How's everyone enjoying their "Global Warming"?

[Prebe]

Loremaster, that was totally uncalled for!

Take it easy on the sarcasm huh?

Sorry, but I had to voice my perception, that Tjols last couple of posts seemed willfully ignorant.

When I say willfully, I mean that I think Tjol KNOWS that he can't draw the parallel that he does between meteorology and climatology, and I suspect that he made - at least the last post - to score a cheap point with the fence sitters and lurkers.

I think that Tjol is an intelligent chap, so I simply can't bring myself to belive that he does so out of ignorance. However, if that is indeed the case, I appologize, and I will gladly write a long post about the differences in meteorolgy and climatology.

[Loredoctor]

Loremaster, that was totally uncalled for!

[DukkhaWaynhim]

As a former scientist, I hypothesize that while scientists are hardly ever totaly right, they are *never* totally wrong. : )

Seriously, I have been convinced that local and global climate change is impacted in some way by industrial age emissions. I don't think we can accurately measure the impact, however, since I suspect there are many factors to climate change that are not politically or economically linked... and only the political or economic angles will be funded for anaylsis, since money follows money.

Therefore, there is motivation to prove/skew theories of direct and proportional linkages between industrial policies/actions to climate change. Politicians and businessmen will opinion-shop for data to support their interests, because that is human nature.

Scientists will keep generating data and attempt to draw conclusions, but the same data sets can often be used to prove or nebulize the same hypothesis, depending on what assumptions are made. Welcome to science.

[Prebe]

[Zarathustra]

January 14, 2010
Antarctica and the Myth of Deadly Rising Seas

On Monday, scientists from the Norwegian Polar Institute reported that they'd measured sea temperatures beneath an East Antarctic ice shelf and found no signs of warming whatsoever. And while the discovery's corollaries remain mostly blurred by the few rogue mainstream media outlets actually reporting it, the findings are in fact yet another serious blow to the sky-is-falling-because-oceans-are-rising prophecies of the climate alarm crowd.

For years now, alarmists have insisted that Antarctica is thawing thanks to man-made global warming. They warn that such melting of a frozen continent containing 90 percent of all the ice on the planet would inevitably lead to a cataclysmic sea level rise (SLR). Scary stuff, indeed.

However, there are several problems with their assertions, not the least of which is that all evidence of melting selectively focuses on the only area of the continent satellite evidence confirms is warming -- the western region in general, and the Antarctic Peninsula in particular.

But as ICECAP's Joe D'Aleo observed in 2008 [PDF], the relatively small area of the peninsula offers an extremely poor representative sample, as it juts out well north of the mainland into an area of the South Atlantic well known for its "surface and subsurface active volcanic activity." And in the greater scheme, adds D'Aleo, "the vast continent has actually cooled since 1979."

Still, carbo-chondriacs blame the "collapse" of ten ice shelves in and around the peninsula on melting of the underside of the ice by global-warming-fueled rising ocean temperatures. And they insist that their models are spot-on in predicting that unless mankind stops pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it's only a matter of time before the entire continent melts. The effect of such an event, they caution, would be nothing short of a civilization-ending, 57-meter SLR -- a vision normally reserved to biblical fables or the wild imagination of Al Gore.

Of course, narrowly isolated melting doesn't support the hypothesis of widespread polar warming necessary to kindle such horrific images of metropolises submerged by anthropogenic impropriety. That's why locating and denouncing diminishing ice east of the Transantarctic Mountains ranks high on every green-funded researcher's to-do list. And that's also why it would appear that NPI scientists thought they had hit the jackpot when their models calculated that the ice shelves at Dronning Maud Land along Antarctica's northeastern border should be melting at the same rate as those farther west.

So last November, a team from NPI set out to investigate the status of just such a locale -- the Fimbul Ice Shelf. Their stated primary mission: to determine whether ice masses on the shelf are indeed currently on the decline.

Last month, the expedition drilled its first borehole into the 250-to-400-meter-thick floating ice in order to study the melting and ocean circulation underneath. But readings revealed by the instruments they lowered into the water below were not quite what was anticipated.

