Submitted by Simplicio on April 23, 2009 - 9:45am.
Follow the links to the actual Gallup results, and you'll see that the total population has grown more skeptical in the las few years, not just members of the GOP.
Submitted by Greg in FL on April 23, 2009 - 10:05am.
Between 1998 and 2008, Former Vice-President Gore embraced the issue very publicly and became symbolic of the cause to fight global warming.
Republicans seem to have the mindset that any issue embraced by a prominent Democrat is to be opposed regardless of its merits. Hence the reflex: anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, and therefore drill, baby, drill is good public policy. Unsurprisingly, such policy dovetails nicely with the wishes of some huge corporate donors.
In all honesty, if Newt Gingrich came out with, say, a proposal to limit credit card rates, my first instinct would be to ask, "What's in it for him?" I guess it's natural to suspect ulterior motives and double-crosses these days.
However, with global warming, there are lots of very solid measurements that are trending badly. Unfortunately, the Republican reaction seems to be to deny and grasp for dubious figureheads to give cover, then amplify the confusion using their media establishment, rather than try and come up with policy proposals that would address the problem.
Here in Florida, there are a lot of Republicans with pricey waterfront property. But there are also a lot of Democrats and Independents on low-lying land that will be just as vulnerable.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 10:11am.
Given that global temperatures have been flat to declining since 1998, it looks like the Republicans have the better of the argument. And as for Al Gore, when he starts living in a modest home and stops flying around all over the world burning up more carbon in one trip than the average family's SUV does in year, then I'll take him seriously. Until then, he's a just a huckster getting rich on gullible globaloney warming true believers' fears.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 10:11am.
So, as climate science becomes increasingly certain and increasingly dire, less people believe it. Aside from the partisan stuff, maybe this is just people refusing to believe the science because they don't want to make the lifestyle changes necessary to properly deal with climate change.
Submitted by Jeronimo Dan (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 10:12am.
When it comes to either party, neither care about the American people. They care about two things and that's power and money. I say vote out all incumbents, as I'd rather have a new crook every two to six years, than a old crook for a life time.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 10:26am.
I mean, some days the air is just worse than others. Today, in St. Louis, the air is perfectly clear. That obviously means that pollution doesn't exist, right?
Jeebus. All you "pollution exists" freaks just sicken me, I tells ya, you sicken me!
Submitted by Simon Hawkin (not verified) on April 26, 2009 - 12:04am.
Global warming exists, just like global cooling exists. They do not exist simultaneously, obviously. Looking back, we can see periods of GW interspersed with periods of GC.
Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 10:28am.
Hi all,
I am a Democrat living in Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco. I consider myself a progressive on most issue, but most of you would consider me a skeptic on global climate change. About twenty seconds after I submit this, I expect to see words like 'denier', crank, anti-science and ignorant used to describe me. We'll see.
This invective will issue forth despite the following:
1. I believe completely that the greenhouse effect is true and non-controversial (as indeed do most 'skeptics')
2. I understand completely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the mechanism by which it drives the atmosphere to retain heat.
3. As with scientists on both sides, I understand and accept that, in isolation, a doubling of CO2 will result in a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures (although, like most skeptics, I also understand that about 70% of the temperature increase from this doubling has already occurred).
4. I completely support President Obama's energy plan, including the cap and trade proposal (in part due to our host's intelligent explanation of it over the past few months, but also for many of the same reasons that the late Michael Crichton supported it 25 years ago). I believe in weatherising houses, investing in alternative energy generating technologies, and especially in more research.
But what will get me in trouble with regular commenters such as SecularAnimist and others here is that I do not believe that catastrophe awaits us due to global climate change.
The special theory of climate change holds that CO2 increases will interact with other greenhouse gases, especially water vapour, and create a positive feedback loop that drives temperatures even higher than CO2 will in and of itself. This positive feedback loop is assumed, not proven, and evidence available to date does not indicate this assumption should be taken for granted. All of the computer models on which policy is being debated use this unproven feedback loop as an input that guarantees the result will show dramatic temperature rises.
It doesn't help that many of the most passionate people regarding climate change are acting badly--from scientists such as Mann playing games with the data (using bristlecones as a proxy for temperature rises when the originator of the series explicitly and specifically said they could not be used as a temperature proxy, and gave the reasons why), to zealous commenters on weblogs that are insulting, rude and seemingly ignorant of the state of debate today. An unending series of ad hominem attacks against prominent skeptics have essentially left alarmists calling a Nobel Prize winner for Physics a dotard, and Freeman Dyson a dilettante, while defending Al Gore, who has no scientific training whatsoever.
What should trouble you more about the polling results is the fact that the more people are exposed to scientific discussion of the subject, the more skeptical they become about your claims. You are not losing this battle because people are being deceived--it's because a) they are being educated and b) they can see that temperatures have not risen since 1998--they have plateaued (recent decreases are not significant enough to be called a trend of any sort).
This planet has been warmer than it is today for half of the past six million years, including the Holocene Optimum, Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warming Period. CO2 has been as high as 6,000 ppm in the past, and the planet has still maintained its climatic cycles.
I don't go all the way with you, Tom Fuller, but I have similar skepticism about global warming alarmism. I think it's evident our production of GHG on an industrial scale is having an effect on the environment of the planet and that it is now measurable to some degree. I'm all for attempting to remedy this problem.
What would cause me to respond to this survey in the affirmative are the number of "OMG! California and New York will be under water!! We're all going to die!!1" -type stories. The atmosphere is a remarkably complex and robust system, and human ingenuity has a darn good track record of besting fatalists.
I worry about underdeveloped nations whose already limited agriculture will dry up even more. I worry about island nations that will cease to exist. I worry about continued fights over water rights. I really can't get all that worked up about the majority of stories about how this could just maybe possibly affect developed nations.
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 10:52am.
Tom Fuller wrote: "This positive feedback loop is assumed, not proven, ..."
False.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... temperatures have not risen since 1998--they have plateaued ..."
False.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... This planet has been warmer than it is today for half of the past six million years ..."
Irrelevant. Seven billion humans dependent on agriculture, which is adapted to and utterly depends on a stable climate, didn't exist then.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... the Medieval Warming Period."
The MWP was not global and it was not warmer than today.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... CO2 has been as high as 6,000 ppm in the past ..."
And rapid growth of CO2 levels has been associated with mass extinctions in the past. And when CO2 was near 6000 ppm, the Earth was completely deglaciated, sea levels were 80 meters higher than today, and what is now the American midwest was an ocean floor.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... About twenty seconds after I submit this, I expect to see words like 'denier', crank, anti-science and ignorant used to describe me."
