Large Ice Shelf Expected To Break From Antarctica

MollyB sends this excerpt from CNN: "A large ice shelf is 'imminently' close to breaking away from part of the Antarctic Peninsula, scientists said Friday. Satellite images released by the European Space Agency on Friday show new cracks in the Wilkins Ice Shelf where it connects to Charcot Island, a piece of land considered part of the peninsula. The cracks are quickly expanding, the ESA said. ... The Wilkins Ice Shelf — a large mass of floating ice — would still be connected to Latady Island, which is also part of the peninsula, and Alexander Island, which is not, said professor David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey. ... If the ice shelf breaks away from the peninsula, it will not cause a rise in sea level because it is already floating, scientists say. Some plants and animals may have to adapt to the collapse."

Comments

If the ice melts

[snsh]

Will the ocean level rise, fall, or remain the same?

I'm betting it will rise a little bit because the salt concentration is different in the ice than in the ocean.

Re:If the ice melts

[Psychotria]

Yeah, and once it melts its salt concentration will change!... or not.

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

I think the salt will just mean the fresh melt forms a layer on top, you can test it youself with a glass of salty water and some ice cubes. However we have known for a while now that overall Antarticia is losing mass and that sea levels are already rising.

Quote from TFL: "The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) during the survey period; about 13 percent of the overall observed sea level rise for the same period. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005."

Greenland is also losing mass.

Re:If the ice melts

[Rockoon]

The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of...

An error margin greater than 50%? Presuming that this is based on a typical 3 standard deviations...

...the chebyshev limit says there is still a whopping 11% chance that the actual value is outside the range...

I don't see any statistics experts mentioned in that link, so I gotta assume that we cannot expect a normally distributed error, that in fact they have no idea what the distribution might be.

Re:If the ice melts

[palegray.net]

The ocean level will not be affected by this, as referenced this article. The salt concentration is a lot different between the ice and the ocean, as the ice is composed of fresh water from precipitation. Like the majority of the Antarctic cap, it's already floating.

Re:If the ice melts

[kholburn]

The ocean is rising but most of the rise is, and will be, because the water is expanding due to warming.

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

...the chebyshev limit says there is still a whopping 11% chance that the actual value is outside the range... I don't see any statistics experts mentioned in that link, so I gotta assume that we cannot expect a normally distributed error, that in fact they have no idea what the distribution might be.

There are some 50 published papers from the journals Nature and Science alone, when your finished teaching them stats maybe you can teach them risk management.

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points. That was snarky on so many levels -- I've been laughing for almost a minute straight.

Re:If the ice melts

[jabithew]

They're both NASA links. I think we can trust them to do their stats.

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

In the case of Antarctica the majority of the area may be floating in the wintertime, in summer only the dwindling number of permanent ice shelves survive, the biggest of these being the Ross ice shelf. However regadless of season the majority of the volume is not floating.

Re:If the ice melts

[Rockoon]

One of the problems is that the peer reviewer is supposed to be an expert in the papers field (ex: climate science), rather than the methodology used (ex: statistics)

A popular example is Mann's flawed implementation of Principle Component Analysis, peer reviewed and then published by one of the very same journals that you are trying to use for your arguement-from-authority fallacy.

Lets examine what Mann was doing:

AlgorihmDescription.txt

Thats from one of the journals you cited, so you trust that it is an accurate summary of what he did, right?

I certainly do not think that an expert in EARTH SCIENCES should be doing that stuff without supervision from an expert in what he is actualy doing.

..and as it turns out, he screwed it all up fairly badly but got published anyways.

As far as that ice data... here we have an error margin thats over 50% of the magnitude of the estimated anomaly, and thats assuming they did things right to begin with.

I still don't see evidence that a statistics expert was involved. If you have some, please enlighten.

Re:If the ice melts

[Rockoon]

NASA?

The same NASA that went 7 years without ever noticing a problem with their methodology that was detectable with an open source statistics package?

The discovery of the real problem was made almost immediately after NASA GISS finally revealed their methods for public scrutiny.

The same qualities that makes open source good are the same reasons that all of these scientists should open up their work. We re talking about publicly funded science here.. its not supposed to be secret.

They dont get a free pass just because they are NASA, especialy because they've fucked it up before.

Re:If the ice melts

[ElectricTurtle]

I hope you get moderated funny, because Christ man, you're talking about an organization that completely destroyed the very expensive Mars Climate Orbiter because they screwed up converting between imperial and metric.

Re:If the ice melts

[prefec2]

We are talking about shelf ice. Shelf ice is like an ice cube in your coke. If the ice melts the coke level will neither rise nor fall. And the same thing happens when you are playing with large ice cubes in an ocean. And the salt concentration has nothing to do with it.

As you might know. The density of ice is lower than the density of water. That why ice is floating. The ice displaces exactly that amount of water which has the same weight as the ice. When now the ice melts, the resulting water fits perfectly in the hole the ice occupied in the ocean.

And for your salt concentration. Where do you think does shelf ice come from? One hint, they are not glacier material.

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could, you know, read the actual paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1123785v1

Popular Science Article Doesn't Include Statistics. News at 11!

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

Dude, stop dragging those red-herrings around, they stink.

If by pointing to Mann's reconstruction methods you mean to imply Mann, et al's hockey stick was debunked you are simply wrong...

The statisticians at the National Academies do not agree with you, or should I say their written testimony to the senate doesn't agree with you. Anyway they are probably the best statistical experts you can find in one place and are certainly not alone in their approval of Mann's work. Furthermore the minor problems they did point out were adressed by Mann in a later publication in Science which you can look up yourself, this is how science works, no?

