But it’s not all bad news, if you undertake a course of therapy right away, there’s a good chance you’ll survive.”

Then imagine that you reflect on this diagnosis thusly: “But my friend Jane is loosing weight too and, given her lack of testicles, she definitely hasn’t got testicular cancer. So it can’t be testicular cancer that’s causing my weight loss!” You then carry on with you life as normal and never undergo any treatment.

Sorry, that analogy does not work for me.

[Gurdur]

D....The lack of progress on African malaria has an obvious explanation - endemic warfare, which makes eradication programs unsustainable.
To make my own previous posts (which you may not have read, since they appear just before your own post) clearer, I am primarily referring to the treatment and prophylaxis against malaria, not elimination of disease vectors (otherwise I wouldn't be talking about the pharma industry.
Pinning it on DDT serves the purposes of some anti-regulation ideologues, but it's simply not the case.
Well-put. But to refer back to my own previous post, don't forget the TVA. I like mentioning the TVA. It throws rather a large wrench into such politically-biased arguments.
It should also be noted that Africa is where malaria - plasmodium fulciparum - evolved over many millions of years to fit the environment and the hosts. In every other location its hold is necessarily more tenuous. You can drain the Pontine Marshes; you can't drain the Congo Basin.
Good point.

Mind you, the Pontine Marshes were largely cleared of malaria NOT by draining them, but by pollution. Anopheles just really hates pollution. Once pollution levels started decreasing, Anopheles and malaria actually returned in a small way to central Italy.

Pardon me; it's just a favourite subject of mine. Rarely comes up, either.

[Par]

Sorry, that analogy does not work for me.

Well, in that case, I’ll just tell you the fallacy you’re falling foul of: You’re conflating uncommon causes.

[CapelDodger]

All the yak-yak-yak about CO2 and supposed greenhouse gases, and the water balance (solid/liquid/vapor) is hardly mentioned in the IPCC reports or elsewheres.

:confused:

CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pretty central to the IPCC's raison d'etre so they do feature quite a lot. The liquid-vapor balance of H2O - water evaporating and condensing - is also well-addressed, being a critical element of the climate system. The solid-liquid balance is less well-addressed (as is acknowledged) because it's a less important element which can be approximated by the output of ice-dynamics models.

Understanding and modelling the behaviour of large ice-masses is, IMO, a harder problem than understanding and modelling climate. That's relatively simple; people started doing it back in the later 19thCE. Thermodynamics is the backbone, and was firmly in place by then. Arrhenius formalised the greenhouse effect and things were good to go.

With ice-masses you have a mix of laminar and non-laminar flow (a nightmare in itself), fracture-theory (which is admittedly very well-developed), phase-changes and interfaces, pressure-melting, underlying geology ... I wouldn't go near it at knife-point.

[andyandy]

The lack of progress on African malaria has an obvious explanation - endemic warfare, which makes eradication programs unsustainable. Pinning it on DDT serves the purposes of some anti-regulation ideologues, but it's simply not the case.

Whilst there are some countries within Africa in which there is and has been prolonged periods of conflict, it's not a sufficient reason for the persistance of malaria. Insufficent infrastructure, corrupt/unstable political systems and low GNP negatively impact upon the capability of indidividual states to address malaria, and negatively impact upon the feasibility of NGO action. Added to that is of course the environmental and social realities of the region as a whole - large mosquito population, more time spent outdoors etc.
and added to that I think it is correct to say that environmentalist ideology as expounded through some western NGOs skews the focus to some extent away from humanism in some cases....

i think there's enough qualifiers in that :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, the idea is, the arctic ice melts, then the ocean heats up due to less reflected light, and then.... what?

Some species go extinct (polar bears), which is too bad for them. But all this talk of calamity and disaster isn't motivated by concern for polar bears.

Could someone sum up in a less hysterical tone what exactly is the concern with a hotter planet?

In January of 1998, I flew into and out of the airport in Guayaquil, Ecuador. It was the height of an especially bad El Niño (ocean warming across the Pacific equator). For a full 30 minutes of flying time, all the land I could see was flooded. Coastal flooding was horrible. Add to that devastating mudslides (entire villages were wiped out). As the waters went down, there was an increase in malaria (in a region where malaria is already epidemic).

It was quite a disaster.

I'm not suggesting that this is related to global warming--probably not, in fact. I'm just showing what happens when the ocean heats up a bit.

[CapelDodger]

... I am primarily referring to the treatment and prophylaxis against malaria, not elimination of disease vectors (otherwise I wouldn't be talking about the pharma industry.

Quite. Ziggurat tried to shift the ground, and found me on it :) .