There is no need to use any such words to describe you, only to point out that you are typing up a litany of long-discredited falsehoods, irrelevancies and inanities that are widely circulated and endlessly repeated by denialists.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... the more people are exposed to scientific discussion of the subject, the more skeptical they become about your claims."
False. The problem is not that discussion of the science makes people "skeptical". The problem is that people are being bombarded with the very sort of pseudo-scientific denialist propaganda that fills your comment (after, of course, you so cleverly claim that you are not a denialist, and then go on to recite a litany of denialist bunk).
The problem is that some people -- and the graph that Kevin posted suggests this is more prevalent among Republicans -- are far too UNskeptical of denialist pseudo-science. People who believe whatever Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell them may be many things, but "skeptical" is not one of them.
Submitted by anon (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 11:00am.
Since Tom Fuller gives NO indication of listening at all, much less unskeptically to Fox or Rush, I'd have to say he makes his point about the idiots that will quickly move to denounce him.
So SecularWhateverTheFuck, you win the douchebag of the thread award.
(Jeez, your walls must be covered with those things by now.)
You would think that at least the southern Baptists would believe in global warming. For years they have been telling the joke in church about a man stuck on his roof in a flood, praying feverishly to God to save him. Then, out of nowhere, a man on a boat appears to save him. But the man on the roof refuses his help, saying "I don't need your help, God is going to save me." So the boat leaves and the man on the roof starts praying again. Then another man on another boat shows up, and he is refused also. This happens for a third time before the man finally drowns. When he gets to the pearly gates he asks St. Peter "Why did you not save me, was I not praying hard enough?" Shocked, St Peter replies, "WE SENT YOU THREE BOATS!!!"
You'd think 9000 scientists warning of the coming apocalypse would get their attention...
Submitted by Marc (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 11:25am.
The best resource by far is the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Denialists don't like it, of course. But we know very confidently that there is positive feedback - this isn't a matter of dispute in the scientific community. It's not an "unproven" feedback loop; it is observed in current data and required to understand past data.
Mann didn't do anything "funny" in his temperature reconstructions, which have been independently confirmed. He was attacked viciously by denialists, accused of fraud, and in general smeared by incompetent hacks. And vinidicated.
The fact that the planet was warmer in the past for other reasons says nothing about people making it warmer today.
In the scientific community we've seen these tactics before - the climate change deniers use the same tactics and logic as creationists. Scratch them on the surface and you always uncover a republican or a libertarian, motivated primarily by tribal or ideological reasons for opposing the science. And, based on other places where I have seem him operate, there is no hope for a rational dialog with Tom. He'll argue that we need to choose between dealing with climate change and child nutrition in the third world, so anyone with any sense therefore can't want to see action on climate change...
Submitted by steve duncan on April 23, 2009 - 11:27am.
I viewed that very same chart on the wall of my doctor's office the other day. Curiously though it expressed the progression of measurable dementia in populations from each party when aged 40 and older.
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 11:40am.
Anonymous wrote: "Would one or both of you care to provide a few cites, or a good link to your preferred clearinghouse of information on this subject, please?"
www.RealClimate.org is a website maintained by climate scientists and is a reliable source of accurate information. In particular, their "Start Here" page is an excellent resource, especially for those who are just beginning to learn about the science of climate change.
www.SkepticalScience.com debunks a whole list of fake, phony, pseudo-scientific talking points circulated by obstinate denialists who falsely call themselves "skeptics". It even tracks approximately how often the various talking points are used online.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 11:48am.
I'd like to agree with Marc regarding the IPCC--but read the actual working reports, not the summaries for policy makers.
The websites I visit frequently for the skeptical point of view include:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climatesci.org/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
If there are specific points in my comment that you would like a cite for, make a list and I'll try and respond point by point (might take a bit of time, as I'm working).
I'm sure SecularAnimist and friends can provide a longer list of websites for the 'alarmist' position (I don't like using that term, but haven't found one that I like any better...), but I would assume they would include Real Climate, at http://www.realclimate.org/, which has a long blogroll of additional sources.
And yes, I've finally started my own weblog, called Liberals Can Be Skeptics, Too, found at http://newsfan.typepad.co.uk/liberals_can_be_skeptics_/ .
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 12:16pm.
Tom Fuller wrote: "The websites I visit frequently for the skeptical point of view include ..."
All of them purveyors of politically-driven, fake, phony, pseudo-scientific drivel. How unsurprising.
You recommend the IPCC working reports -- yet you post a litany of absurd denialist talking points that are completely contradicted by the IPCC's reports.
The only problem with the IPCC reports is that the nature of the IPCC process and the infrequency of the reports mean that with regard to empirical observations of the actual, ongoing effects of anthropogenic global warming, they are out of date when they are published and quickly become even more out of date.
Actual observations of ongoing CO2 emissions and their effects are already exceeding the worst-case scenarios that the IPCC discussed even as recently as 2007.
If fossil fuels are limited (which I believe them to be), then isn't this kind of a self-limited problem? The explosion of CO2 emissions would, in terms of Earth's history, begin and end in a flash. For me, the question is: will the planet reach equilibrium when this flash is over? The answer is certainly yes, and probably in a recognizable form. Though humans may be fewer, and there may be many opportunities for an incredible and new era of biodiversity after the extinction. Where would we be if, for example, the Archaean cyanobacteria tried to stop their own oxygen production (to them, a toxic waste product)?
Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 1:03pm.
Irrespective of your perspective on "Global Climate Change", "Global Warming" or whatever label you choose I think the following information needs to be considered. I am not intending on taking either side on this matter (I have come to think that there is an additional factor involved in this phenomena but I shall not bore you with that), just passing along an interesting, to me, piece of information that needs to be included in one's thinking.
"The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century...it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity...Professor Lockwood believes that as well as the Sun's 11-year cycle, there is an underlying solar oscillation lasting hundreds of years.
He suggests that 1985 marked the "grand maximum" in this long-term cycle and the Maunder Minimum marked its low point.
"We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood.
"We would expect it to be more than 100 years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum."..."
"...I'd rather have the best data and theories as a guide than have whacked out skepticism...." - D Pecan
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 1:11pm.