The reason I point to that testimony is because it's the half-truth that many psuedo-skeptical, armchair statistitians base their opinions on, whether you in particular realise that or not is irrelevant.

Quote TFL: "The basic conclusion of the 1999 paper by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years
....[snip]...
We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues. However, our reservations with some aspects of the original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue to warm, as a result of human activities."

Why anyone would waste money and scientists time by having a senate enquiry on one particular graph is beyond me but whatever the reason it has served to further strengthen Mann's arguments.

As for the expert you keep demanding, that's not how science does things. Perhaps the NASA links are weak evidence by your standards because most people just rely on their reputation, but if you think they are wrong the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. No matter how many papers I throw at you supporting NASA, you can continue to troll by demanding an individual expert claim an institutional publication which has nothing to do with the credibility of the evidence.

And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

Speaking of taking things out of context, note that psuedo-skeptics have reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming".

Re:If the ice melts

[Rockoon]

If by pointing to Mann's reconstruction methods you mean to imply Mann, et al's hockey stick was debunked you are simply wrong...

I said exactly what I meant to say, and you are now trying to argue against something I didnt say, which is fine as long as you don't attribute your straw man arguement it to me.

Now.. don't attribute your strawman arguement to me. OK?

Furthermore the minor problems they did point out were adressed by Mann in a later publication in Science which you can look up yourself, this is how science works, no?

I am arguing that the veracity of the current peer review process in this field is so lacking that you do not get to appeal to its authority, that these climate experts have been known for a fact (which you admit) to use faulty statistical methods which slip right by the peer review process that you appealed to.

You don't get to use the "published in Nature" arguement as valid for their statistical value, since as I pointed out, experts in statistics do not do any reviewing of these papers prior to them being published.

This is quite simple.

Accept it, reject it.. I dont really care.. but do not reply with strawman arguements that you attribute to me as if you have some sort of refutation for my actual argument, when you apparently and obviously do not.

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

Strawman: From your words "A popular example is Mann's flawed" I assumed the bit you were pointing out was a "known problem" from the testiomony and I still do. You did not actually state what argument of yours the link was supposed to be supporting?

But now your talking about gross incompetence on a decades long intensive reasearch effort that requires a massive conspiracy by the worlds scientific institutions to cover up? Or are you saying that these same institutions do not understand undergrad stats?

Either show me your contra-evidence that asserts Mann is incorrect, the ice caps are NOT melting, or the world is NOT getting warmer. If you can't do that then there are other sites such as freerepublic where you can be intellectualy dishonest.

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny you quote the argument from authority fallacy to break down the GPs position and then turn around and use the very same fallacy to support your own position, namely that you think the results seem fishy.

To get to the point, you don't have to be a statistics expert to be able to properly used some statistics. So perhaps it would be wise if you would first show that the statistics they used are flawed in the first place.

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's got a stick up his ass

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

From your link: "Apparently a NASA team overestimated the average 1998 temps by 0.06 degree Fahrenheit, making 1934 the new hottest year title holder by a slim 0.04-degree margin."

I and NASA agree with the call for transparency, lets look at the "Heartland Instituite".

The fact NASA and science in general fucks up every now and then in no way implies you have anything more credible to offer.

Re:If the ice melts

[ArcherB]

Speaking of taking things out of context, note that psuedo-skeptics have reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming".

Please do not attempt to speak for us pseudo-skeptics. We are not saying that the climate is not warming. We are not saying that the climate IS warming. What we are saying is that we don't know. So when you say, reduced the entire enquiry down to "our committee does not believe that the climate is warming"., it should read, "our committee thinks the climate is warming. I mean, we're pretty sure. I know we keep saying that we KNOW for sure this time, only to find some boneheaded mistake someone made to either get a grant, political reasons or just stupid. Still, all that aside, we are pretty sure that the climate is warming. And while there is some debate over weather (pun, not grammar) it's warming or not, there is much more debate over why. Oh, and will someone please tell Al Gore to SHUT UP!"

Re:If the ice melts

[Ambitwistor]

An error margin greater than 50%? Presuming that this is based on a typical 3 standard deviations...

Actually, reading the paper, it looks to me that 80 km^3 is just 1 standard deviation. (They say the GRACE errors were calculated as 1-sigma, and the ice volume error is obtained by sum-of-squared GRACE errors, so it too is presumably 1-sigma.) If so, a 95% interval includes the possibility of zero volume change (but barely).

I don't see any statistics experts mentioned in that link, so I gotta assume that we cannot expect a normally distributed error, that in fact they have no idea what the distribution might be.

Ah, the old "I don't like Mike Mann, therefore nobody in the world except a professional statistician knows what a normal distribution is" argument. Very compelling.

Anyway, if you want to know about the distribution of the errors, read this. They find that the aggregate residuals are normal, but the RMS errors — after standardizing against the spatial and time dependence of the residuals — are non-normal. They discuss the consequences of making a normal approximation. The normal approximation is what they used in the above Science paper.

Re:If the ice melts

[Ambitwistor]

do not reply with strawman arguements that you attribute to me as if you have some sort of refutation for my actual argument

You don't have an actual argument, you're just attempting guilt-by-association. Whether or not you like the peer review has nothing to do with the validity of the statistics in the paper being discussed. If you want to impugn their statistics, you need to actually discuss said statistics, not just make veiled libelous insinuations about random scientists on the basis of unrelated publications.

Re:If the ice melts

[Troed]

sea levels are already rising

No, they're not.

"if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel MÃrner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr MÃrner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story"

[---]

"When I spoke to Dr MÃrner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

If your current mod of +5 funny doesn't tell you something then you're not paying attention.