Well-put. But to refer back to my own previous post, don't forget the TVA. I like mentioning the TVA. It throws rather a large wrench into such politically-biased arguments.

They often come across as saying things "got sorted" before so we don't need to do anything about [new thing] because it'll "get sorted" again.

Good point.

Mind you, the Pontine Marshes were largely cleared of malaria NOT by draining them, but by pollution. Anopheles just really hates pollution. Once pollution levels started decreasing, Anopheles and malaria actually returned in a small way to central Italy.

That's where you're wrong :) . The Pontine Marshes have been drained more than once. They were drained by the Claudian Emperors, and malaria pretty much vanished. In the late 3rd and 4thCE the drainage was neglected and malaria came back. Historical factoid : Aleric the Goth besieged Rome three times, and died shortly (weeks) after the third apparently of malaria. Perhaps nearby malarial swamps that you're innured to are Weapons of Mass Defence?

Pardon me; it's just a favourite subject of mine. Rarely comes up, either.

I take it you've read The Miraculous Fever-Tree by Fiammetta Rocco? A lovely book about quinine that takes the sort of slanting trajectory through history that I find illuminating. And very enjoyable.

[knot]

Well, in that case, I’ll just tell you the fallacy you’re falling foul of: You’re conflating uncommon causes.

Well then I'll be honest with you. Your analogy was just plain.................stupid.

The sun IS more active than it's been in the last 1000 years and my statement was a joke.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Imagine you go to see a doctor because you’re experiencing weight-loss. The doctor examines you and runs test after test. He then refers you to a specialist who runs yet more tests. Finally, he sits you down and says “I’m very sorry, but all our tests indicate your weight-loss is due to testicular cancer. But it’s not all bad news, if you undertake a course of therapy right away, there’s a good chance you’ll survive.”

Then imagine that you reflect on this diagnosis thusly: “But my friend Jane is loosing weight too and, given her lack of testicles, she definitely hasn’t got testicular cancer. So it can’t be testicular cancer that’s causing my weight loss!” You then carry on with you life as normal and never undergo any treatment.

Excellent! Nominated!

Knot: if you want to state your argument in more direct terms (rather than in sarcasm), we can easily show you where you're wrong.

By the way, the Martian ice-caps are frozen C02 and not water ice. There is a dramatic seasonal waxing and waning of polar dry-ice caps. The case for climate change on Mars is far from proven. Even if it is happening, there's no reason to think it's the same as what's happening on Earth.

[Gurdur]

Quite. Ziggurat tried to shift the ground, and found me on it :) .
Well, yes. Swampy ground too. Bad for ill-considered shifting and invasions. :)
That's where you're wrong :) . The Pontine Marshes have been drained more than once. They were drained by the Claudian Emperors, and malaria pretty much vanished. In the late 3rd and 4thCE the drainage was neglected and malaria came back. Historical factoid : Aleric the Goth besieged Rome three times, and died shortly (weeks) after the third apparently of malaria.
Hmmm, hmmm, you certainly know more than me off-hand on that, yet I venture to disagree in part. Malaria did come back in that area in the very late 20th century, AFAIK not as a result of re-swamping, but as a result of cleaner air and water. This does not contradict what you are saying, but is throwing in another factor.
I take it you've read The Miraculous Fever-Tree by Fiammetta Rocco? A lovely book about quinine that takes the sort of slanting trajectory through history that I find illuminating. And very enjoyable.
Never read that book, thank-you for the recommendation, I will buy it when I can.

Coincidentally, I am really pissed off that the moment since I have just in the last 2 days learnt that the USA FDA has classified quinine as ONLY for the treatment of malaria, and it's bloody hard to get, too. Quinine has tons of valuble medical usages, many not well-understood to date but effective. Meh.

[CapelDodger]

Whilst there are some countries within Africa in which there is and has been prolonged periods of conflict, it's not a sufficient reason for the persistance of malaria. Insufficent infrastructure, corrupt/unstable political systems and low GNP negatively impact upon the capability of indidividual states to address malaria, and negatively impact upon the feasibility of NGO action.

A lot more infrastructure has been put in than has survived the warfare. A lot more. Corrupt and unstable political systems are cause and effect of strife. Low GNP follows from endemic warfare.

Perhaps we could compromise on "gangsterism" instead of warfare? To my mind they're both on the same spectrum.

[CapelDodger]

Hmmm, hmmm, you certainly know more than me off-hand on that, yet I venture to disagree in part. Malaria did come back in that area in the very late 20th century, AFAIK not as a result of re-swamping, but as a result of cleaner air and water. This does not contradict what you are saying, but is throwing in another factor.