Secular Animist, they say never interrupt an enemy while he's making a huge mistake, so I suppose I should just stay silent and let you rant on. It is truly people like you that drive more people to a skeptical position. You can't seriously believe that someone will visit Climate Science, for example, and say "Aha! This is politically-driven, fake, phony, pseudo-scientific drivel." Roger Pielke Sr. is a serious scientist with serious work behind him (and numerous peer-reviewed publications to his credit).
In fact, the major focus of his work is that CO2 contributions to climate change are real, but secondary to the direct impacts of other human actions on climate, such as deforestation, land-use policy and interruptions of the hydrologic cycle. For you to just bad-mouth him is an insult to the intelligence of all of us. Shame on you.
In the same vein, Marc, for you to defend Mann with the claim that his work was independently confirmed, when you obviously know that it was his co-writers who rushed into print with works containing the same methodological errors that have been repeatedly debunked not only shows intellectual dishonesty but an assumption that the rest of us are credulous idiots.
To the Anonymous who is requesting sources and clearinghouses, I can only say sadly that you'll need to get used to this type of back and forth.
Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 1:20pm.
Secular Animist writes, "Actual observations of ongoing CO2 emissions and their effects are already exceeding the worst-case scenarios that the IPCC discussed even as recently as 2007."
Indeed CO2 emissions are higher than the IPCC projected when forecasting a 3.7 degree rise in temperatures this century. However, temperatures are stubbornly refusing to follow suit, having decreased since 2002 (although not to a significant extent) and having essentially plateaued since 1998.
The reason is that the atmosphere does not seem to be as sensitive as IPCC reviewers (and the scientists who wrote the papers they reviewed) initially feared. To be fair, the IPCC reviewers have always said that, because they cannot model cloud cover adequately, that this was a real possibility. Sadly, those who wrote the Summaries for Policy Makers not only ignored this, they wrote those concerns out of the picture entirely.
"And rapid growth of CO2 levels has been associated with mass extinctions in the past. And when CO2 was near 6000 ppm, the Earth was completely deglaciated, sea levels were 80 meters higher than today, and what is now the American midwest was an ocean floor."
Does that mean that the creationists in Kansas will go away?
nonymous wrote: "Would one or both of you care to provide a few cites, or a good link to your preferred clearinghouse of information on this subject, please?"
Here's one of my favorites:
www.skepticalscience.com
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 1:59pm.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... temperatures are stubbornly refusing to follow suit, having decreased since 2002 (although not to a significant extent) and having essentially plateaued since 1998 ... The reason is that the atmosphere does not seem to be as sensitive as IPCC reviewers (and the scientists who wrote the papers they reviewed) initially feared."
That's complete rubbish. Temperatures have neither "plateaued since 1998" nor "decreased since 2002".
Not only have emissions accelerated beyond the worst-case scenarios envisioned by the IPCC, but the warming effect of the emissions is greater than expected, and the response of natural systems to the warming is greater than expected. You only need to look at the state of Arctic ice to see a shocking example. Changes that were not expected to occur for a century are already happening.
Anonymous wrote: "Roger Pielke Sr. is a serious scientist with serious work behind him (and numerous peer-reviewed publications to his credit)."
However, temperatures are stubbornly refusing to follow suit, having decreased since 2002 (although not to a significant extent) and having essentially plateaued since 1998.
Pardon my ad hom, but this is really dumb logic. The change in global temperature is never going to be a straight line, and to look at an outlier like 1998 and call that the "peak" and to declare that temps have been falling since is idiotic. There have been at least a half dozen "drops" along the climb in temps, and by your logic every one of them was a "peak" and we've been cooling after every one of them. Except we haven't been cooling. Look at the last 20-30 years on a graph and it's obvious that temps are still climbing in spite of 1998 being the warmest year so far. We've been at a solar minimum and a strong la Nina, and we've still been registering some of the warmest temps of recorded history. Now what happens as we enter our solar maximum decade and el Nino returns?
We're not cooling again until the ocean levels stop rising, and they certainly didn't stop rising in 1998.
Yes, let's look at Arctic ice levels--they have almost completely recovered in area (and will have multi-year ice levels in oh, about a year): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/21/leaving-the-ice-pack-behind/
We have entered a solar minimum, and guess what? Temperatures are decreasing.
You people learned a lot from George Bush's Drive to the Iraq War: Lie quickly and unceasingly and change the subject fast.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 2:50pm.
Hi Boring and Bogus,
Real Climate's library of pre-packaged ad hominem attacks on anyone who has ever opposed catastrophic climate change is convenient for messenger boys such as yourself. Perhaps less helpful to those who think--someone might actually say, hmm. Is everyone opposed to climate alarmism actually such a villain?
Much in the vein of Joe McCarthy, Grist describes Real Climate's Director of research as an expert in the background of those opposing climate alarmism. I guess that's a more important area of research than say, the climate...
Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 3:11pm.
While trying to panic us all, the alarmists sometimes say strange things:
"Antarctic ice melting faster than expected
April 6, 2009
UP TO one-third of all Antarctic sea ice is likely to melt by the end of the century, seriously contributing to dangerous sea level rises, updated scientific modelling on global warming shows."
Antarctic ice spreading
AM - Thursday, 23 April , 2009
Reporter: Simon Santow
TONY EASTLEY: In recent years all the headlines have been about ice melting in some of the globe's chilliest places but it seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic.
Scientists in the United Kingdom have produced a study which shows ice has grown by 100,000 square kilometres each decade over the past 30 years and perversely the increase is being put down to the hole in the ozone layer.
Tom, did you read the rest of the article? The ice in the Antarctic is thickening in some regions, and is thinning in other regions.
This does not contradict the predictions of global warming. Do you understand the predictions of global warming are that the average temperature on the Earth will increase by a few degrees. Temperatures and such variables as rainfall and ice cover fluctuate from place to place and from day to day. The fact that there is an overall warming trend does not mean that every place will get warmer, or that every year will be warmer than the previous. The prediction of global warming is that if you average temperatures over the entire planet, and plot it over time, then you will have a plot that shows year-to-year fluctuations superimposed on a steadily warming trend.
Take a look at the graph here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
If you look at the year-to-year fluctuations, it is not clear what the trend is. Some years are warmer than the preceding year, some are colder. But if you take the data for the last century and computing running 5-year averages, the trend is much starker. There are still fluctuations; some 5-year periods are colder than the previous 5-year period. But the graph is definitely trending up.
Well, that last post was originally very insulting towards global warming "skeptics", but then I changed it to be a little more civil. However, I see that I left the remnants of my earlier post in the title.