However I'm glad you fessed up after our discussion the other day, problem is we regular skeptics don't know what you guys are saying because you keep changing the subject to political conspiracy theories, when that goes nowhere you go back to cherry-picking and red-herrings....I've tried the tinfoil but it simply does not work. Perhaps it's time for you to stop behaving like the shop keeper in Monty Pythons dead parrot sketch.

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't come here with logic and reason. These other people prefer to drive around around in chicken little costumes and scream "the sky's falling".

There was a very good article in Forbes recently from one of these scientists that the "chicken little" crowd hates, that disagrees with the notion that we know for sure that humans are causing the global temperatures to increase because CO2 emissions have increased.

He's one of the smarter scientists in the world (and actually a scientist, unlike 'ALGORE') who understands correlation does not equate causation. He also rightfully points out the bigger threat than this alarmist "global warming" mania is not some asinine theory that the world is warming but that the seas/oceans are absorbing massive amounts of said carbon, damaging sea life.

Global Warming is a fine theory but the debate is NOT over and proving that the world is warmer does not prove carbon emissions is the cause. Of course, it also does not disprove it either.

As as the parent properly stated, there isn't two camps on this of "I believe global warming" and "I don't believe in global warming". It's more like "I believe humans are causing global warming" and "I don't know what's causing global warming".

The biggest difference between these two camps? Only one of these two buses? Only one of them is being driving by politicians. Politicians with money to be made. The other one is still desperately trying to do science and come up with answers.

Everyone has reserved to simply accept Chicken Little's theory and slap more bumper stickers on their cars and pay some greedy politician his true blood money.

Re:If the ice melts

[taskiss]

NOAA studies suggest that there is evidence dust causes a much greater ocean warming effect than anything mankind can cause.

http://www.oceanconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=122714

And, link suggests that the effect isn't a "new" revelation

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

AND... the effect of dust on atmospheric temperature estimates suggest warming might not be as affected as once believed.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21574

SO, in conclusion, more info is necessary for those that want a better understanding of the natural process of temperature cycles. Note that more information isn't needed by those that claim irreversible HIGW afects.

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

Dust is an areosol that has always been there, human areosols are also known to have a large negative forcing (ie: cooling effect) although as you can be seen by the error bars there are some large uncertainties with various forcings they are not enough to reject the overal conclusion in the net anthropogenic component.

"Note that more information isn't needed by those that claim irreversible HIGW afects."

Best effort says we stabalise at a doubling of pre-industrial levels by 2050, this means stabalising 2 degrees higher than now. It is true that it's not impossible to reverese that or the trend on Artic sea ice and see it back the way it was when I was born (1959), it's much more likely we won't meet that best effort target, either way the Artic will be open water in the summer of 2059, I'm unlikely to live that long but my newborn grandchild will have just celebrated her 50th.

Re:If the ice melts

[taskiss]

To achieve a balance between good stewardship and knee jerk "reactionism", we are required to hold off doing anything until more is known... ...if we don't, that'll be as bad as when rabbits were introduced in australia, termites in hawaii, zebra mussels in the great lakes, etc, etc, etc.

Folks just want to "do something" about the "issue", and that is a rallying cry to politicians... which are, in their own way, another bane to out existence we introduced out of ignorance.

Re:If the ice melts

[RobertM1968]

Another thing rarely mentioned, is that as these ice sheets and bergs break away and melt, it causes other climate changes. In very non-technical terms, water evaporation from ice is more difficult than water evaporation from a non-frozen state. The volume of unfrozen water is increasing.

Oh, and the various governments and organizations who monitor such have also noted a growing decrease in the ice sheets in and around the Arctic Circle/Canada.

Doesnt matter to me either way... I love swimming. (yes, that's humor - if only a poor attempt at it)

Re:If the ice melts

[An Onerous Coward]

"Good stewardship" requires us to do nothing, when there are dozens of things we could be doing that can reduce CO2 and save money at the same time?

And how in the hell is building a solar collector like introducing an invasive species? Do you often see solar installations humping each other, and giving birth to other solar installations?

What are these negative effects you fear if we adopt "reactionism" (after spending thirty years studying the problem)? If we adopt more solar and wind power, if we flood the market with plug-in hybrids, if we retrofit existing buildings with greater energy efficiency and demand higher standards for new buildings, if we replant the forests, what are the terrible, terrible consequences?

Re:If the ice melts

[tacarat]

Great math, but the quote said +/- 80, as in cubic kilometers, not percent.

Re:If the ice melts

[hairyfeet]

While I would agree that we are losing ice, what I would want to know is this: how does this compare to the "long warm" we experienced during the middle ages? As most may or may not know Greenland was actually named that because it was found during the long warm and was a green and fertile island. It got so warm and stayed warm for so long that the earth had a population explosion thanks to the ease of growing food all over the planet. This continued until the "little ice age" and the black plague that came along with it.

So my questions would be: How does this compare to that? Are we seeing temps that are the same? Higher? Lower? What is the current solar output(since it wasn't Co2 that caused this first long warm) and how is it effecting us?

I have yet to see any studies that answer all of these questions. Just as scientists in the 70s were pushing the "global cooling" theory in the late 70s it seems to me that many have locked onto the global warming is man theory without checking all other possible sources. Now considering that if it IS us it will require some pretty radical change to the entire population, as well as most likely causing famines and loss of life both in number and quality, I think it is better to have ALL the answers before we order the entire planet to change(and make people like Gore and his "carbon credits" scam rich) don't you?

Re:If the ice melts

[ArcherB]

If your current mod of +5 funny doesn't tell you something then you're not paying attention.