I'm not at all surprised that pollution probably did for the Pontine mosquitos in modern times. After all, a principle tactic in Panama was spraying kerosene on the entire landscape, which is just cutting out the middle man.

Coincidentally, I am really pissed off that the moment since I have just in the last 2 days learnt that the USA FDA has classified quinine as ONLY for the treatment of malaria, and it's bloody hard to get, too. Quinine has tons of valuble medical usages, many not well-understood to date but effective. Meh.

The history of quinine goes on. I will have to look into what's behind this. There was a time when quinine was a strategic resource, but what's its significance these days?

[knot]

Joe, I'll state whatever the hell I want, the alarmists do so why can't I? How about that. I already know the ice caps are dry ice.

[CapelDodger]

Joe, I'll state whatever the hell I want, the alarmists do. How about that. I already know the ice caps are dry ice.
What you don't seem to know is that they aren't melting.

[Gurdur]

The history of quinine goes on. I will have to look into what's behind this. There was a time when quinine was a strategic resource, but what's its significance these days?
As a general anti-inflammatory* and/or anti-febrile medication, often useful in the most surprising of cases.

Also good for nocturnal foot cramps in the over-40's (a common problem), though it has now been replaced by specifics for that purpose. AFAIK, no-one knows why it was good for that, but it was.
__________

* IIRC, for example in some autoimmune disease management, for example. Mind you, I may be getting confused.

[knot]

What you don't seem to know is that they aren't melting.

There's plenty of news to stay informed. But like an alarmist and a liberal, I thought I would just say anything or make something up. Did you guys actually think that I thought there were people on mars?

http://news.google.com/news?q=mars%20polar%20ice%20caps&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=

[andyandy]

Perhaps we could compromise on "gangsterism" instead of warfare? To my mind they're both on the same spectrum.

i think for the purposes of preventing a rather tangential derail we could agree that it's certainly a significant factor across the region as a whole :)

the latest IPCC report has been released and can be read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/04_05_07_ipcc_report.pdf)

p22 is a table of predicted scenarios - both A and AB already look pretty unlikely - given the substancial carbon cuts required by 2050. I'd say in all reality we're looking at B as a best case - and even that crosses the 3degrees threshold...

from stern....

Temp. rise/ Impacts 1 DEGREE

* Shrinking glaciers threaten water for 50 million people

* Modest increases in cereal yields in temperate regions

* At least 300,000 people each year die from malaria, malnutrition and other climate-related diseases

* Reduction in winter mortality in higher latitudes

* 80 percent bleaching of coral reefs, e.g. Great Barrier Reef


2 DEGREES

* 5 - 10 percent decline in crop yield in tropical Africa

* 40 - 60 million more people exposed to malaria in Africa

* Up to 10 million more people affected by coastal flooding

* 15 - 40 percent of species face extinction (one estimate)

* High risk of extinction of Arctic species, e.g. polar bear

* Potential for Greenland ice sheet to start to melt irreversibly, committing world to 7 metre sea level rise


3 DEGREES

* In Southern Europe, serious droughts once every 10 years

* 1 - 4 billion more people suffer water shortages

* Some 150 - 550 additional millions at risk of hunger

* 1 - 3 million more people die from malnutrition

* Onset of Amazon forest collapse (some models only)

* Rising risk of collapse of West Antarctic Ice Sheet

* Rising risk of collapse of Atlantic Conveyor of warm water

* Rising risk of abrupt changes to the monsoon


4 DEGREES

* Agricultural yields decline by 15 - 35 percent in Africa

* Up to 80 million more people exposed to malaria in Africa

* Loss of around half Arctic tundra


5 DEGREES

* Possible disappearance of large glaciers in Himalayas, affecting one-quarter of China's population, many in India

* Continued increase in ocean acidity seriously disrupting marine ecosystems and possibly fish stocks

* Sea level rise threatens small islands, coastal areas such as Florida and major cities such as New York, London, and Tokyo

and the projections for 3degrees is where it really starts to bite....

[Ziggurat]

I've seen a number of factors listed as being more important than DDT availability for why malaria persists in Africa (with political instability topping the list, and I'd agree). What I'm not seeing is much of an argument for why any of that means that global warming will produce a malaria resurgence in places like the US, and no connection at all for why faster-than-expected melting arctic ice (the original topic of the thread) would mean we're facing an onslaught of tropical diseases.

[Pipirr]

What you don't seem to know is that they aren't melting.

Are they ablating?

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's plenty of news to stay informed. But like an alarmist and a liberal, I thought I would just say anything or make something up. Did you guys actually think that I thought there were people on mars?