In fact, contrary to the warmer, ice-melting temperatures predicted by models, NPI oceanographer and project leader Ole Anders Nøst reported that "the water under the ice shelf is very close to the freezing point." Furthermore, there seemed to have been no change in almost five years:

We observed a roughly 50 meter deep layer of water with temperatures very close to the freezing point, about -2.05 degrees, just beneath the ice shelf. The highest observed temperature was about -1.83 degrees close to the bottom. The temperatures are very similar to temperature data collected by [equipment attached to] elephant seals in 2008 and by British Antarctic Survey using an autosub below the ice shelf in 2005.
Nøst concluded that "This situation seems to be stable, suggesting that the melting under the ice shelf does not increase."

As to the ocean circulation models that incorrectly showed "warm deep water flowing in under the ice shelves," Nøst admitted that "as this is not observed, the models are most likely wrong and should be improved."

Translation: In contrast to model forecasts, Antarctic ice shelf collapse still appears to be isolated to a very tiny area in the western region of a continent otherwise experiencing continued glacial and ice shelf advancement.

And that fact certainly casts further serious doubt on the U.N.'s most recent century-end SLR predictions. Last year, the 18- to 59-centimeter estimate that appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was increased to a full two meters, based entirely on fears of accelerated glacial melting in Greenland and Antarctica. Keep in mind that since the prolonged cold snap of the Little Ice Age ended in 1850, the global rate of SLR has remained essentially steady at approximately seven inches per century, due largely to thermal expansion.

Reality check time: Does anything in this chart suggest to you that SLR might increase over tenfold -- as the IPCC now predicts -- this century?

As such, is it any wonder that alarmists now claim that even a few degrees of warming will ignite enough accelerated liquefying of the petatons of Earth's surface ice to render the planet barely inhabitable by land-dwellers?

In fact, it was just months after the release of AR4 that the Union of Concerned Scientists offered these hyperactive projections to the 2007 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali:

Sustained warming of [2°C above pre-industrial levels] could, for example, result in the extinction of many species and extensive melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets—causing global sea level to rise between 12 and 40 feet.

Readers should be aware that the WAIS sheets UCS referred to are not to be confused with aforementioned ice shelves. While melting "sheets," which predominately lie above bedrock, might contribute to SLR, the ice "shelves" float atop the water and therefore have ostensibly the same impact on SLR frozen as they would melted. There has, however, been concern expressed that melting glaciers might flow faster toward the ocean if unencumbered by the barricading effect of the shelves.

Now, even the notoriously alarmist U.K. Met Office admits that the complete Greenland meltdown to which they'd attribute a seven-meter SLR "would take thousands of years" even if temperatures were to continue to climb. It's therefore quite logical to assume that the majority of the predicted SLR is expected to originate in Antarctica.

And yet, other than select ice shelves (which again are already afloat and would have no further impact upon SLR) in one minuscule area soaking in water warmed by volcanic activity, Antarctica isn't melting at all. And with air temperatures averaging consistently below zero and water temperatures barely above freezing -- even in summer -- nothing in the foreseeable future suggests it might...not even should temperatures, which have been falling since 1998, nonetheless rise to the mostly arbitrary yet internationally alarmist-approved [PDF] catastrophic level of 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

In fact, despite the IPCC insistence that global warming will be most prevalent at the poles, southern-hemisphere sea ice area has remained virtually unchanged since satellite sensors and analytical programs were first capable of measuring it in 1979.

So perhaps when the green-gospel-pronouncing IPCC releases its Fifth Assessment Report, tentatively due for 2014, contributors and lead authors alike might carefully consider the NPI findings, the steady rate of SLR over the past 150 years, and the overall resilience of Antarctic ice before formulating their next soggy doom-and-gloom prophecy. (And don't forget this undeniable fact: Across the continent, the 2008-2009 southern hemisphere summer hosted the lowest Antarctic ice melt in thirty years.)

Surely were these people bound by scientific concerns exclusively, there'd be no doubt whatsoever that they’d do just that.

link [edited to remove a few charts and graphics]

So . . . cold spells like the one we're currently in are mere "anomalies" and anecdotal evidence which shouldn't even raise an eyebrow regarding global warming . . . but only one small portion of Antarctica has seen any warming whatsoever (the part with volcanoes under it!) and yet that isolated evidence was supposed to indicate that the poles are melting.

Clearly, there's a double standard here. GW alarmists use any evidence of warming whatsoever as support for global warming--even when it's isolated and anomalous--but they become masters of spotting this fallacy when we're talking about instances of cooling.

I think everyone would benefit from every now and then taking the exact opposite of their beliefs and trying as hard as they can to prove them right. If we did this on a regular basis, we might actually start using critical thinking no matter which position it rules out.

