WSJ column forwards outdated climate info published in SuperFreakonomics
Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens advanced the claim made by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in SuperFreakonomics -- which has recently come under criticism by economists and climate scientists for what they say are distortions in the book's climate change chapter -- that, in Stephens' words, "sea levels will probably not rise much more than 18 inches by 2100." However, this claim is apparently based on projections made in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that did not include future changes in ice flow and therefore do not represent recent developments in climate science observations indicating that increased and accelerated ice sheet loss will cause sea levels to rise by more than previously projected.
Stephens: SuperFreakonomics "note[s] that sea levels will probably not rise much more than 18 inches by 2100"
From Stephens' October 27 Wall Street Journal column:
But when it comes to the religion of global warming -- the First Commandment of which is Thou Shalt Not Call It A Religion -- Messrs. Levitt and Dubner are grievous sinners. They point out that belching, flatulent cows are adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than all SUVs combined. They note that sea levels will probably not rise much more than 18 inches by 2100, "less than the twice-daily tidal variation in most coastal locations."
SuperFreakonomics: Astrophysicist Lowell Wood "notes" authoritative estimate of sea level rise is 1.5 feet by 2100. From SuperFreakonomics, Chapter 5, "What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common?":
The gentlemen of IV [Intellectual Ventures] abound with further examples of global warming memes that are all wrong.
Rising sea levels, for instance, "aren't being driven primarily by glaciers melting," Wood says, no matter how useful that image may be for environmental activists. The truth is far less sexy. "It is driven mostly by water-warming -- literally, the thermal expansion of ocean water as it warms up."
Sea levels are rising, Wood says -- and have been for roughly twelve thousand years, since the end of the last ice age. The oceans are about 425 feet higher today, but the bulk of that rise occurred in the first thousand years. In the past century, the seas have risen less than eight inches.
As to the future: rather than the catastrophic thirty-foot rise some people have predicted over the next century -- good-bye, Florida! -- Wood notes that the most authoritative literature on the subject suggests a rise of about one and a half feet by 2100. That's much less than the twice-daily tidal variation in most coastal locations. "So it's a little bit difficult," he says, "to understand what the purported crisis is about." [Pages 185-186, emphasis added]
But the 1.5 ft estimate from 2007 did not account for "changes in ice flow" currently being observed
UCS: Sea level rise projection "failed to include additional sea level rise from melting ice sheets." The Union of Concerned Scientists stated that SuperFreakonomics "Mischaracterizes Climate Science" and listed several criticisms of Chapter 5, including the statement that Levitt and Dubner "[i]gnore a major source of sea level rise." UCS stated:
The authors maintain that sea levels can rise only 1.5 feet by 2100 (page 186). How did they arrive at that statistic? It seems they only considered sea level rise due to a warming (and expanding) ocean, but failed to include additional sea level rise from melting ice sheets.
Over the last few years scientists have gained greater understanding of how land-based glacial ice responds to warming and how much it may contribute to sea level rise. A new study using the latest climate science suggests sea levels may rise 2.6 to 6.6 feet by the end of this century depending on our emissions over the coming century. In addition, unchecked warming may at some time in the future cause the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to melt completely, leading to catastrophic sea-level rise.
2007 IPCC report projected sea level rise of .6-1.9ft (.18-.59m) by 2100, but noted estimate did not "include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow." The IPCC stated in a summary of its 2008 Fourth Assessment Report that its range of projected sea level rise is derived from models that "do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking." The report further stated that at the time, "understanding of these effects is too limited to ... provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise." The chart showing the range of projections specifies that the estimates "exclud[e] future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow."