As shown in this figure, if you look at the extent of old ice
(more than 2 years since appearing in the form of snowfall), it has shrunk drastically in recent years. The extent of new ice has not changed as significantly.
Yes, let's look at Arctic ice levels--they have almost completely recovered in area
Couldn't you find something that hasn't already been debunked? There's a HUGE difference between area and extent.
Antarctic ice spreading
AM - Thursday, 23 April , 2009
Reporter: Simon Santow
TONY EASTLEY: In recent years all the headlines have been about ice melting in some of the globe's chilliest places but it seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic.
Did you catch that in your own clip, or did you think that was a typo? How can that be? If there's global warming how can the Antarctic be gaining ice?
Tom, you sound like you're trying to be sincere, so please take a moment to follow this link explaining how global warming actually leads to an increase in Antarctic ice.
The implicit assumption is that if Antarctic sea ice is growing, it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidely not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than other oceans in the world. The average global ocean temperature trend has been 0.1°C per decade from 1955 to 1995. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.
Embracing denialists arguments doesn't make you look informed on the issue.
Is it possible to have a discussion on a weblog comment thread?
Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 4:18pm.
Hi Daryl,
Thanks for re-editing your remarks, and don't worry about the title.
Ice in the Antarctic is thinning in the Western Peninsula, which constitutes about 5% of the Antarctic and projects out into the much warmer part of the ocean. In the other 95% it is thickening by a massive, huge amount. 10,000 square kilometers per year, on average for the past thirty years.
And yes, of course we are talking about global mean temperature, but the effects of global warming have been surprisingly local. Most observed warming to date has been in the northern latitudes (Canada and Siberia), in winter, and at night.
At the end of the day, my interpretation of the available data is still this. About 10,000 years ago temperatures climbed quite rapidly. They have since fluctuated within a fairly narrow band. We are still within that narrow band. Many geologists think that we are essentially recovering from the dip in temperatures caused by the Little Ice Age.
As I said way up there in the thread, I do believe the greenhouse effect is operational and that CO2 will contribute about 1.2 degrees to temperature rises if it doubles in concentration. What I don't believe is that there is any evidence that there is a positive feedback cycle that will create a runaway heating effect.
This is my plain language, honest interpretation. I believe that computer modelling is unable to account for the effects of clouds, and that they take this positive feedback mechanism and use it as an input into their models, rather than trying to measure whether or not it exists.
Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 4:24pm.
Arctic ice almost disappeared in 2007, but it has since recovered dramatically. Obviously, since it almost disappeared two years ago, there is very little multi-year ice.
As we have only been measuring Arctic ice for 30 years, we don't even know if this is unusual. There are huge fluctuations in measurements, depending on how you measure. Bottom up sonar, which I'm familiar with, doesn't catch the snow on top. Top down radar can miss the thickness. Side radar can miss the breadth. Buoys decay quickly and move. Drilling is accurate, but tends to only take place in areas where people can get to, which is often where the ice is thinnest.
As for Thumb, sigh. The point of my comment was to juxtapose two different claims put forward by global warming alarmists. One was that Antarctic ice was disappearing. The other was that Antarctic ice was increasing rapidly. But when you have to explain the punchline, a bit of the flavor goes missing.
One was that Antarctic ice was disappearing. The other was that Antarctic ice was increasing rapidly. But when you have to explain the punchline, a bit of the flavor goes missing.
Your "punchline" would have worked better if both didn't confirm what you're proposing doesn't exist.
Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 5:52pm.
Er, Thumb, what are you saying I propose does not exist? Global warming? See above. Twice I say that it does exist, that CO2 does contribute to it. Arctic ice melt? See above. I say that Arctic ice melted almost completely. Antarctic ice melt? See above. I say it has melted on the 5% of the continent that juts out into the warmer part of the ocean.
I guess what I'm willing to propose doesn't exist is some level of attention on the part of other correspondents... What time zone are you in? (What planet are you on?)
That was sloppy of me. I had you confused with the links you posted. You do have more nuance, but you're working so hard to prove there's no need for alarm (what most people would call "concern") that you end up being confused with those who rely on bogus and/or misleading information.
Submitted by Tom Fuller (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 7:41pm.
Thumb,
I think global climate change has the potential to be alarming. However, I think that, pace some of the most vocal alarmists, we have time to collect the data properly and do the science right--something that seems fairly clear has not yet been done.
This is especially true if we act on a sane and well-balanced energy plan like President Obama's. He has the numbers and direction right, and if enacted it will be good for our country if global warming proves to be a danger. It will be equally as good for the country if it all turns out to be so much hot air.
Er, and yes, I do get that a lot. Usually it's worse. Much worse.
Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on April 23, 2009 - 8:37pm.
But here goes another attempt.
"...In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice age".
This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.
According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.
"I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.
Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.
"If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.
"If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."..." reference
I wonder how much Tom Fuller (if that's the real name) gets paid to troll.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." - I Corinthians 13:11
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on April 24, 2009 - 12:24am.
>I wonder how much Tom Fuller (if that's the real name) gets paid to troll.
Or it's his part of identity to be a contrarian faux liberal.
I've met these people in the larval stage. One guy I ran into at several different activist groups, building experience. He eventually became openly conservative christian (learned to fire a glock, tried to get US citizenship, etc), and constantly told the "story" of how he gradually saw the light as a former political liberal. Yet anybody could see his resume-building deal at any point along the way - totally insincere.The odd part was his conceit that he was fooling anyone.
Another I met in a physics program. He'd "leak" all thetime, little hints of his creationist worldview and political ambitions, taking side course in biology and philosophy. He had think-tank career ambitions. Again, pretended to be a "contrarian liberal". Dude was a glaring sleeper agent.
This tactic has also been repeated many times within the BC environmental movement as well.
So I'm sure Tom goes on at length about how the resources to reduce CO2 here should instead go to people in the developing world. Has to shore up that liberal cred, after all.
To paraphrase our president,
To paraphrase our president, they really are proud to be ignorant.
Wheat or chaff?
Perhaps this is an artifact of a dwindling population of GOPers?
It's worse
If you follow the links back to Gallup, you'll see that independents are moving in the wrong direction faster than the self-labeled partisans.
Approaching the Keyes horizon
I agree with jhm. It's because sensible people are no longer republicans. As a party, they are approaching the Keyes horizon.
It's not just sensible people leaving the GOP
Follow the links to the actual Gallup results, and you'll see that the total population has grown more skeptical in the las few years, not just members of the GOP.
It's Al
Between 1998 and 2008, Former Vice-President Gore embraced the issue very publicly and became symbolic of the cause to fight global warming.