However I'm glad you fessed up after our discussion the other day, problem is we regular skeptics don't know what you guys are saying because you keep changing the subject to political conspiracy theories, when that goes nowhere you go back to cherry-picking and red-herrings....I've tried the tinfoil but it simply does not work. Perhaps it's time for you to stop behaving like the shop keeper in Monty Pythons dead parrot sketch.

This, from a guy that said:

...NASA and science in general fucks up every now and then...

Isn't that what I said, but in a much more humorous fashion? So, basically, you've come around to my side on this issue by admitting that scientists are fallible. Now all that is left is for you to catch up and come to the conclusion that we shouldn't give up all our rights and possessions to politicians on reports from flawed scientists.

Re:If the ice melts

[ArcherB]

And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

Re:If the ice melts

[Jorophose]

The ice levels of your childhood were extremely high.

1950-1970 is not an accurate depection of Earth's ideal climate, stop using it as an example.

Re:If the ice melts

[Jorophose]

Wasn't that the year NASA placed their sensors/monitoring gear right next to an air conditionning exaust?

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of

If the ice shelf breaks away from the peninsula, it will not cause a rise in sea level because it is already floating, scientists say.

did you not understand?

Re:If the ice melts

[Lars T.]

While I would agree that we are losing ice, what I would want to know is this: how does this compare to the "long warm" we experienced during the middle ages?

Let's put it this way: Oetzi didn't thaw out of that glacier in Medieval times.

Re:If the ice melts

[Lars T.]

NASA? The same NASA that went 7 years without ever noticing a problem with their methodology that was detectable with an open source statistics package?

7 years? How could Nasa have missed "that 1934 and not 1998 was the hottest year in the US" for 7 years in 2007, when they said in 2001 that "1934 was the hottest year in the US"? Well, sorry, but before you criticize NASA, you should get your own numbers up to date.

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ping Pong! ... "they have no idea what the" error or anything else for that matter "is", "could be" or even "might be"!

[Bring in the Clowns!] ... the USGS is to the rescue! ... but who will rescue US from them[?].

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

"While I would agree that we are losing ice, what I would want to know is this: how does this compare to the "long warm" we experienced during the middle ages?"

Look at the age of the ice shelves that have collapsed over the last decade or so, does the fact that the ice they are composed of predates the medieval warm period by millenia tell you anything?

"I have yet to see any studies that answer all of these questions."

Then you haven't looked very hard. Your questions are full of incorrect assumptions, false assertions, and ancient red-herrings but here are some terse answers just in case you have been living in a basement for the last decade...

1. Yes, the later half of the 20th century was warmer than the medieval warm period (MWP), the MWP did not last to the little ice age(LIA). Every year in the 21st centry has been hotter than any year in the 20th centutry except 1998.
2. Solar output has gone down over the last decade but temps are still going up albeit on a shallower slope than the 90's. In other words the physical effects of the sun do not make the physical effects of CO2 magically dissapear.
3. The "scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's" is a myth, the myth is based on an article in the Nation Geographic and subsequent newspaper articles. The national academies of science warned humans were warming the world in the 50's, they also said soot has a cooling effect, some people have trouble holding two ideas in their head at the same time.

Since you obviously haven't looked further than outdated right-wing opinion columns here is a list of common myths, you will find most of your post in there.

"I think it is better to have ALL the answers before we order the entire planet to change(and make people like Gore and his "carbon credits" scam rich) don't you?"

AFAIK Gore is already rich. Regardless of what you think Gore says or does, his behaviour does not excuse you from ignoring basic risk management and making alarmist claims on the economy which are unsupported by fact.

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

"The ice levels of your childhood were extremely high."

You must be extremely high to believe that.

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

You admitted you were a psuedo-skeptic, why are you trying to be all sciency again? - How many people occupy your head and do they all get along?

Re:If the ice melts

[NIckGorton]

Oooh. An anthropogenic global warming denier/minimizer and you're anti-stem cell research. If you tell me you're pro-Intelligent Design, you will have the trifecta of idiocy!

Re:If the ice melts

[ArcherB]

You admitted you were a psuedo-skeptic, why are you trying to be all sciency again? - How many people occupy your head and do they all get along?

Yes! I am a skeptic! I am proud to be a skeptic. I am in very good company.

Did Galileo just accept that the Earth was the center of the universe? Did Einstein just accept that time was constants? Did Lematre and Hubble just accept that the universe was static? The first part of science is skepticism. Seriously? You didn't know that? If you don't ask new questions, how do you expect to get any new answers? Do you believe everything you are told? Do you believe everything your government tells you as they are trying to take things away from you?

Seriously? You don't even ask?

Re:If the ice melts

[shutdown -p now]

No, they're not.

No, one lone loony guy (who's not himself a climatologist, by the way) says they're not, and that He Alone Knows The Truth And Everyone Else Is An Idiot And There Is A Great World-Wide Conspiracy.

Film at 11.

Re:If the ice melts

[Rockoon]

Let me tell you this one more time.

I meant exactly what I said. Things that I didn't say (all of your "I assume.." and "If you mean.." and whatnot) are not what I meant.

Its simple. Feel free to define your own complicated scanerios in your own words and then shoot them down, just don't attribute them to me. OK?

Re:If the ice melts

[TapeCutter]

"Do you believe everything your government tells you as they are trying to take things away from you? Seriously? You don't even ask?"

Seriously don't you get tierd of projecting your faults on to others? We have had this discussion, in it we discovered your belief system is based on political dogma and a brand of 'skepticisim' that translates to calling bullshit on anything that does not match your politics. When offered contra-information you ignore it and change the subject. If you want to grow up, be a real skeptic and get some sort of consistency and methodology to your arguments then you need to start questioning your conspiricy theories. I would add that you should practice that for a while before you start comparing yourself to Einstein but the horse has already bolted.