UCS noted "major developments" since publication of IPCC's 2007 report. In February, UCS wrote, "Major developments in climate change science have been reported since the publication of the comprehensive 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." UCS further stated:
The IPCC (AR4) estimated global average sea level rise for the end of this century (2090-2099) compared with the end of the last century (1980-1999) at between ~0.6-1.9 feet (~0.2-0.6 meter). These projections were based primarily on thermal expansion due to ocean warming with only modest contributions from mountain glaciers, leaving the potential contributions from ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland unclear. Because understanding of ice sheet behavior is still evolving, future ice sheet disintegration was not included in models used by the IPCC at that time. Researchers have since examined plausible contributions from ice sheets given current understanding of accelerating ice sheet melt and other factors. New analysis indicates that meltwater from ice on land could lead to a sea level rise increase of ~2.6 feet (0.8 meter) by the end of the century; and although ~6.6 feet (2.0 meters) is less likely, it is still physically possible. As depicted in Figure 3, when increased contributions from glaciers and ice sheets are taken into account, plausible twenty-first century sea level rise is higher than IPCC estimates.
Eric Rignot: "The results gathered in the last 2-3 years" show ice sheets' increased contribution to sea level rise. Science Daily reported that Eric Rignot of the University of California-Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory stated: "The numbers from the last IPCC are a lower bound because it was recognized at the time that there was a lot of uncertainty about ice sheets. The numerical models used at the time did not have a complete representation of outlet glaciers and their interactions with the ocean. The results gathered in the last 2-3 years show that these are fundamental aspects that cannot be overlooked":
New insights reported include the loss of ice from the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. "The ice loss in Greenland has accelerated over the last decade. The upper range of sea level rise by 2100 might be above 1m or more on a global average, with large regional differences depending where the source of ice loss occurs", says Konrad Steffen, Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado, Boulder and co-chair of the congress session on sea level rise.
The last assessment report from the IPCC from 2007 projected a sea level rise of 18 - 59 centimeter. However the report also clearly stated that not all factors contributing to sea level rise could be calculated at that time. The uncertainty was centered on the ice sheets, how they react to the effects of a warmer climate and how they interact with the oceans, explains Eric Rignot, Professor of Earth System Science at the University of California Irvine and Senior Research Scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
"The numbers from the last IPCC are a lower bound because it was recognized at the time that there was a lot of uncertainty about ice sheets. The numerical models used at the time did not have a complete representation of outlet glaciers and their interactions with the ocean. The results gathered in the last 2-3 years show that these are fundamental aspects that cannot be overlooked. As a result of the acceleration of outlet glaciers over large regions, the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are already contributing more and faster to sea level rise than anticipated. If this trend continues, we are likely to witness sea level rise one meter or more by year 2100", he says. [Science Daily, 3/11/09]
U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Models do not capture ice sheet loss "that we are already observing." The U.S. Climate Change Science Program stated in a December 2008 report that "[e]xisting models suggest that climate warming would result in increased melting from coastal regions in Greenland and an overall increase in snowfall. However, they are incapable of realistically simulating the outlet glaciers that discharge ice into the ocean and cannot predict the substantial acceleration of some outlet glaciers that we are already observing." In an article about the report, The Washington Post stated: "In one of the report's most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea level rise could be as much as four feet by 2100. The IPCC had projected a sea level rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the past two years show the world's major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought."
These links walk through each denier argument, and shows how wrong they are:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
-- The IPCC stated in a summary of its 2008 Fourth Assessment Report that its range of projected sea level rise is derived from models that "do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking." The report further stated that at the time, "understanding of these effects is too limited to ... provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. -- IPCC
More funniness continues when mmfa cites studies with new "results gathered in the last 2-3 years" and ice loss data "over the last decade"...after relentlessly arguing that short term climate changes are not relevant.
Settled science? What a load of horse apples.
And just how many conspiracy theories have ever been proven to be true? Fake landing on the moon? Kennedy assassination? Area 51's connection to fly saucers? CIA monitoring our brain waves? AGW is a myth?
Take your meds. Give sanity a chance for once.
Links to the real world:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
I know Rules for Radicals is on your night stand, but your attempts at discrediting and marginalizing "deniers" routinely fall short. Saul would give you an A for effort but an F for results. Since you have posted your same links no less than thirty times, I will repeat myself with some gems from the negotiating text of the Copenhagen Treaty. I even threw in a few new ones for you. Enjoy:
Pages 18-19: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention's facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Page 33: 18. [Developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, especially the LDCs and SIDS, and further taking into account the needs of countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods, shall be provided with financial and technical assistance to develop and implement national adaptation plans, and to support the implementation of adaptation actions as a means of building resilience to the impacts of climate change.] [Adequate finance must be provided for the implementation of NAPAs. In addition, finance must be provided to all developing country Parties to enable the formulation of their national adaptation plans.] [Parties should commit to promoting adaptation to climate change by cooperating to build capacities and mobilize resources for the development and implementation of such programmes, in particular for the LDCs.]