Republicans seem to have the mindset that any issue embraced by a prominent Democrat is to be opposed regardless of its merits. Hence the reflex: anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, and therefore drill, baby, drill is good public policy. Unsurprisingly, such policy dovetails nicely with the wishes of some huge corporate donors.
In all honesty, if Newt Gingrich came out with, say, a proposal to limit credit card rates, my first instinct would be to ask, "What's in it for him?" I guess it's natural to suspect ulterior motives and double-crosses these days.
However, with global warming, there are lots of very solid measurements that are trending badly. Unfortunately, the Republican reaction seems to be to deny and grasp for dubious figureheads to give cover, then amplify the confusion using their media establishment, rather than try and come up with policy proposals that would address the problem.
Here in Florida, there are a lot of Republicans with pricey waterfront property. But there are also a lot of Democrats and Independents on low-lying land that will be just as vulnerable.
Given that global
Given that global temperatures have been flat to declining since 1998, it looks like the Republicans have the better of the argument. And as for Al Gore, when he starts living in a modest home and stops flying around all over the world burning up more carbon in one trip than the average family's SUV does in year, then I'll take him seriously. Until then, he's a just a huckster getting rich on gullible globaloney warming true believers' fears.
Ladies and Gentlemen...
...I give you Exhibit A.
So, as climate science
So, as climate science becomes increasingly certain and increasingly dire, less people believe it. Aside from the partisan stuff, maybe this is just people refusing to believe the science because they don't want to make the lifestyle changes necessary to properly deal with climate change.
Both sides
When it comes to either party, neither care about the American people. They care about two things and that's power and money. I say vote out all incumbents, as I'd rather have a new crook every two to six years, than a old crook for a life time.
Heck, pollution doesn't exist either
I mean, some days the air is just worse than others. Today, in St. Louis, the air is perfectly clear. That obviously means that pollution doesn't exist, right?
Jeebus. All you "pollution exists" freaks just sicken me, I tells ya, you sicken me!
exists -- sometimes
Global warming exists, just like global cooling exists. They do not exist simultaneously, obviously. Looking back, we can see periods of GW interspersed with periods of GC.
Liberal Skeptic
Hi all,
I am a Democrat living in Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco. I consider myself a progressive on most issue, but most of you would consider me a skeptic on global climate change. About twenty seconds after I submit this, I expect to see words like 'denier', crank, anti-science and ignorant used to describe me. We'll see.
This invective will issue forth despite the following:
1. I believe completely that the greenhouse effect is true and non-controversial (as indeed do most 'skeptics')
2. I understand completely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the mechanism by which it drives the atmosphere to retain heat.
3. As with scientists on both sides, I understand and accept that, in isolation, a doubling of CO2 will result in a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures (although, like most skeptics, I also understand that about 70% of the temperature increase from this doubling has already occurred).
4. I completely support President Obama's energy plan, including the cap and trade proposal (in part due to our host's intelligent explanation of it over the past few months, but also for many of the same reasons that the late Michael Crichton supported it 25 years ago). I believe in weatherising houses, investing in alternative energy generating technologies, and especially in more research.
But what will get me in trouble with regular commenters such as SecularAnimist and others here is that I do not believe that catastrophe awaits us due to global climate change.
The special theory of climate change holds that CO2 increases will interact with other greenhouse gases, especially water vapour, and create a positive feedback loop that drives temperatures even higher than CO2 will in and of itself. This positive feedback loop is assumed, not proven, and evidence available to date does not indicate this assumption should be taken for granted. All of the computer models on which policy is being debated use this unproven feedback loop as an input that guarantees the result will show dramatic temperature rises.
It doesn't help that many of the most passionate people regarding climate change are acting badly--from scientists such as Mann playing games with the data (using bristlecones as a proxy for temperature rises when the originator of the series explicitly and specifically said they could not be used as a temperature proxy, and gave the reasons why), to zealous commenters on weblogs that are insulting, rude and seemingly ignorant of the state of debate today. An unending series of ad hominem attacks against prominent skeptics have essentially left alarmists calling a Nobel Prize winner for Physics a dotard, and Freeman Dyson a dilettante, while defending Al Gore, who has no scientific training whatsoever.
What should trouble you more about the polling results is the fact that the more people are exposed to scientific discussion of the subject, the more skeptical they become about your claims. You are not losing this battle because people are being deceived--it's because a) they are being educated and b) they can see that temperatures have not risen since 1998--they have plateaued (recent decreases are not significant enough to be called a trend of any sort).
This planet has been warmer than it is today for half of the past six million years, including the Holocene Optimum, Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warming Period. CO2 has been as high as 6,000 ppm in the past, and the planet has still maintained its climatic cycles.
Hey Troll, thanks for the
Hey Troll, thanks for the view from the global warming deniers.
/sorry, had to be done.
Global warming is serious, but...
I don't go all the way with you, Tom Fuller, but I have similar skepticism about global warming alarmism. I think it's evident our production of GHG on an industrial scale is having an effect on the environment of the planet and that it is now measurable to some degree. I'm all for attempting to remedy this problem.
What would cause me to respond to this survey in the affirmative are the number of "OMG! California and New York will be under water!! We're all going to die!!1" -type stories. The atmosphere is a remarkably complex and robust system, and human ingenuity has a darn good track record of besting fatalists.
I worry about underdeveloped nations whose already limited agriculture will dry up even more. I worry about island nations that will cease to exist. I worry about continued fights over water rights. I really can't get all that worked up about the majority of stories about how this could just maybe possibly affect developed nations.
Tom Fuller wrote: "This
Tom Fuller wrote: "This positive feedback loop is assumed, not proven, ..."
False.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... temperatures have not risen since 1998--they have plateaued ..."
False.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... This planet has been warmer than it is today for half of the past six million years ..."
Irrelevant. Seven billion humans dependent on agriculture, which is adapted to and utterly depends on a stable climate, didn't exist then.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... the Medieval Warming Period."
The MWP was not global and it was not warmer than today.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... CO2 has been as high as 6,000 ppm in the past ..."
And rapid growth of CO2 levels has been associated with mass extinctions in the past. And when CO2 was near 6000 ppm, the Earth was completely deglaciated, sea levels were 80 meters higher than today, and what is now the American midwest was an ocean floor.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... About twenty seconds after I submit this, I expect to see words like 'denier', crank, anti-science and ignorant used to describe me."