Not at all. If I may unfold the sarcasm (since you won't), I think what you were saying was this:

There's global warming (or melting ice caps) on Mars. Since there are no people on Mars, then we know climate change there isn't caused by human-caused C02 emissions. Since climate change on Mars isn't caused by human activity, climate change on Earth can't be caused by human activity.

All of the statements might be true (climate change on Mars isn't certain yet) except for the leap to the conclusion. That's the fallacy Par pointed out.

If you were trying to say something else, please clarify.

Yes, you can say whatever the hell you want. I was assuming that you were posting your "whatever the hell" to a forum because you wanted to engage in discussion.

Was my assumption wrong?

Now the argument you seem to be making is that all statements about global warning/climate change and links to human activity (in particular putting carbon into the atmosphere) are not worth replying to because they are made by "alarmist liberals". Even the current thread topic which points out that actual observations are worse than the "alarmist liberal" scientists predicted with climate change models.

[Gurdur]

..... What I'm not seeing is much of an argument for why any of that means that global warming will produce a malaria resurgence in places like the US
Anopheles. It likes a nice warm temperature, the warmer the better. Anything that helps warmweather-mosquito expansion of range tends to help expansion of diseases of supposedly tropical range only; West Nile virus in Flushing, remember? 1999? Also see proceedings of the workshop "Contextual Determinants of Malaria", Lausanne, 2000.
And see:
Climate Change And Mosquito-Borne Disease
Enviromental Health Perspectives
March 2001, 109:141-161
and no connection at all for why faster-than-expected melting arctic ice (the original topic of the thread) would mean we're facing an onslaught of tropical diseases.
*sigh*
Global warming. Hello? I thought that was the obvious connection. Mind you, fine, I can see you might not have gotten that, since expansion of mosquito range is not commonly discussed on bulletin boards, so maybe I was unfair.

But welcome to the new world of dengue fever, malaria, and "exotic" viruses. Get used to them, because you will. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever too, spread by tick range spread, again because of warming. Welcome to the new, globalised and hotter world. Better get yourself familiar with prophylaxis and treatment, and learn just how the pharma industry has been shortchanging sufferers.

[knot]

LOL whatever Joe. I find it impossible to have a decent debate with the left so I really don't care to anymore.

Message of this story: Global warming is happening but it may not be attributed to human activity.

[Skeptic Guy]

LOL whatever Joe. I find it impossible to have a decent debate with the left so I really don't care to anymore.

Knot, it might help to attempt a "decent debate" before stomping off in a huff.

[JoeTheJuggler]

LOL whatever Joe. I find it impossible to have a decent debate with the left so I really don't care to anymore.

Must be those alarmist liberal leftist satellites that collected the ice melt data.

[Earthborn]

There's global warming (or melting ice caps) on Mars. Since there are no people on Mars, then we know climate change there isn't caused by human-caused C02 emissions. Since climate change on Mars isn't caused by human activity, climate change on Earth can't be caused by human activity.Actually, the people who point to climate change on Mars (as well as Jupiter and Pluto) like to think that this lends credence to the hypothesis that it is the sun's activity that is causing climate change. Unfortunately for them, scientists have modelled the Mars climate change (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070407/fob7.asp) and it appears that the sun is not (significantly) responsible for it. It is caused by changes on the planet itself. The climate skeptics can of course try to dispute those models as well.

climate change on Mars isn't certain yetIt now appears fairly certain.

[knot]

Knot, it might help to attempt a "decent debate" before stomping off in a huff.

Been there, done that hundreds of times - which is why I agree with title of Michael Savage's book. (even though I'm more of a centrist)

[Corsair 115]

LOL whatever Joe. I find it impossible to have a decent debate with the left so I really don't care to anymore.

Message of this story: Global warming is happening but it may not be attributed to human activity.Uh, so the hundreds of climate scientists from around the world who've studied the issue, collected and analyzed evidence, and have come to the conclusion that, yes, human activity is having some measure of impact on climate change, are simply to be dismissed as "the left"?

Gee, and I thought the proper reaction would have been to examine the presented evidence to see if it actually supports what the scientists have claimed.

I guess politics does indeed trump all other considerations...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Been there, done that hundreds of times - which is why I agree with title of Michael Savage's book. (even though I'm more of a centrist)

So why bother posting here?

[Schneibster]

Which means the arctic will heat up quite a bit. I'm still not seeing why that means we're all screwed.So I guess the connections of the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans is all a lie by the environmentalists? Or maybe the water comes to the barrier and just goes, "Nope, I'm Arctic water, I can't go there." You know enough physics to understand this stuff; you're just being a contrarian. This is really, really obvious.