[Cybrweez]

Its called The Devil's Advocate game, its a stickied thread.

[Avatar]

Yeah, and the point of it is to do exactly that...take the opposite position. (So I split your post there into a new thread, since you didn't.)

--A

[stonemaybe]

This is an interesting site, that predicts weather based on solar activity, and totally refutes CO2 based GW.

www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact1&fsize=0

....3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the relationship is more the other way around:-

a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data which the 'Global Warmers' refuse to properly consider.

b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years while CO2 is rising rapidly.

c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed Greenland is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), there was LESS ice in the Arctic and there was notably LESS CO2 than now.

....

[fragile granite]

Thanx for the welcome Avatar!

Dukkawaynhim wrote:

Politicians and businessmen will opinion-shop for data to support their interests, because that is human nature.

Not only that, but politicians and businessmen will quite often refuse to pay for research unless the data reflects their interests. Big Money expects to get what it pays for. And scientists will sometimes fudge the data accordingly to make sure the grant money keeps rolling in because, that too, is human nature. Scientists and researchers gotta pay the bills and protect their families just like everyone else.

Still, it appears there are some researchers who do their best to be objective and not kow-tow to Big Money. There are participating members of this thread who are attempting to provide objective data which questions the whole "global warming" scenario. I admire your open-mindedness, courage, and ability to think for yourselves.

Perhaps this researcher is also attempting to be objective: Global Warming - The Facts. Such researchers have an extremely difficult (and perhaps hazardous) task. I admire their courage.

The above link doesn't talk about the series of accidents during the Manhattan Project but the vast amount of freon and hydrogen fluoride released into the atmosphere in 1942/43 is directly responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer, much of the current global health care issues relating to long term debilitating illnesses, the disruption of global weather patterns, and the phenomenon some call "chemtrails." Freon, as a coolant, and hydrogen fluoride, as a byproduct of the process used to convert uranium ore into weapons grade U_235, are both extremely corrosive and inadvertently destroyed rubber pipe seals allowing for several massive leaks. There have been a few "whistle-blowers" who worked for those responsible and came forth with empirical data to support their position reflected in the assertions I have made on this thread. Unfortunately, the data and the individuals have a pesky way of disappearing. It may also be that data (and individuals) that go against the interests of Big Money could disappear so I suggest saving any pertinent data to flash drive as I am doing.

How about a pdf file "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" October 2003 By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall. It is unlikely a document of this kind is meant for public viewing. A careful reading of this document might suggest that politicians, scientists, and the global corporate community has known about the changing weather patterns for quite some time.

Please understand that I'm not attempting to promote fear, frustration, hopelessness, or despair. Quite the contrary, I am promoting awareness & understanding in an attempt to encourage people to do their own homework in the age of information.

[Tjol]

Loremaster, that was totally uncalled for!

Take it easy on the sarcasm huh?

Sorry, but I had to voice my perception, that Tjols last couple of posts seemed willfully ignorant.

Likewise, I'm sure.

When I say willfully, I mean that I think Tjol KNOWS that he can't draw the parallel that he does between meteorology and climatology, and I suspect that he made - at least the last post - to score a cheap point with the fence sitters and lurkers.

The only difference is in scale, at best. Comparing meteorology and climatology is only unfair because trying to predict what worldwide average temperatures will be a day from now is an even more inaccurate science than predicting the weather and preciption over the next seven days.

I think that Tjol is an intelligent chap, so I simply can't bring myself to belive that he does so out of ignorance. However, if that is indeed the case, I appologize, and I will gladly write a long post about the differences in meteorolgy and climatology.

I'm smart enough to know that if meteorologists have a tough time seeing seven days in the future, then Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio are going to have an even harder time predicting what the world's climate will be like ten years from now (let alone a hundred) in comparison to the present.

As I often bring up when talking about global warming, carbon credits, etc.; don't people who care about the environment worry about the credibility done to legitimate environmental causes as a consequence of encouraging man-made global warming paranoia?

[Avatar]

Ok, everybodies had their snarky comment and their rebuttal. Lets get back to the issue, and away from each other.

...don't people who care about the environment worry about the credibility done to legitimate environmental causes as a consequence of encouraging man-made global warming paranoia?

Yes I do. I worry about it because it's the only aspect that the opponents of it seem to focus on. Which makes the proponents focus on it to the exclusion of all else too. It's not just about "global warming". There are much bigger, and more immediate problems we should be tackling right now and in the near future.