There is no need to use any such words to describe you, only to point out that you are typing up a litany of long-discredited falsehoods, irrelevancies and inanities that are widely circulated and endlessly repeated by denialists.
Tom Fuller wrote: "... the more people are exposed to scientific discussion of the subject, the more skeptical they become about your claims."
False. The problem is not that discussion of the science makes people "skeptical". The problem is that people are being bombarded with the very sort of pseudo-scientific denialist propaganda that fills your comment (after, of course, you so cleverly claim that you are not a denialist, and then go on to recite a litany of denialist bunk).
The problem is that some people -- and the graph that Kevin posted suggests this is more prevalent among Republicans -- are far too UNskeptical of denialist pseudo-science. People who believe whatever Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell them may be many things, but "skeptical" is not one of them.
Since Tom Fuller gives NO
Since Tom Fuller gives NO indication of listening at all, much less unskeptically to Fox or Rush, I'd have to say he makes his point about the idiots that will quickly move to denounce him.
So SecularWhateverTheFuck, you win the douchebag of the thread award.
(Jeez, your walls must be covered with those things by now.)
Would one or both of you
Would one or both of you care to provide a few cites, or a good link to your preferred clearinghouse of information on this subject, please?
You would think that at
You would think that at least the southern Baptists would believe in global warming. For years they have been telling the joke in church about a man stuck on his roof in a flood, praying feverishly to God to save him. Then, out of nowhere, a man on a boat appears to save him. But the man on the roof refuses his help, saying "I don't need your help, God is going to save me." So the boat leaves and the man on the roof starts praying again. Then another man on another boat shows up, and he is refused also. This happens for a third time before the man finally drowns. When he gets to the pearly gates he asks St. Peter "Why did you not save me, was I not praying hard enough?" Shocked, St Peter replies, "WE SENT YOU THREE BOATS!!!"
You'd think 9000 scientists warning of the coming apocalypse would get their attention...
The best resource by far is
The best resource by far is the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Denialists don't like it, of course. But we know very confidently that there is positive feedback - this isn't a matter of dispute in the scientific community. It's not an "unproven" feedback loop; it is observed in current data and required to understand past data.
Mann didn't do anything "funny" in his temperature reconstructions, which have been independently confirmed. He was attacked viciously by denialists, accused of fraud, and in general smeared by incompetent hacks. And vinidicated.
The fact that the planet was warmer in the past for other reasons says nothing about people making it warmer today.
In the scientific community we've seen these tactics before - the climate change deniers use the same tactics and logic as creationists. Scratch them on the surface and you always uncover a republican or a libertarian, motivated primarily by tribal or ideological reasons for opposing the science. And, based on other places where I have seem him operate, there is no hope for a rational dialog with Tom. He'll argue that we need to choose between dealing with climate change and child nutrition in the third world, so anyone with any sense therefore can't want to see action on climate change...
CHART
I viewed that very same chart on the wall of my doctor's office the other day. Curiously though it expressed the progression of measurable dementia in populations from each party when aged 40 and older.
Anonymous wrote: "Would one
Anonymous wrote: "Would one or both of you care to provide a few cites, or a good link to your preferred clearinghouse of information on this subject, please?"
www.RealClimate.org is a website maintained by climate scientists and is a reliable source of accurate information. In particular, their "Start Here" page is an excellent resource, especially for those who are just beginning to learn about the science of climate change.
www.SkepticalScience.com debunks a whole list of fake, phony, pseudo-scientific talking points circulated by obstinate denialists who falsely call themselves "skeptics". It even tracks approximately how often the various talking points are used online.
The online version of Spencer Weart's book "The Discovery Of Global Warming", hosted by the American Institute of Physics, is an excellent resource for learning about the foundations of the science of anthropogenic global warming and climate change.
Sources
I'd like to agree with Marc regarding the IPCC--but read the actual working reports, not the summaries for policy makers.
The websites I visit frequently for the skeptical point of view include:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climatesci.org/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
If there are specific points in my comment that you would like a cite for, make a list and I'll try and respond point by point (might take a bit of time, as I'm working).
I'm sure SecularAnimist and friends can provide a longer list of websites for the 'alarmist' position (I don't like using that term, but haven't found one that I like any better...), but I would assume they would include Real Climate, at http://www.realclimate.org/, which has a long blogroll of additional sources.
And yes, I've finally started my own weblog, called Liberals Can Be Skeptics, Too, found at http://newsfan.typepad.co.uk/liberals_can_be_skeptics_/ .
That anonymouse post above is mine
Just so you know...
It figures ...
Tom Fuller wrote: "The websites I visit frequently for the skeptical point of view include ..."
All of them purveyors of politically-driven, fake, phony, pseudo-scientific drivel. How unsurprising.
You recommend the IPCC working reports -- yet you post a litany of absurd denialist talking points that are completely contradicted by the IPCC's reports.
The only problem with the IPCC reports is that the nature of the IPCC process and the infrequency of the reports mean that with regard to empirical observations of the actual, ongoing effects of anthropogenic global warming, they are out of date when they are published and quickly become even more out of date.
Actual observations of ongoing CO2 emissions and their effects are already exceeding the worst-case scenarios that the IPCC discussed even as recently as 2007.
Reconcile two concerns
If fossil fuels are limited (which I believe them to be), then isn't this kind of a self-limited problem? The explosion of CO2 emissions would, in terms of Earth's history, begin and end in a flash. For me, the question is: will the planet reach equilibrium when this flash is over? The answer is certainly yes, and probably in a recognizable form. Though humans may be fewer, and there may be many opportunities for an incredible and new era of biodiversity after the extinction. Where would we be if, for example, the Archaean cyanobacteria tried to stop their own oxygen production (to them, a toxic waste product)?
An interesting data point to consider
Irrespective of your perspective on "Global Climate Change", "Global Warming" or whatever label you choose I think the following information needs to be considered. I am not intending on taking either side on this matter (I have come to think that there is an additional factor involved in this phenomena but I shall not bore you with that), just passing along an interesting, to me, piece of information that needs to be included in one's thinking.
"The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century...it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity...Professor Lockwood believes that as well as the Sun's 11-year cycle, there is an underlying solar oscillation lasting hundreds of years.
He suggests that 1985 marked the "grand maximum" in this long-term cycle and the Maunder Minimum marked its low point.
"We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood.
"We would expect it to be more than 100 years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum."..."