Well, no, it doesn't necessarily mean that. Our understanding of how arctic climate couples to global climate is evidently wrong: that's why this melting is happening faster than expected. That would be, ummmm, because the warmer water from the Pacific and Atlantic are carrying more heat in there, you mean? Indicating that there's a lot more water exchanged between the Pacific and Atlantic than we thought, and when the Arctic starts absorbing more heat, it will be carried more quickly than we thought to the rest of the oceans? Yeah, I guess you're right about that- of course, it also means you're probably right when you say we won't have thirty less years to react than we did. It's probably more like forty less years to react, which means we can expect to see some of the things we didn't expect to until after the middle of this century in the next decade.

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Until we understand WHY we got it wrong (and there's no indication that we do), So basically you're saying that you didn't read the article, because if you had, you'd know that the reason proposed for this is because of the greater mixing than was thought between the Atlantic and Pacific, and the Arctic. So much for what we know and don't know. Basically, you don't know because you didn't actually read it because you don't like what it says.

we cannot make any reliable claim that faster-than-expected arctic melting means global warming as a whole is going any faster than previously expected.This is the second-most ridiculous thing I've read this week. Excuse me, did you just say that we can't make a reliable claim that global warming will go faster because the ice in the Arctic is all melting faster? Would you care to re-parse that statement and reconsider?

C'mon, there's nowhere to hide here. THINK ABOUT IT.

[Schneibster]

So, the idea is, the arctic ice melts, then the ocean heats up due to less reflected light, and then.... what?

Some species go extinct (polar bears), which is too bad for them. But all this talk of calamity and disaster isn't motivated by concern for polar bears.

Could someone sum up in a less hysterical tone what exactly is the concern with a hotter planet?Sure.

1. Hotter water is bigger. That means the oceans will rise.
2. A lot of ice is on land; Antarctica is an entire continent covered with it. That means the oceans will rise more.
3. Many of our most profitable cities are close to the sea. If it rises, those cities will go away.
4. If the temperate zone moves toward the poles, it will be over less land. That means there will be less places to grow food.
5. If the tropics are hard to live in now, they'll be harder to live in if they're hotter.
6. Normally, these kinds of changes happen over tens of thousands to millions of years. We're talking about them happening in decades or centuries. This means life won't have as much time to adjust, which means a lot more species than we've killed off so far are going to die, very quickly in geological terms.

So we'll have less land, less food, and less money, and more species will be going extinct. Sounds great, doesn't it?

[Solitaire]

The sun IS more active than it's been in the last 1000 years and my statement was a joke.


Ah. :)
Do you think the sun was more active during the day or during the night?
Being active during the day is okay; but at night, that's not such a good thing.

What do you mean by more active?
How exactly does one go about measuring that?
:confused:

[mhaze]

As I recall, the IPCC report indicated a sea level rise of anywhere from a few inches to 2.5 feet by 2100, depending on the scenario chosen. I don't see even the 2.5 foot sea level change causing most coastal cities to "go away". A few simple examples are Holland, Venice, and New Orleans.

Even if you buy into the overall concepts of GW and irregardless of whether you ascribe human as cause, the validity and effects of the predictions can be met by hysteria or optimism.

[CapelDodger]

There's plenty of news to stay informed. But like an alarmist and a liberal, I thought I would just say anything or make something up. Did you guys actually think that I thought there were people on mars?


The dry-ice-caps still aren't melting. And I didn't make that up.

[varwoche]

http://news.google.com/news?q=mars%20polar%20ice%20caps&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=
Whatever point it is you're trying to make is going to require something a tad bit more specific than this vague cite to TheInternets.

[andyandy]

Even if you buy into the overall concepts of GW and irregardless of whether you ascribe human as cause, the validity and effects of the predictions can be met by hysteria or optimism.

Do you think that a 2degrees stabilisation will be achieved?

one could just as well set a "realism or delusion" dichtomy....why choose "hysteria or optimism"?

[CapelDodger]

Are they ablating?
I assume the summer-side one is, unless it's disappeared already. The winter-end one is presumably expanding.

As I'm sure you're aware, dry-ice doesn't melt, it sublimates :) .

[Pipirr]

Sublimates.

That's the word I was looking for....

Thx ;)

[mhaze]

http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2576814#post2576814)
Even if you buy into the overall concepts of GW and irregardless of whether you ascribe human as cause, the validity and effects of the predictions can be met by hysteria or optimism.
Do you think that a 2degrees stabilisation will be achieved?

I do not think that any actions by humans of the sort typically discussed such as reducing CO2 emissions will have any stabilizing effect, although it is certain that any natural or capricious lowering of average temperatures on a regional basis would be ascribed to such cause.

The very concept of a "global temperature" is problematic and imprecise enough to make measurement or even understanding of the facts extremely difficult. Regional measurements or averages of them do make sense.