OTOH: Your worldview may becoming an endangered meme but it doesn't makes you stupid or evil, you have every right to parade your willfull ignorance and incorrectly label yourself a skeptic. Personally I can no more see eye to eye with the intellectual dishonesty in that philosophy than I can see eye to eye with a rabid creationist. What more is there to say? Seriously?

Re:If the ice melts

[Troed]

No, he's a sea level specialist. Now, remind me again, what was the subject?

(If you want, I can add diagrams showing that the sea levels aren't rising. I'd expect you to have done a bit of searching yourself before posting such a reply though)

Re:If the ice melts

[ArcherB]

Seriously don't you get tierd of projecting your faults on to others? We have had this discussion, in it we discovered your belief system is based on political dogma and a brand of 'skepticisim' that translates to calling bullshit on anything that does not match your politics.

Funny, I don't recall it going that way. What I do recall is saying that I will not give more power to politicians over reports that were produced and paid for by those same politicians. If you do, you are a dumbass. You rabidly attack any report paid for by Exxon/Mobil because Exxon has money to make, but willingly accept without question reports from the UN, the US Government, Sierra Club and others as if they are pure and incapable of bad intent.

The first step in being a skeptic on anything is this: FOLLOW THE MONEY! When a government pays for a report that says they need more power, I'm skeptical. Ask yourself, "Who has to gain from this?" If the answer is the source of the report, you should really be skeptical of its findings. Otherwise, you are a fool!

As for data that comes from a bias source, you are correct to be skeptical. However, if you can't find data to the contrary, then you have not choice but to accept the data. Numbers are not biased. Data does not have an opinion. When the data says the ice caps are growning and the scientists keep predicting that they should have been shrinking, you have to either accept the facts that the scientist was wrong or cover your ears and say, "nah-nah-nyaah!" over and over.

What more is there to say. Well, you could start by trying to refute the presenter's points rather than simply throwing insults. You seem to have a nasty habit of abusing the fallacy of ad hominem ("Attacking the Messenger"). Whenever someone says something you don't like, you ignore the argument and insult them. If you can't refute their arguments, shut up.

Re:If the ice melts

[taskiss]

Spending on tech that doesn't deliver and ignoring real causes of real effects we can do something about is foolish.

I would guess (and it's totally a guess) that spending the cash that's now going into the "global warming" bucket on something that would provide clean drinking water for folks would be a much better bang for the buck, and desalination tech is a better use of funds than carbon chits.

It's my opinion that when politicians get involved, everyone should realize that a wrong turn has been made. "Politicians" and "solutions" in the same sentence? Nope, not too likely. "Politicians" and "boondoggle"... and "corruption"... THAT'S more like it.

Re:If the ice melts

[ArcherB]

Oooh. An anthropogenic global warming denier/minimizer and you're anti-stem cell research. If you tell me you're pro-Intelligent Design, you will have the trifecta of idiocy!

No, like so many others from your standpoint, you paint us with way too broad a brush. I am all for stem cell research. What I am against is killing humans to make stem cells. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

And if that makes me an idiot, then I guess it also makes the guy in my sig an idiot as well. Wouldn't you agree? First, you should find out who James Thompson is and then go back and tell me what idiots we are.

But hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your stereotype application. You learn a thing or two about someone and use that to paint the entire person in what you THINK they are. You are no different than the racist that assumes that all blacks steal because they heard that one did so I really don't expect you to change.

Re:If the ice melts

[An Onerous Coward]

So, your entire argument is warmed over, "reactionary" anti-government cynicism? How boring. In case it escaped your notice, corruption and boondogglery isn't exactly monopolized by the public sector.

I agree, clean drinking water is a good investment. In fact, I probably believe it more sincerely than you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be obsessed with taking money out of the "global warming bucket" to buy it. You'd be proposing taking it out of the military bucket, or the farm subsidies bucket, or the "Americans buying mammoth houses with three spare bedrooms" bucket, or the fuel bucket, or the "cheap crap from China" bucket, or the "maintaining an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons" bucket. How much of that AIG money would it have taken to provide clean water for every person in the Third World?

The only reason to single out the "global warming bucket" is if you don't want money going into that bucket.

Further, as I said, there are millions of tons of CO2 that could be removed from the atmosphere *at a profit*, so we could make great strides in fighting global warming without ever reaching for any bucket.

Re:If the ice melts

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this answer is a little late, but I'd like to make two points:

Regarding your first link: Surface area does not equal to volume. Newly formed ice covers will be thinner.

Regarding your third link: The title says "South Pole", which is a certain spot on Antarctica. Global warming is about the global average temperature, and not necessarily the average temperature at a spot 2835 m above sea level, far away from the ocean.

Re:If the ice melts

[Lars T.]

And since you obviously think you are good at stats why haven't you answered my question? - Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

Gee, why am I not surprised that people who can't tell the difference between "global" and "local" also can't tell the difference between "arctic" and "antarctic" or, in fact "their ass" and "a hole in the ground".

Re:If the ice melts

[Swiper]

I wish that would work Then all I would need to do is buy two small solar panels, give them the right environment and...whoah, at it babies, come on, show me your silicon :-) Hmm, what with using viruses to make batteries, maybe it isn't so far fetched!

Geeks are dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

If tt's expected to, how is that news?

Re:Geeks are dumb

[4D6963]

Sorry about that, you're right, it's not. I was going to post about that large asteroid that's expected to hit the Atlantic ocean in a month, but I guess it would be too early to do it before it at least enters the atmosphere..

What, No Climate Change Reference?