"...I'd rather have the best data and theories as a guide than have whacked out skepticism...." - D Pecan
Liberal Skeptic
Secular Animist, they say never interrupt an enemy while he's making a huge mistake, so I suppose I should just stay silent and let you rant on. It is truly people like you that drive more people to a skeptical position. You can't seriously believe that someone will visit Climate Science, for example, and say "Aha! This is politically-driven, fake, phony, pseudo-scientific drivel." Roger Pielke Sr. is a serious scientist with serious work behind him (and numerous peer-reviewed publications to his credit).
In fact, the major focus of his work is that CO2 contributions to climate change are real, but secondary to the direct impacts of other human actions on climate, such as deforestation, land-use policy and interruptions of the hydrologic cycle. For you to just bad-mouth him is an insult to the intelligence of all of us. Shame on you.
In the same vein, Marc, for you to defend Mann with the claim that his work was independently confirmed, when you obviously know that it was his co-writers who rushed into print with works containing the same methodological errors that have been repeatedly debunked not only shows intellectual dishonesty but an assumption that the rest of us are credulous idiots.
To the Anonymous who is requesting sources and clearinghouses, I can only say sadly that you'll need to get used to this type of back and forth.
and more...
Secular Animist writes, "Actual observations of ongoing CO2 emissions and their effects are already exceeding the worst-case scenarios that the IPCC discussed even as recently as 2007."
Indeed CO2 emissions are higher than the IPCC projected when forecasting a 3.7 degree rise in temperatures this century. However, temperatures are stubbornly refusing to follow suit, having decreased since 2002 (although not to a significant extent) and having essentially plateaued since 1998.
The reason is that the atmosphere does not seem to be as sensitive as IPCC reviewers (and the scientists who wrote the papers they reviewed) initially feared. To be fair, the IPCC reviewers have always said that, because they cannot model cloud cover adequately, that this was a real possibility. Sadly, those who wrote the Summaries for Policy Makers not only ignored this, they wrote those concerns out of the picture entirely.
Oh goody!
"And rapid growth of CO2 levels has been associated with mass extinctions in the past. And when CO2 was near 6000 ppm, the Earth was completely deglaciated, sea levels were 80 meters higher than today, and what is now the American midwest was an ocean floor."
Does that mean that the creationists in Kansas will go away?
More reading material
nonymous wrote: "Would one or both of you care to provide a few cites, or a good link to your preferred clearinghouse of information on this subject, please?"
Here's one of my favorites:
www.skepticalscience.com
Boring and bogus denialism
Tom Fuller wrote: "... temperatures are stubbornly refusing to follow suit, having decreased since 2002 (although not to a significant extent) and having essentially plateaued since 1998 ... The reason is that the atmosphere does not seem to be as sensitive as IPCC reviewers (and the scientists who wrote the papers they reviewed) initially feared."
That's complete rubbish. Temperatures have neither "plateaued since 1998" nor "decreased since 2002".
Not only have emissions accelerated beyond the worst-case scenarios envisioned by the IPCC, but the warming effect of the emissions is greater than expected, and the response of natural systems to the warming is greater than expected. You only need to look at the state of Arctic ice to see a shocking example. Changes that were not expected to occur for a century are already happening.
Anonymous wrote: "Roger Pielke Sr. is a serious scientist with serious work behind him (and numerous peer-reviewed publications to his credit)."
I suggest you visit www.RealClimate.org and do a search on Mr. Pielke. The article "How to cook a graph in three easy lessons" would be a good place to start.
ever see a graph?
However, temperatures are stubbornly refusing to follow suit, having decreased since 2002 (although not to a significant extent) and having essentially plateaued since 1998.
Pardon my ad hom, but this is really dumb logic. The change in global temperature is never going to be a straight line, and to look at an outlier like 1998 and call that the "peak" and to declare that temps have been falling since is idiotic. There have been at least a half dozen "drops" along the climb in temps, and by your logic every one of them was a "peak" and we've been cooling after every one of them. Except we haven't been cooling. Look at the last 20-30 years on a graph and it's obvious that temps are still climbing in spite of 1998 being the warmest year so far. We've been at a solar minimum and a strong la Nina, and we've still been registering some of the warmest temps of recorded history. Now what happens as we enter our solar maximum decade and el Nino returns?
We're not cooling again until the ocean levels stop rising, and they certainly didn't stop rising in 1998.
Misinformation--lifeblood of the alarmists
Hi Thumb,
Yes. I've seen a graph:
http://hypsithermal.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/satellite_since_2002_gw_summary_200806141.jpg
Yes, let's look at Arctic ice levels--they have almost completely recovered in area (and will have multi-year ice levels in oh, about a year): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/21/leaving-the-ice-pack-behind/
We have entered a solar minimum, and guess what? Temperatures are decreasing.
You people learned a lot from George Bush's Drive to the Iraq War: Lie quickly and unceasingly and change the subject fast.
Confederacy of dunces
Hi Boring and Bogus,
Real Climate's library of pre-packaged ad hominem attacks on anyone who has ever opposed catastrophic climate change is convenient for messenger boys such as yourself. Perhaps less helpful to those who think--someone might actually say, hmm. Is everyone opposed to climate alarmism actually such a villain?
Much in the vein of Joe McCarthy, Grist describes Real Climate's Director of research as an expert in the background of those opposing climate alarmism. I guess that's a more important area of research than say, the climate...
Your polemics are pathetic.
More misinformation alerts
Global warming is not accelerating: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/global-warming-accelerating-3.html
Keeping your story straight
While trying to panic us all, the alarmists sometimes say strange things:
"Antarctic ice melting faster than expected
April 6, 2009
UP TO one-third of all Antarctic sea ice is likely to melt by the end of the century, seriously contributing to dangerous sea level rises, updated scientific modelling on global warming shows."
Antarctic ice spreading
AM - Thursday, 23 April , 2009
Reporter: Simon Santow
TONY EASTLEY: In recent years all the headlines have been about ice melting in some of the globe's chilliest places but it seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic.
Scientists in the United Kingdom have produced a study which shows ice has grown by 100,000 square kilometres each decade over the past 30 years and perversely the increase is being put down to the hole in the ozone layer.
Ah, me.
Is it possible to have a discussion with sophists?
Tom, did you read the rest of the article? The ice in the Antarctic is thickening in some regions, and is thinning in other regions.
This does not contradict the predictions of global warming. Do you understand the predictions of global warming are that the average temperature on the Earth will increase by a few degrees. Temperatures and such variables as rainfall and ice cover fluctuate from place to place and from day to day. The fact that there is an overall warming trend does not mean that every place will get warmer, or that every year will be warmer than the previous. The prediction of global warming is that if you average temperatures over the entire planet, and plot it over time, then you will have a plot that shows year-to-year fluctuations superimposed on a steadily warming trend.