--A

[Tjol]

...don't people who care about the environment worry about the credibility done to legitimate environmental causes as a consequence of encouraging man-made global warming paranoia?

Yes I do. I worry about it because it's the only aspect that the opponents of it seem to focus on. Which makes the proponents focus on it to the exclusion of all else too. It's not just about "global warming". There are much bigger, and more immediate problems we should be tackling right now and in the near future.

--A

It's one of the few things I'm in complete disagreement on when it comes to environmental issues. Other than man-made global warming, all the other issues are simply slight differences in reward-risk assessments made with regard to the environment. For example, I've always recycled, not because of 'carbon footprints' but because of sustainability. I've used products like simple green (do they have that stuff outside of the US? I don't know) since I first used cleaning products, again not because of CO2 but to reduce pollution. I in some ways like the idea of an endangered species list, but I've discovered in the course of working in the construction industry that anti-development groups have planted 'endangered' species on job sites where they'd never previously existed, and so I've started to wonder whether we've gotten a little carried away with the list if some of those species are numerous enough that 'enviropnmental' groups can drop them in an incompatible ecosystem without conscience. That doesn't mean I don't believe in preserving some biodiversity, but I just think that we have to review on a case by case basis whether building here or there or elsewhere actually endangers said species or not.

I don't think opponents against environmentalism invented man-made global warming, or made it the prime issue of 'environmentalists.' It happened internally within the environmentalist movement, some portion of which decided that a boogie man needed to be invented in order to get more people interested in the environment. Instead everyone's now interested in some vague notion called 'green' and don't really think about actual pollution (unless it's second hand smoke of course) or actual sustainability or about actual biodiversity. Before the invention of this boogie man, the debate was over where the line is drawn between human interest and the interest in maintaining the environment. Basically environmentalism wasn't an argument of whether there was a problem or not, but rather a debate of how much of a problem existed. With the boogie man, environmentalism has actually made the argument over whether there's an actual problem or not. Sure there's the possibility of eliminating all debate over how much environmentalism (obviously 100% because otherwise the world will end in burning chaos) is needed , but there's also the danger of the issue becoming irrelevant once the boogieman proves to not be as frightening as first thought.

[Loredoctor]

I think everyone would benefit from every now and then taking the exact opposite of their beliefs and trying as hard as they can to prove them right. If we did this on a regular basis, we might actually start using critical thinking no matter which position it rules out.

I think lecturing people on how to debate is a tad arrogant, Malik. Besides, one does not need to take the exact opposite of a belief and then trying to prove this right. That's not how it's done in the academic world in general, and not how it's done in essay writing. What one should do is include criticisms of your stance and then argue why they are incorrect, or use counter arguments. That's critical thinking.

After all, if one adopts the opposite view and tries to support it, all it does is show that this person can see the other side, but it does nothing to further your own argument. Just being critical of your own views reveals that one has thought deeply about it. That's all one needs.

Lastly, I strongly suspect that your point really says that you just want people to agree with you. If you want to further this style of debating you could lead by example by doing the opposite. For instance, showing how pro-global warming scientists are not part of a conspiracy, etc.

However, less of the conspiricist argument in general would further your stance; a lot of what you write comes across as defaulting to conspiracies that you cannot validate.

My post is not meant to offend, but I am becoming tired of you constantly telling people how to argue when you do not seem to adopt your own criticisms. Just focus on your own argument and leave people's debating style to themselves. If you take issue with what they do, Malik23, contact a moderator!

[Zarathustra]

I think lecturing people on how to debate is a tad arrogant, Malik.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't going for meek. (Were you going for meek when you lectured me on how to debate?)

While I wasn't trying to be humble, I wasn't singling anyone out, either. I didn't say any one particular person is debating incorrectly (as you have done). I was speaking in general, pretty much the same point Brinn was making by creating his Devil's Advocate thread. Yes, I would benefit from this experiment, too. I should take my own advice. I admit that I think other people don't consider the opposite position as much as I do. But in this particular debate, I'm arguing the skeptical position, rather than the consensus position. The consensus position is our starting point in this debate. I'm not the one proposing a theory that needs to be proven. I'm poking holes in what most people take for granted.

Just being critical of your own views reveals that one has thought deeply about it. That's all one needs.

I agree. I've made the same point, myself.

Lastly, I strongly suspect that your point really says that you just want people to agree with you. If you want to further this style of debating you could lead by example by doing the opposite. For instance, showing how pro-global warming scientists are not part of a conspiracy, etc.