Page 38: 30. The provision of financial and technical support by developed country Parties for adaptation programmes in developing countries is a commitment under the Convention that must be urgently fulfilled. Commitments made by Annex I Parties to support implementation of the Adaptation Framework through financial and technology transfer shall be legally binding, with provisions for a [monitoring, reporting and verification] mechanism to ensure compliance. There should be regular reporting through national communications on the implementation by developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II of their commitment under Article 4.4 of the Convention to assist vulnerable developing countries in meeting the costs of adaptation.
Pages 39-40: 34. [Taking into account the provisions of paragraph 38 below, developing country Parties [– those Parties eligible to borrow from the World Bank (IBRD and/or IDA) or eligible recipients of UNDP technical assistance through its country indicative planning figure (IPF) –] [particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems] [giving priority to the most vulnerable] [and Parties with economies in transition] [[[shall] [should] [receive access to] [be provided with] finance [on a continuous basis], technology and capacity-building [by at least 0.5 per cent of GDP of developed countries], to support adaptation action at local, subnational, national, regional and global levels, including:] [shall be supported in their adaptation actions, including adaptation planning and implementation, and support to adaptation action [shall] [should] encompass provisions for:]
Page 40: [Developed country Parties [,in order to pay their adaptation debt to the developing country Parties] [shall] [should] provide [finance, technology transfer and capacity-building to] support [for] adaptation actions [in developing countries, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.] [at local, subnational and national levels as well as for stand-alone projects/actions] Such actions may include:]
Page 41: 36. [Access to adaptation funds by Parties shall be inversely proportional to their contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.] [Access to funds to implement priority adaptation activities identified by Parties shall not be conditional on the completion of national adaptation plans.] Development of an adaptation strategy and programme should be enabled if one is not available at country level. Means should be provided, on a continuous basis, to enable, support and enhance national capacity to incorporate adaptation into planning and designing adaptation activities. Funding should go beyond integration of adaptation to sustainable development plans, and to include stand-alone adaptation.
Page 43: 41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries' ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the "Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]
Page 102: 191. The global warming potentials used to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs listed in Annex A shall be those accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and decided upon by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol prior to the start of the commitment period. Based on the work of, inter alia, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall regularly review and, as appropriate, revise the global warming potential of each such GHG, taking fully into account any relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties. Any revision to a global warming potential shall apply only to commitments in respect of any commitment period adopted subsequent to that revision.
Page 109: 112. Developed country Parties shall undertake policies and measures to ensure that the import of forest products and other commodities from developing country Parties does not contribute to emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
Page 122: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
Pages 125-126: 5. To ensure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention in relation to the implementation of the commitments of developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II for the provision of new and additional, adequate and predictable financial resources, on a grant or concessional basis, including for the transfer of technology, as stipulated in Article 4.3 of the Convention, and to enhance the implementation of Articles 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, and 4.9, in the context of Article 4.7, and in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, the COP shall operationalize an effective financial mechanism under the Convention, under its authority and governance, in accordance with article 11.1 and 11.2 of the Convention and in fulfilment of its functions as its Supreme Body, as mandated under Article 7.2 (h) of the Convention.
Page 133: Alternative 1:
An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5-1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]].
Page 134: Option 3 Alternative 1: A uniform global levy of USD 2 per tonne of CO2 for all countries with per capita emissions higher than [1.5][2.0] tonnes of CO2; the LDCs shall be exempt. Alternative 2: Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties
Page 135: Option 7 A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties. Option 8 Agreed penalties or fines on non-compliance of developed country Parties with their commitments to reduce emissions and provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity-building.