[pipingguy]

Ice shelves that don't calve would worry me more. But due to current media-promoted hysteria about "the environment", I think we should spend 100 trillion dollars to fix our planet. I mean, really, if we don't have a planet or environment, we're all dead. And think of the children!

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt"? Maybe we could collect them all and put them in an artificial environment so they can be safe from nature and man's evil nature. And then cuddle them - well, at least the ones that have comfy fur and cute eyes.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Psychotria]

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt"?

That is one of the more absurd quotes. The life of the shelf after it calves is likely to be long (maybe 10 or 20 years). Not damn long enough for anything to evolve though. Sure I guess things will have to adapt. Or, die.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[wizardforce]

if we don't have a planet or environment, we're all dead.

indeed. That aside, climate change can be thought of as a diffuse property rights issue. Power plant produces CO2, CO2 warms planet and melts ice, sea levels rise, higher sea levels erode my property, who is responsible for the property damage?

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt"?

that is indeed true if the rate of diversification and adaptation are high enough or the rate of change is slow enough. However, there are several instances in biological history where this planet was made uninhabitable for 3/4 of all life or more including human beings had we existed then. There is a limit to how quickly an ecosystem can adapt to a change before permanent damage occurs. This certainly may not be a "fatal" event for humanity but in so far as destroying someone else's resource I don't see how any of that can possibly be justified ethically. You talk about the cost of doing something and you have a point- the current plans for dealing with climate change often involve costly measures but it certainly doesn't need to be the case. knocking out subsidies to inefficient, polluting industries would help the environment and save the government money. relying on a market based approach to solving the problem would be more efficient than a more planned economy could ever achieve. Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon that claims environmental protection can't coexist with sound economic policy- it's often the case that the waste caused in planned economies is even worse for the environment.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[pipingguy]

it's often the case that the waste caused in planned economies is even worse for the environment.

Good point, nobody ever seems to mention the environmental horrors that existed/still exist in those failed planned economies you refer to.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt". Yeah? Many plants in Antarctica?

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

Not trolling you, but I'm genuinely interested to know whether you think a global cap and trade treaty is a valid market based solution to AGW in particular, and pollution in general?

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[AliasMarlowe]

What, no manbearpig tag?

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[wizardforce]

I believe that if done correctly, cap and trade is a valid temporary solution however I think that the ultimate solution to the problem is to knock out any regulatory restrictions preventing a viable market based on the trade of carbon dioxide as a resource. It may be possible to start with a cap and trade system and ween the economy off of it and on to a market that stands completely on its own. The big problem as is being seen to an extent in Europe is that it is somewhat difficult to quantify CO2 offsets in many cases. Too many permits in the wild can also cause the system not to work as efficiently as it should however auctioning the credits may solve that problem. A green shift in taxation may also improve conditions. Shifting away from our current very complicated tax system toward one that both functions to discourage wasteful consumption and simplifies the tax code [eliminating many tax loopoles in the process] may actually offer an overall economic benefit outside of the environment its self.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[pipingguy]

Are there some countries that are exempt from the global regulations?

Is CO2 actually a "pollutant", and how do we define pollution?

Has relatively recent human activity actually been proven to be the cause of something we can't even measure properly?

What percentage of the atmosphere does CO2 actually occupy and what is it's molecular weight?

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

"Are there some countries that are exempt from the global regulations? Is CO2 actually a "pollutant", and how do we define pollution? Has relatively recent human activity actually been proven to be the cause of something we can't even measure properly? What percentage of the atmosphere does CO2 actually occupy and what is it's molecular weight?"

No, Yes, A resourse out of place, Two incorrect assumptions in the question render it meaningless, Very small, Irrelevant.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure "adapt" in this context means something more along the lines of "find other feeding grounds, etc." ...

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ex Wikipedia:

"The continent of Antarctica itself has been too cold and dry to support virtually any vascular plants for millions of years, and its flora presently consists of around 250 lichens, 100 mosses, 25-30 liverworts, around 700 terrestrial and aquatic algal species. Two flowering plants, Deschampsia antarctica (Antarctic hair grass) and Colobanthus quitensis (Antarctic pearlwort), are found on the northern and western parts of the Antarctic Peninsula. Species of moss endemic to Antarctica include Grimmia antarctici, Schistidium antarctici, and Sarconeurum glaciale."

So yeah, probably a fair few.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[YttriumOxide]

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt". Yeah? Many plants in Antarctica?

Apparently not a lot, but still some...

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Korin43]

Why not just make companies responsible for what they do? If a company pollutes a river, they have to pay to clean it up (full price), and if they knowingly pollute the river bring criminal charges as well. It would be more complicated to deal with air pollution since it would be impossible for one company to undo global warming, and we can't entirely stop giving off CO2, but forcing companies to at least do something to counteract the damage they do would be a good start.
Ideas for air pollution would be planting lots of trees, buying rainforest land and protecting it, funding research in how to clean up air pollution..

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[f2x]

Two flowering plants, Deschampsia antarctica (Antarctic hair grass) and Colobanthus quitensis (Antarctic pearlwort), are found on the northern and western parts of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Ouch. That just gave me a /0 error.

Reason:
The continent sits on the South pole. Every direction is north, and east/west is arbitrary!

Still, it's interesting info to know. I would never have thought flowering plants would grow down there. What pollinates them?

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Colin Smith]

Power plant produces CO2

You are responsible. Go switch your computer off now!

 

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Burnhard]

I beg to differ. Firstly, you're all assuming the ice shelf is collapsing because of Global Warming. This is in no way demonstrated, anywhere. It's entirely possible (and likely) that bits of ice-shelf collapse or break off every now and then in any case. When you consider the tiny amount of warming (now reversed) that has happened, you'll see how cretinous it is to make the assumption that man-made CO2 has caused it.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Ragzouken]

The Antarctic peninsula does not sit exactly upon the south pole and so compass directions make perfect sense.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[prefec2]

I think a market based approach is not really working. Especially not when you think it through. One problem will be that companies will start CO2-sinks based on certain technologies. These technologies could be harmful for the environment as well.