Take a look at the graph here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
If you look at the year-to-year fluctuations, it is not clear what the trend is. Some years are warmer than the preceding year, some are colder. But if you take the data for the last century and computing running 5-year averages, the trend is much starker. There are still fluctuations; some 5-year periods are colder than the previous 5-year period. But the graph is definitely trending up.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Whoops
Well, that last post was originally very insulting towards global warming "skeptics", but then I changed it to be a little more civil. However, I see that I left the remnants of my earlier post in the title.
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
"Old" ice disappearing from the arctic
As shown in this figure, if you look at the extent of old ice
(more than 2 years since appearing in the form of snowfall), it has shrunk drastically in recent years. The extent of new ice has not changed as significantly.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure5.png
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
O. M. G. Ignorant, or oil company shill?
Yes, let's look at Arctic ice levels--they have almost completely recovered in area
Couldn't you find something that hasn't already been debunked? There's a HUGE difference between area and extent.
Antarctic ice spreading
AM - Thursday, 23 April , 2009
Reporter: Simon Santow
TONY EASTLEY: In recent years all the headlines have been about ice melting in some of the globe's chilliest places but it seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic.
Did you catch that in your own clip, or did you think that was a typo? How can that be? If there's global warming how can the Antarctic be gaining ice?
Tom, you sound like you're trying to be sincere, so please take a moment to follow this link explaining how global warming actually leads to an increase in Antarctic ice.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html
Embracing denialists arguments doesn't make you look informed on the issue.
Is it possible to have a discussion on a weblog comment thread?
Hi Daryl,
Thanks for re-editing your remarks, and don't worry about the title.
Ice in the Antarctic is thinning in the Western Peninsula, which constitutes about 5% of the Antarctic and projects out into the much warmer part of the ocean. In the other 95% it is thickening by a massive, huge amount. 10,000 square kilometers per year, on average for the past thirty years.
And yes, of course we are talking about global mean temperature, but the effects of global warming have been surprisingly local. Most observed warming to date has been in the northern latitudes (Canada and Siberia), in winter, and at night.
At the end of the day, my interpretation of the available data is still this. About 10,000 years ago temperatures climbed quite rapidly. They have since fluctuated within a fairly narrow band. We are still within that narrow band. Many geologists think that we are essentially recovering from the dip in temperatures caused by the Little Ice Age.
As I said way up there in the thread, I do believe the greenhouse effect is operational and that CO2 will contribute about 1.2 degrees to temperature rises if it doubles in concentration. What I don't believe is that there is any evidence that there is a positive feedback cycle that will create a runaway heating effect.
This is my plain language, honest interpretation. I believe that computer modelling is unable to account for the effects of clouds, and that they take this positive feedback mechanism and use it as an input into their models, rather than trying to measure whether or not it exists.
Arctic ice
Arctic ice almost disappeared in 2007, but it has since recovered dramatically. Obviously, since it almost disappeared two years ago, there is very little multi-year ice.
As we have only been measuring Arctic ice for 30 years, we don't even know if this is unusual. There are huge fluctuations in measurements, depending on how you measure. Bottom up sonar, which I'm familiar with, doesn't catch the snow on top. Top down radar can miss the thickness. Side radar can miss the breadth. Buoys decay quickly and move. Drilling is accurate, but tends to only take place in areas where people can get to, which is often where the ice is thinnest.
As for Thumb, sigh. The point of my comment was to juxtapose two different claims put forward by global warming alarmists. One was that Antarctic ice was disappearing. The other was that Antarctic ice was increasing rapidly. But when you have to explain the punchline, a bit of the flavor goes missing.
One was that Antarctic ice
One was that Antarctic ice was disappearing. The other was that Antarctic ice was increasing rapidly. But when you have to explain the punchline, a bit of the flavor goes missing.
Your "punchline" would have worked better if both didn't confirm what you're proposing doesn't exist.
I beg your pardon?
Er, Thumb, what are you saying I propose does not exist? Global warming? See above. Twice I say that it does exist, that CO2 does contribute to it. Arctic ice melt? See above. I say that Arctic ice melted almost completely. Antarctic ice melt? See above. I say it has melted on the 5% of the continent that juts out into the warmer part of the ocean.
I guess what I'm willing to propose doesn't exist is some level of attention on the part of other correspondents... What time zone are you in? (What planet are you on?)
You're correct
That was sloppy of me. I had you confused with the links you posted. You do have more nuance, but you're working so hard to prove there's no need for alarm (what most people would call "concern") that you end up being confused with those who rely on bogus and/or misleading information.
I'll bet you get that a lot.
Cause for alarm
Thumb,
I think global climate change has the potential to be alarming. However, I think that, pace some of the most vocal alarmists, we have time to collect the data properly and do the science right--something that seems fairly clear has not yet been done.
This is especially true if we act on a sane and well-balanced energy plan like President Obama's. He has the numbers and direction right, and if enacted it will be good for our country if global warming proves to be a danger. It will be equally as good for the country if it all turns out to be so much hot air.
Er, and yes, I do get that a lot. Usually it's worse. Much worse.
Hard to cut through the noise
But here goes another attempt.
I wonder how much Tom Fuller (if that's the real name) gets paid to troll.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." - I Corinthians 13:11
Not a troll, not paid
Wonder what it's like when everyone who disagrees with you has to be an enemy with a medieval title? Are you that afraid?
>I wonder how much Tom
>I wonder how much Tom Fuller (if that's the real name) gets paid to troll.
Or it's his part of identity to be a contrarian faux liberal.
I've met these people in the larval stage. One guy I ran into at several different activist groups, building experience. He eventually became openly conservative christian (learned to fire a glock, tried to get US citizenship, etc), and constantly told the "story" of how he gradually saw the light as a former political liberal. Yet anybody could see his resume-building deal at any point along the way - totally insincere.The odd part was his conceit that he was fooling anyone.
Another I met in a physics program. He'd "leak" all thetime, little hints of his creationist worldview and political ambitions, taking side course in biology and philosophy. He had think-tank career ambitions. Again, pretended to be a "contrarian liberal". Dude was a glaring sleeper agent.
This tactic has also been repeated many times within the BC environmental movement as well.
So I'm sure Tom goes on at length about how the resources to reduce CO2 here should instead go to people in the developing world. Has to shore up that liberal cred, after all.