I don't care if people agree with me as much as I care that they admit that there is actually rational, empirical evidence to doubt the "consensus."

I don't think all pro-global warming scientists are part of a conspiracy, or even most. But I do think that there is an influential minority who have behaved unscientifically.

. . . . a lot of what you write comes across as defaulting to conspiracies that you cannot validate.

I disagree. Please validate that accusation.

For instance, the article I quoted above details the findings of pro-global warming scientists, not "deniers." They expected to confirm the "consensus," but instead found evidence that the models were wrong. How is this conspiracist? Am I trying to say that GW advocates are conspiring to undermine their own theory??

My post is not meant to offend, but I am becoming tired of you constantly telling people how to argue when you do not seem to adopt your own criticisms. Just focus on your own argument and leave people's debating style to themselves. If you take issue with what they do, Malik23, contact a moderator!

I haven't taken issue with what any single person has done, no more than Brinn did in starting the thread that is now stickied. Did you also tire of his suggestion? I didn't see where you complained. I don't believe this one suggestion justifies the charge of "constantly telling people how to argue." Given the fact that you're lecturing me on how to conduct myself on this board, perhaps you would benefit from your own advice, and take it up with the moderators if your think I've done something against the rules. Otherwise, we're both doing the same thing in offering advice to other members . . . except you're offering the advice that I shouldn't offer advice, which seems kind of contradictory.

[Avatar]

I think it's important to be able to contain many perspectives on an issue. We all think our own opinions are right. I think Malik is completely right when he says that we should try and see things from the other point of view. If you can understand well enough where the other side is coming from, it can give you insight into your opinions of the other side.

--A

[Loredoctor]

I think it's important to be able to contain many perspectives on an issue. We all think our own opinions are right. I think Malik is completely right when he says that we should try and see things from the other point of view. If you can understand well enough where the other side is coming from, it can give you insight into your opinions of the other side.

--A

I'm not denying that it is essential to see another point of view. I never said otherwise. What I am saying, however, that posting in support of the other view is a waste of time. It does not further your own argument for a start - and why should one suddenly adopt another view if he or she is just going to fall back on their original position - and all it does is just either show everyone else that you have some depth of thought or makes the person you are arguing against content that their view is 'supported'.

However, the purpose of a debate is to establish a claim and then, through critical analysis, examine it putting forth evidence. That includes acknowledging criticisms of the claim, and countering those criticisms. It does not take much effort to see that exploring potential weaknesses in one's position will often involve taking on another viewpoint. For example, if someone supports global warming theory their argument should explore points against that, and then counter those points. If one cannot do that then they have ethical responsibility to acknowledge that their position is untenable and to admit that the other person is likely correct. Which will not happen due to ego.

I do not think that any of us should suddenly switch teams. For a start, how to do you enforce it? Second, I imagine that many will place minimum effort in said exercise and then return to their original position. It's an unnecessary exercise, and far better to be critical and try to understand other positions.

[Avatar]

Oh, there's no way (or reason) to make everybody consider the other side. And no need to post your defence of it unless you're playing devils advocate.

But I do think trying to see it from the other point of view is important and valuable, as you p[oint out in your last last line.

--A

[Prebe]

The only difference is in scale, at best. Comparing meteorology and climatology is only unfair because trying to predict what worldwide average temperatures will be a day from now is an even more inaccurate science than predicting the weather and preciption over the next seven days.

I see that you are really unaware of the different methods used in predicting weather systems and their local effect, and the methods and error margins used in climatology. I apologize for my remark about willfull ignorance.

I'm smart enough to know that if meteorologists have a tough time seeing seven days in the future, then Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio are going to have an even harder time predicting what the world's climate will be like ten years from now (let alone a hundred) in comparison to the present.

I will refrain from sarcasm (hard as it may be in the face of the above paragraph) and simply tell you that Neither DiCaprio or Gore are climatologists.

As I often bring up when talking about global warming, carbon credits, etc.; don't people who care about the environment worry about the credibility done to legitimate environmental causes as a consequence of encouraging man-made global warming paranoia?

A very valid point. Which is one of the reasons I try to discredit mr. Gore every chance I get.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Oops.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environm ... 991177.ece

[Avatar]

But melting has taken place. Just not at the rate the report suggests.

This is ridiculous...why is nobody doing some fact-checking...you'd think they'd know better than to rely on an article for an official report. *shakes head*

--A