The actual problem with the CO2-certificates is that they are not reduced every year and they get it for free. So there is no need to invest in other technologies, because you can get enough certificates.

A better thing would be to reduce them every year until there are no more CO2 certificates available on the planet then CO2 sink capacities exist.

However this make steel and aluminum very expensive. And think about that an average US citizen is causing aprox. 20t CO2/year and in Europe it is something between 15-6t CO2/year. While the fair share would be 1.5t CO2/year.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

You can beg all you like but I won't answer your troll except to warn you that looking at my other posts will make your head explode.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[alexibu]

Imagine a large thin sheet of ice floating on water that has formed over thousands of years. The ice has formed slowly from immense glacial flows and some snow falling on top, the forces that constrain it are the floatation on the water and the force of gravity, which have been fairly constant during the formation, forcing the ice shelf to form at an elevation where gravity balances it's floatation force.

Suddenly (in ice shelf formation time scales) the sea level changes slightly. The two forces are out of balance, and the ice is bearing load. It breaks.

I made all the above up, have no specific knowledge of ice sheets but hope that it refutes your claim that it is cretinous to think CO2 could cause ice sheets to crack.

CO2 has caused sea level rise which has been accelerating lately : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

The warming reversed meme can be discarded by your reading this : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

If you RTFA it says the ice shelf was mapped in the 1930s and has been constant size until very recently. We also know bits (this big) don't break off every now and then, where every now and then is less than the age of the ice currently in the shelf (which has been measured to be thousands of years old). Otherwise it would have already broken off.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

I have similar opinions. Cap and trade will only work if what you are trading can be measured accurately, in my mind currently this means the large emmitters coal, oil, gas, concrete. The other large contributor is land use and as much as I like trees I think the only accurately measurable way to use land as a sink is to plough biochar into it, permits and credits should be based on a physically auditable ton of carbon and currently most land use schemes do not offer that level of certainty. That may change in the future. Of course if a coal plant can work out how to scrub it's emmissions and point to the stored carbon then they can use it as an offset.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Are there some countries that are exempt from the global regulations?

Yes. China, India, and Indonesia, to name three moderately large emitters of CO2, are not bound to limit their CO2 emissions in any way.

And China and India have already said that they won't sign onto a Kyoto follow-on that requires them to limit their CO2 emissions.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the signers of Kyoto are not required to limit their CO2 emissions in any way. Which is one of the things that makes Kyoto a farce.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[An Onerous Coward]

Let's discuss this "hundred trillion dollars" figure.

First, citation frakking needed.

On the other hand, is that really such a huge number? That total amounts to approximately two years of the world's GDP. If the alternative is, say, a 20% risk of societal collapse (which, for the sake of the math, I will define as a 50% reduction in world GDP and a 30,000% increase in cannibalism), then dumping a hundred trillion dollars into fixing it would pay for itself in two years.

Still, I strongly dispute the number. The estimates I remember say that tackling climate change ought to cost less than 2% of world GDP. The important thing to remember is that many, many of the remediation costs have other, positive economic effects. In other words, by doing things like weatherizing buildings, building more fuel-efficient cars, and installing other energy efficiency technology, we can save money and carbon at the same time. I couldn't find the chart, but there's this nifty chart that took estimates of various remediation actions, ordered them by cost per ton, and basically showed that the ones that the money saved by the cash-positive remediation steps very nearly balanced out the money spent on cost-negative remediation steps.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[pipingguy]

Perhaps Russia too? Gee, I wonder why this inconvenient truth never seems to be mentioned in news reports about how Global Warming/Climate Change is going to destroy the universe if western society doesn't pay up. China and India, as the fastest growing economies have a big part to play in this scheme (if in fact it isn't only a politico power grab attempt and scam spanning two centuries).

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

I disagree that CO2 is a pollutant, as plants need it for one. According to many, climate change is almost entirely a result of the solar cycle. CO2 emissions are apparently being used politically to establish a new way to tax and control the common people. I'm all for better managing our environment, for example, the electric car (and why did GM kill the EV1?!?) Rather than CO2, i would be more concerned with the oxygen levels which from what i understand are declining in both the atmosphere and oceans (though pollutants that make oxygen intake more difficult for living organisms may be more important). Take the Red Pill.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

Your brain needs potassium yet it explodes on contact with water...

I've tried the red pill with a self proclaimed physicist and it left me unsatisfied. Do you have anything to add?

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

I am not a scientist, though i enjoyed science when i was in school. In addition to the link i've already provided, here is another one of a lecture by Professor Bob Carter in Australia, and an interview with Dr.Tim Ball on the Alex Jones Show. Even if global warming due to CO2 were true, which i don't believe it is, the "elite" of this world are using it to justify a new tax scheme to enslave the populace. I would love to see more caring for the environment and wildlife in this world, but that is not the goal of these people, it is to justify a new carbon tax and that is just wrong and must be prevented for the freedom of humanity. Take the Red Pill ;) btw, if you haven't seen it: Money as Debt and Freedom to Fascism

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Perhaps Russia too?

No, Russia is bound to limit its emissions.

Alas, the limits are based on emissions of the Soviet Union, so Russia must reduce emissions to lower than the Soviet Union emitted. Which is a level higher than Russia actually emits, so it's basically given a pass on Kyoto, while still being technically bound by it.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[pipingguy]

Hmm, political language and twisty conditions. Why am I not surprised? Bureaucrats are the same everywhere, let's put them in power!