[andyandy]

[/I]I do not think that any actions by humans of the sort typically discussed such as reducing CO2 emissions will have any stabilizing effect

in that case, upon what do you base your optimism? That the models are wholly wrong?

[Dymanic]

Even if you buy into the overall concepts of GW and irregardless of whether you ascribe human as cause, the validity and effects of the predictions can be met by hysteria or optimism.
Hysteria is seldom very productive. Risk communicators talk about "adjustment reaction", similar in concept to "stages of grief". For many, hysteria seems to be an unavoidable -- perhaps even necessary -- part of the process of coming to terms with something difficult. One of the things Gore talked about in his documentary was how people often go directly from denial to despair.

In this context, "optimism" too often means simply waving off the concerns as greatly overblown, if not completely unfounded. There's a difference between hoping to find solutions and hoping the problem will just go away, or that it doesn't exist.

[andyandy]

The very concept of a "global temperature" is problematic and imprecise enough to make measurement or even understanding of the facts extremely difficult. Regional measurements or averages of them do make sense.

This is somewhat disingeneous - whilst it's true that there is no method to produce an absolute value for a global temperature - dependant as it is upon how you choose to measure it - this is not sufficient to dismiss the use of a global average temperature as a measuring gauge for future projections. A 2 degrees rise in the global average temperature does of course not require that every point on the earth sees its average temperature rise by 2degrees - simply that the chosen measured average will rise by such an amount.

[CapelDodger]

That would be, ummmm, because the warmer water from the Pacific and Atlantic are carrying more heat in there, you mean? Indicating that there's a lot more water exchanged between the Pacific and Atlantic than we thought, and when the Arctic starts absorbing more heat, it will be carried more quickly than we thought to the rest of the oceans?

A chilling thought. So to speak.

A potential feedback that strikes me involves the permafrost, which is all in that part of the world. Presumably permafrost melt enhances the local methane concentration; it may have a negligible effect, I don't know. But a warmer Arctic is surely going to accelerate permafrost melting, and the emissions will quickly become well-mixed in the atmosphere. Spreading the load.

[mhaze]

This is somewhat disingeneous - whilst it's true that there is no method to produce an absolute value for a global temperature - dependant as it is upon how you choose to measure it - this is not sufficient to dismiss the use of a global average temperature as a measuring gauge for future projections. A 2 degrees rise in the global average temperature does of course not require that every point on the earth sees its average temperature rise by 2degrees - simply that the chosen measured average will rise by such an amount.

I think it is important to note the problem with "global temperature" vis a vis how researchers report their results, otherwise it is they and not I who may be disingenuous. How is one sure that apples are being compared to apples? Who substantiates exactly what a 1 degree rise in "global temperature" means?

Example. You get temp values from cities and rural areas in the USA and from China, and run some numbers on them. But "rural" does not mean the same thing in China as the US, and in many places over the time frames involved "rural" will become developed. So someone has to go through this data and based on some scheme, delete data streams or add others in. Such judgement calls various research groups may differ on. "Global temperature" would appear a blurred and imprecise value given such possible variations, and those variations through human input could match or exceed the statististical noise, which whether inadvertent or intentional makes the entire data stream averaging process bogus.

I like it simple. Regional! Regional!

[CapelDodger]

I do not think that any actions by humans of the sort typically discussed such as reducing CO2 emissions will have any stabilizing effect ...

Reducing carbon emissions from fossil-fuels would obviously have a stabilising effect. Reducing them to the extent that the combined increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2-load was reduced to zero would have a major stabilising effect, reduction below that even more so.

... although it is certain that any natural or capricious lowering of average temperatures on a regional basis would be ascribed to such cause.

That's a prediction. Increases in average temperature on a global basis have been (and still are) certainly attributed to capricious "natural variation" as they happen. Despite the fact that they were predicted by mainstream science. That's observable.

Your prediction is unobservable - the circumstances won't arise - but I'd bet against it, given the hypothetical. Mainstream science certainly wouldn't predict any cooling effect of reducing CO2 emissions, nor would a propagandist claim a regional cooling as justification for it. Reduction of emissions will limit the total warming; more is already in the pipeline. Unavoidable. Greenhouse warming acts by trapping energy, and the trap we've already built is not yet full.

The very concept of a "global temperature" is problematic and imprecise enough to make measurement or even understanding of the facts extremely difficult. Regional measurements or averages of them do make sense.

When the average temperatures across the vast majority of the globe's surface rise consistently for decades, global warming's going on. Forget about the detail. Look at the big picture.

[mhaze]

Reducing carbon emissions from fossil-fuels would obviously have a stabilising effect. Reducing them to the extent that the combined increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2-load was reduced to zero would have a major stabilising effect, reduction below that even more so.