Page 137: 22. The COP shall appoint a board, which shall function under the authority and guidance of and be accountable to the COP, to manage the financial mechanism and the related facilitative mechanism, funds and bodies, which shall have an equitable and balanced representation of all Parties within a transparent system of governance, to address all aspects of the means of implementation for developing countries, for both adaptation and mitigation.
Page 144: 66. A World Climate Change Fund(WCCF) or green fund is hereby established, constituting by representatives of all participant countries, contributors and beneficiaries, grouped in a balanced and practical way
The earth has a fever. It isn't up for some new angle of interpretation. It's fact. Regardless of what is causing it, we need to have a plan to deal with the massive effects it will have on mankind and civilization. It is sooner than we think.
This petty argument is stealing precious time and resources.
And if you're going to quote Gore, make sure you get it right. It's, "The planet has a fever."
The sky is not falling. Here is a good quote from Hans von Storch, an AGW climate scientist, the dude who resigned from Climate Science when Willie Soon's paper was published, "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."
He also wrote this. Here's my favorite excerpt: "Hopefully, sociology of science will later study this unfortunate period of climate science, but we may conclude now that science itself has indeed corrected claims of premature knowledge." Not quite Hans, but some scientists are making a start.
You are correct on your final note. AGW is indeed a petty argument.
Don't forget that Galileonardo the poster has been documented to have no credibility whatsoever on any climate change thread. You've been thoroughly debunked numerous times.
But the issue HERE being discussed is that the WSJ forwarded outdated info that was included in a biased tome called SuperFreakonomics!
I'm pretty sure you understood what I was saying. Do a search on "1990s was the hottest decade" and the variation with "1990's" and you get over 50,000 links. It was hammered into us relentlessly. That wasn't alarmist enough for the Telegraph so they upped the ante and ran with the "1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium."
Medieval Warm Period? We don't need no stinkin' Medieval Warm Period. I guess I should change my lead: The first decade of the new millennium was the hottest decade on record in the last millennium. You get over 140,000 links when you search "1998 was the hottest year on record." Hopefully you get the idea, though I doubt it.
As for my having "been documented to have no credibility whatsoever on any climate change thread" I do hope people go back in the archives and read through some of the older threads. If they do I am sure many will see your statement for what it is: a preposterous fallacy. Please do tell where I have been "thoroughly debunked numerous times." Now you have managed to one-up Lenin. "A lie told often enough to oneself becomes truth." DellDolly.
As for the final part of your rant, the issue being discussed here (the one you inserted yourself into) was my reply to the assertion by another poster that "deniers seem to think that 'weather' is climate change." I was simply pointing out that the AGW cultists have been doing the same type of weather cherry-picking and parroting Mr. Hockey Michael Mann's claims ever since he made them. I know you hate to hear from both sides and wish my kind would "disappear" Lenin style. Tsk, tsk, Delly. Whatever happened to tolerance and celebrating diversity? I guess I have to quote you yet again. Shame on you.
MMFA doesn't say that the data gathered in the last 2-3 is data only covering a 2-3 year time period, dum-dum. It's studies done during that time frame, but they have gathered data from many, many years!!!
And the ice loss data for the past decade is not looked at in isolation, but is looked at in reference to previous results from prior decades.
The failure here is on your part to understand that data is added to the body of knowledge that climate scientists already have. See, they understand the difference between weather and climate, and you have no reason whatsoever to believe that they are confused about how to do that. We know that some people you give thumbs ups to don't understand the difference between weather and climate, but climate scientists can handle that without your help. Really, they can. In fact, they'd prefer that someone like you who lies and distorts and can't understand how a decades-worth of new data would be added to existing data to help come to revised conclusions NOT "help" them.
Dishonesty is not a good character trait, and you should try to work on that, Wesley. That's why some call you Weaselly.
I was 100% right and factual with everything I said.
You, however, simply made personal attacks. It's not my fault that Wesley couldn't understand that 2-3 years of new info didn't mean that they were only gathering data from those 2 or 3 years, but Wesley couldn't even understand that simple concept. That's why he's dumb - because he's dumb!
The dishonest one here is you. I don't know if you're gullible or just ignorant or some of both. Doesn't matter, the problematic argument is yours. Has been ever since the first time you posted. You've never won a single debate here. Not one.