My pessimism on this subject is mirrored in the IPCC report, so although I disagree with their opinions on GW, I do agree with them on the intractability of getting significant behavior changes across a large enough base to have any serious effect. This is like discussing Kyoto.....

BTW I was mulling over yanking the catalytic converter off my cars so as to increase sulfate emissions which is good, right?

[Gurdur]

..... "Global temperature" would appear a blurred and imprecise value given such possible variations, and those variations through human input could match or exceed the statististical noise, which whether inadvertent or intentional makes the entire data stream averaging process bogus.
You are completely and utterly wrong. Global average temperature is actually FAR easier to predict, and far more robust in prediction, than is regional average temperature.
I like it simple.
No.
It appears you like it "ideologically-based", which is of course very far from being "simple".

Also, you are not a climatologist, nor a meteorologist. Do you have any physics qualifications at all?

___________
___________

Meh. No more malaria? Not a bit more of dengue? No more West Nile Valley? No more quinine?

* loses all interest in thread *

[CapelDodger]

I think it is important to note the problem with "global temperature" vis a vis how researchers report their results, otherwise it is they and not I who may be disingenuous.

No doubt you do think it's important, but it actually isn't a problem. All that's required is a well-defined standard, something which science has been well-aware of for several centuries. When you have a standard you can compare measurements meaningfully.

How is one sure that apples are being compared to apples?

By having a standard.

Who substantiates exactly what a 1 degree rise in "global temperature" means?

The scientific community as a gestalt. Not, you'll be glad to hear, Al Gore fnord. The degree is normally Celsius.

Example. You get temp values from cities and rural areas in the USA and from China, and run some numbers on them. But "rural" does not mean the same thing in China as the US ...

Sampling stations are not codified by anything so crude as "rural" and "urban", their actual environments and capabilities are established. That's what you do when you have standards.

...and in many places over the time frames involved "rural" will become developed. So someone has to go through this data and based on some scheme, delete data streams or add others in.

Adjustments are made according to changes in circumstance. You surely can't think that you've thought of these problems and the scientists whose day-job involves getting the best possible comparable measurements haven't.

Such judgement calls various research groups may differ on.

You don't really get schisms in science. Has any research group differed wildly from the 0.6C this century consenus?

"Global temperature" would appear a blurred and imprecise value given such possible variations ...

It is potentially imprecise, but given a standard definition it is precise, and given a sensible definition it can be useful in discerning trends. The trend is a warming one - but that's hardly surprising, given the 380ppmCO2-load and rising.

... and those variations through human input ...

Having a standard eliminates the human input.

I like it simple. Regional! Regional!

So why get involved in a global-warming debate? Don't you have a regional-warming debate you can get stuck into?

[mhaze]

Umm, I can see you like standards as much as I do, but for a discussion of rural versus urban and some of the issues, you might check this out -

http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/90lettnat.htm

Which is a critique of some work done by Jones et. al. at East Anglia and published in 1990 or so. Just quickly reviewing that work, I did see problems with urban versus rural classifications. I don't see any standard like you suggest that has been uniformly applied and quite frankly do not think such a thing is helpful in this discussion. Obviously you do so we can disagree on that. But I do suggest you at least briefly review the reference.

[mhaze]

in that case, upon what do you base your optimism? That the models are wholly wrong?

That is a pretty good question.... Since two people can in fact look at the same circumstances and one see dire straits, the other a challenge and or opportunity.

I'm optimistic that advances in science and technology will help in many of the human problems that might be considered unfortunate side effects of any GW that may occur for whatever reason. We may well be growing meat in the lab shortly and spare organs human organs in livestock. If say hypothetically the available land for agriculture was reduced, I believe we would find better ways to produce what was needed.

I'm also optimistic that within say 20 years (not 5 or 10) we may have models of climate that incorporate to some reasonable extent the effect of particulate matter and the cycles of water, such that some real interesting modeling may be possible which is not possible now. Note these areas of inaccuracy and imprecision are also mentioned in the IPCC reports.

I'm not at all optimistic about the responses of governments and institutions to any local or regional issues relating to GW. An example would be a large movement of people from a coastal area moving inland across a national boundary. That could result in very bad things. But that's a human problem, and it's the kind of thing that goes on now which we can't seem to fix.

[a_unique_person]

I'm optimistic that advances in science and technology will help in many of the human problems that might be considered unfortunate side effects of any GW that may occur for whatever reason. We may well be growing meat in the lab shortly and spare organs human organs in livestock. If say hypothetically the available land for agriculture was reduced, I believe we would find better ways to produce what was needed.