I am actually thankful for your despicable post as it perfectly illustrates the lack of tolerance AGW cultists like yourself have for those who dare question their religious beliefs. This really is a dark era in science and anti-science zealots such as yourself are simply willing puppets giving the Barnum IPCC many encore presentations free of charge. If anyone on this thread has exhibited sickness and lack of character, it is you. Shame on you and this time I'm not just quoting you tongue-in-cheek from one of your many rants. I really mean it.
Just as you laughably told MMfA readers in your previous post "Don't forget that Galileonardo the poster has been documented to have no credibility whatsoever on any climate change thread" I shall now offer a similar "warning" when replying to your posts: Don't forget that DellDolly the AGW poster child has been documented as wishing for the death of deniers.
Hope you're proud.
The UCS link up top will point you to updates of their claims since the book came out. They've clarified some of these points, but not the sea level rise claim or others. I hope they do soon, because I worry many of their readers will walk away with the wrong idea about climate science and climate policy.
Thanks,
Aaron Huertas
The earth has been warming since the late 1700s due to natural forces (this is long before man made CO2 became an issue), and thus some melting of global ice is to be expected.
Some interesting facts to consider: There is very little loss of polar sea ice the past 30 years when adding ice at both poles. Antarctica had the most sea ice ever recorded in 2008! And last month there was 24% more Arctic ice than in 2007.
At this rate of Arctic sea ice growth the ice will reach Washington DC in 83 years! Now I dont expect this to happen, but you can see how people can use numbers.
The average temperature in the Antarctic is 55 below zero. I dont think that ice is going to melt anytime soon, do you. And besides, the Antarctic sea ice is growing, in September it was 1,000,000 square kilometers larger than the previous year.Your text to link here...
These are facts, if you dont believe me, I invite you to go check them out for yourself.
Lots more information on this website, www.isthereglobalcooling.com
Your text to link here...
Anarctica is the worlds driest desert (yes, it is considered a desert). The humidity is the lowest on earth, .003%). There is less than one inch of snowfall per year at the South Pole.
If the earth was warming (well, its not because the growth in Antarcic sea ice can only come from cooling temperatures), there would be more humidity in the air, and this would cause more snow to fall both in Antarctica and Greenland. Thus, global warming would result in there being more snow and ice in these places than there would otherwise be.
Huh?
First, you try to pass off outdated, debunked disinformation that Antarctic ice is thickening as "proof" that the world is not warming.
Now you try to explain that ice should be growing if the world is warming.
You can't even get your own thoughts in order. Take your meds. The voices in your head are starting to contradict each other.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648-climate-myths-antarctica-is-getting-cooler-not-warmer-disproving-global-warming.html
Well, it is rather basic. Polar sea ice is a good thermometer, meaning that you can tell what the trend in temperature is based on the ice volume, but you have to consider both poles. Many make very basic statements about things such as ice sheets, then get offended when someone gives some very basic reasons why their assertions just are not accurate.
Well, there are some other factors, such as currents and wind direction. Much of the abnormal Arctic Summer ice melt in 2007 was due to unusual winds that tended to stack the ice and blow it out to sea where it melted. But the winds have abated, and the ice is growing once again.
It is easily verified that the ice is larger at both poles and growing. This can only be caused by cooling temperatures.
I like how people use ad hominem attacks. Sometimes the truth just hurts.
If all the sea ice on earth melted, including the entire Arctic (North Pole ice), the seas could not rise an inch. Ice on land must melt in order to cause sea levels to rise.
Where is the land ice, 90% is in Antarctica.
Ok, sea ice wont raise sea levels, but it is a good berometer of what the ocean temperatures are like. If the ice is melting over a long trend, likely sea temperatures are warming. If the ice is growing, sea temperatures are cooling.
Antarctica has more sea ice, the ice there is growing, so water temperatures are on average cooling. This is contrary to the man made global warming theory. That is, unless you also think that warming causes cooling.