The scientists have already looked into that, they said they aren't likely to be inventing anything soon to cure the AGW side effects.

What might these inventions be, and who is working on them now?

This type of attitude reminds me of cargo cults.

[mhaze]

Really? Some scientists have looked into that, and you are happy with their projection of dismal outcomes? And cargo cults?

Let's see....billions of people thinking about creative and practical solutions and communicating/collaborating via the internet...

[andyandy]

Really? Some scientists have looked into that, and you are happy with their projection of dismal outcomes? And cargo cults?

Let's see....billions of people thinking about creative and practical solutions and communicating/collaborating via the internet...

models already build into them predictions for technological advancements.
the stern report review here (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/B71/79/paper_c.pdf) is worth reading - if you're genuinly interested in the topic.

[articulett]

If you don't trust the scientists...how about insurance companies? http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/seaeagle/2007/04/09/insurance-companies-planning-for-climate-change/

What evidence is enough to make a AGW denier stop obfuscating and start educating? I suspect that it's a faith based belief and no amount of science will be enough. We all really are in this together. At what exact point do deniers think we should stop talking and start acting has a team? What way should the message be delivered so that it doesn't come across as alarmist--especially when scientists ARE alarmed. Is it really prudent to optimistically hope some scientist (that is continually bashed by global warming deniers) is going to come up with some salvation that allows us to continue fossil consumption at ever increasing rates?

Maybe Jesus will fly down and save us all too.

Ugh. I dislike the dishonesty of AGW deniers in the same way I dislike the dishonesty of the intelligent design crowd. But the former is far more dangerous.

Do tell us AGW deniers, what sort of evidence would you need to change your point of view--to conclude that humans must do something urgent now? Or is your belief one of those faith based notions that is not amenable to things like facts, models, and evidence--especially when your faith in humanity makes you certain that someone will pull a magic solution out of the air in time to slow the upheaval. We cannot predict which life forms might find change groovy and something they can readily adapt to--but chances are, it's not going to be the stuff we're most fond of. We are tampering with eons of evolution and ecosystems that evolved to fit niches that are rapidly changing.

[articulett]

Been there, done that hundreds of times - which is why I agree with title of Michael Savage's book. (even though I'm more of a centrist)

Does anyone other than you confirm your view of yourself? Does anyone else think you are a centrist or reasonable debater? Just curious. Maybe you'd prefer lobbing your opinions (which you seem to express as facts) on forums of people who see you the way you see yourself.

[Schneibster]

The comparison between AGW deniers and creationists is apt. No evidence is ever enough. There's always something they can find to quibble with; and they think it's their job to defend their increasingly untenable position. If not with facts, then with faith and insult; a highly revealing mixture.

I love being called "hysterical." We're screwed, get it? Because of people like you. Thanks. Now go live in some lowlands, near the sea, far from food. Least you deserve considering.

[CapelDodger]

Umm, I can see you like standards as much as I do, but for a discussion of rural versus urban and some of the issues, you might check this out -

http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/90lettnat.htm

Which is a critique of some work done by Jones et. al. at East Anglia and published in 1990 or so. Just quickly reviewing that work, I did see problems with urban versus rural classifications. I don't see any standard like you suggest that has been uniformly applied and quite frankly do not think such a thing is helpful in this discussion. Obviously you do so we can disagree on that. But I do suggest you at least briefly review the reference.

I have. It's an interpretation by Warwick Hughes. Oddly, what appear to be links to actual papers turn out to be links to other Warwick Hughes interpretations. Then there's a reference to a John Daly site, at which point all credibility is blown. The substance is that there was "ongoing criticism that trends in Jones’ 1986 gridded data had a significant UHI component unrelated to greenhouse warming". Evolution is subject to ongoing criticism. The Lone Gunman theory is subject to ongoing criticism. We have freedom of speech, after all.

The whole point of the original exercise - measuring the urban heat island effect - was to improve standardisation of measurements so that meaningful comparisons can be made with greater confidence. You won't find that pointed out by Warwick Hughes because it doesn't serve his purpose - which is to provide a comfort zone for people like yourself who aren't complete boneheads but still know what they want to hear, and aren't hearing it from the mainstream. It's dressed up as science, but if you analyse it you'll find it isn't the real thing.

Notice that Hughes's piece stems from a publication of 1986 - two decades ago. You'll find that a lot in denialist sites; the last twenty years have not turned out well for them. Which is why they're still fighting old battles. Some might rationally have seemed winnable back in the day, but invoking the UHI to explain the melting of Andean glaciers and Siberian permafrost is is just heartless. It smacks of the Polish Cavalry in 1939.

[CapelDodger]

I love being called "hysterical.&q