Ok, lets talk about land ice. If the world was warming up, one would see less sea ice. But melting sea ice wont raise sea levels. So what happens to land ice if the temperatures are warming. Well, warming air temperatures causes higher atmospheric humidity, which for places such as Antarctica or Greenland, that have very low humidity. there would be more lots of nore snowfall. The land ice/snow would get deeper, not shrink. Yes, they would shrink around the edges but in the vast interior, the ice would grow. And since this is land ice/snow, it would not cause the seas to rise.
Now, you do know Antarctica's average temperature is 55 below zero, so a few degrees of warming is not going to melt the ice sheets no matter what. Whatever happens in Antactica will happen because of natural forces, and man has little influence there. The same goes for Greenland which remains below freezing temperatures for the most part 365 days a year.
The sycophantic howl from global warming alarmists is getting weaker and weaker...as their agenda becomes exposed as purely political.
Deniers grow stronger....
Cherry-picked "data" just too strong... to fight with solid science....
They.... are... winning....
After hundreds of years..... science has finally lost.....
Gasp! {:-O
What a looney thing to say - I didn't say anything about science. Your "science" was so totally bogus that I didn't even want to get into it. You confuse yearly changes in ice cover (weather) to determine something about overall temperature to decide that they are cooling WRT global climate change (climate). You clearly don't understand this topic, nor the science behind it, so there's really nothing to discuss with you science-wise.
Deniers wish to "believe" in pseudo-science and magic faerie dust. They belong to the flat earth society. No one can reason with their twisted, motivated reasoning.
On the other hand, we are secure in the knowledge that the smart scientists have influence over the policy-makers, and action will be taken to address the reality of AGW.
Deniers know this, and so act like spoiled brats who can't get their way. So they scream and make noise, knowing full well that no one with a brain will take them seriously.
As I said to Delly, I hope that when the day comes that this farcical AGW canard is blown to smithereens, you still feel whole. It does seem you've invested a bit too much of yourself in your magic hockey stick AGW fantasy land, so I do fear what might happen to your health, mentally and physically, when the flimsy AGW house of cards is finally blown over.
Page 43: 41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries' ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the "Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]
This is a close second:
Pages 18-19: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention's facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Might as well give you my bronze medalist again:
Page 122: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
Nope. No political agenda there. Why would I believe my lying eyes when I have you to set me straight?
For example, going with the information available on your site, your lead experts are comprised of a president with degrees in public administration, English, and journalism; a director with degrees in health policy and public administration; a director of science and policy/chief scientist with degrees in ecology, zoology, and psychology; and another director with degrees in political science/economics and human resource/organization development. Further, your list of global warming staff lists 24 people, but only two (Brenda Ekwurzel and Melanie Fitzpatrick) are listed as climate scientists and they both routinely cite the IPCC reports that are, in my opinion, heavily flawed. On your personal blog, you again use the term "anti-science" and also "a settled scientific debate."
I wholeheartedly disagree with your claim that the science is settled. Even this MMfA article you posted in points to admitted IPCC uncertainties. Hans von Storch who I quoted in another post above captures it best when he says, "Hopefully, sociology of science will later study this unfortunate period of climate science, but we may conclude now that science itself has indeed corrected claims of premature knowledge." While I believe von Storch's claim that science itself has corrected claims of premature knowledge is itself premature, I think you and UCS have done the same by relying too heavily on the highly-politicized IPCC for your "sound science."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
This fellow got his education at the Inaidan Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical engineering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
http://203.176.113.182/IRIMEE/
So this IPCC chairman, this voice of the global warming alarmism, is trained in railroad engineering.
Hey, know I know why we so called 'deniers' feel like we are being "railroaded".
This is the same Pachauri who pushes limits on the West but not on India, his home country. Here is an excerpt from the 2008 Financial Post article in which he is quoted:
"[Pachauri] vehemently endorsed his Prime Minister's National Action Plan. 'We are an expanding economy. How can we levy a cap [on CO2 emissions] when millions are living with deprivation?,' he told the Indian press. The National Action Plan should be implemented and the west should 'get off the back of India.'"
What did his Prime Minister's National Action Plan claim? Within the piece that Pachauri calls a "good policy document" is the following: "No firm link between the changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."
Nothing to see here either though.