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[wizardforce]

*shift taxation off of income so as to not punish wealth creation but discourage consumption. this helps protect the environment and at the same time takes advantage of supplu side economics.
*destroy all subsidies to industry, these are destructive to the environment and cause higher debt and taxes.
*remove barriers to the creation of hard currencies backed with CO2 and/or energy these are far more indicative of the strength of the economy and help fight inflation. they are also rather resistant against manipulation by the federal reserve.
*extend property rights into the sky, people's property should be protected more than it is currently. you shouldn't have your land, air or water poisoned by someone else- that's an act of force against you.
*remove regulatory barriers to the development of nuclear power, 3rd generation designs are of sufficient safety and can serve to take the burden off of fossil fuels in regard to energy.

there are tons of ways in which sound supply side
economic policy overlaps with sound environmental policy. we just need to encourage these reforms rather than more statist reforms as is often the case, government intervention does more harm than good in economics and environmental policy.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

I agree with much of what you said, however, realize that depending on what country you live in most if not all income tax is NOT going to run the government but to pay debt to non-governmental (private) central banks. In Canada and the US the government has the right (and i would argue the obligation) to create it's own money based on their respective constitutions, not loan it from a private bank at interest. This scheme has been going on far too long, and their "carbon tax" is a continuation of the same scam. I agree though, taxing income should have never happened in the first place(and is a violation of rights in both the US and Canada). Until we can get our respective governments free of the clutches of private banks (such as the Federal Reserve in the US) we will never be a free people...and the "New World Order" they announced at the G20 has no interest in a free society, they want to continue their goal of world domination (or fascist police state). The carbon tax is their new toy and it must be stopped. Take the Red Pill.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

For your edification... Movie: Freedom to Fascism, by Aaron Russo Movie: The Obama Deception, by Alex Jones. If you agree to their carbon tax, you are just agreeing to continue the rape of the common people by the ruling class of this world. Wake the fuck up please before they get this into place.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Ant P.]

Power plant produces CO2, CO2 warms planet and melts ice, sea levels rise, higher sea levels erode my property, who is responsible for the property damage?

Why stop there? Who's responsible for the damage caused by that property being built in the first place? Those building materials had to come from somewhere, after all.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

"Take the Red Pill"

Judging by the economic alarmisim and conspiracy theories in your post I'd say you should leave the pills alone.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

We are at a unique time in history where information is relatively easy to get over the internet. Use it before you lose it with Internet II. And i see you haven't taken the Red Pill yet...ah well, that free will thing can be a bugger sometimes. P.S. New book on Bush family, and interview of author.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[wizardforce]

i'd say the rampant spending going on in the us is a far bigger problem than how it is paid as there is no need for taxes if there is no spending. this point is where the republican party stopped being relevant- they decided that the spend+tax-ocrats were right after all and that we can borrow forever rather than cut anything. however, if we find that after seriously cutting spending to the bare bones isn't enough and that taxes are inevitable then i'd rather they tax a poison than my hard earned income. if taxes are not inevitable then neither is the carbon tax as we obviously were intelligent enough to find a way to fund government without taxes then we can find a way to offset property damage from pollutants without a pollution tax.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[blindseer]

Cap and trade is nonsense. It allows people to purchase carbon credits on the open market which tells polluters that it is OK to pollute as long as you have money. If CO2 is killing the polar bears then leave out the trade part of the deal. Cap the emissions only.

The problem with cap and trade is that is has nothing to do with the reduction of CO2 output and everything to do with the redistribution of wealth. The reason European countries are all on board with cap and trade is because they know that money will flow to them if cap and trade goes into effect. China, USA, India, Russia, are among many that oppose because they know that it will bring their economies to a halt if they cannot burn their abundant reserves of coal and oil which drive their industry.

Those in the USA that like the idea of cap and trade are "caveman environmentalists" that think people can and should live on nuts and berries until winter freezes them to death, big government supporters that wish to bring "smiley face" communism to the USA so we can all live in equal misery, or those that do not understand the impact on our cost of living that capping CO2 emissions will do to us since the caveman environmentalists and neo-communists are lying to them on how great we all will be after saving the polar bears from nearly inevitable extinction.

The polar bears are doing just fine. The Antarctic ice has been falling into the ocean since long before humans roamed the earth and launched satellites to see that ice move. One theory that the ice is moving so quickly into the ocean off the Antarctic continent is because the ice has become so thick in recent times.

I've told people that if cap and trade goes into effect that I'm buying a coal fired furnace. Cap and trade will only work on the large corporations. It will be impossible to track every use of carbon and only profitable for the government to track the large users. Cap and trade will either bankrupt the government or they will have to set some minimum limit to where they rise to be under governmental control. Once that limit is set everyone will make damned sure not to rise to that level. The fedgov can play whack-a-mole all they want to keep people from burning carbon fuels but they will only end up yielding because of the cost.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

Look into it more, the Climate Change based on CO2 theory is propaganda by those who would rule. A sales tax or consumption tax is reasonable yes, but CO2 is NOT a poison!!!! We haven't needed to burn fossil fuels for a long time now, but "they" have no interest in stopping it. This is about power, control and establishing a global government, not about the environment, period.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

I became aware of politics in the late 60's, from what I've seen over the years there are more political conspiracies than there are politicians. Problem is that nowadays the parodies and the theories are all starting to look alike. I can't tell if you are taking the piss, if I'm missing a joke, or if you are just another conspiracy nut.

Either way the geeky looking guy in the white shirt lost me with the "I'm not a scholar I'm just a reporter presenting facts" routine. It the same sales pitch the author of the DaVinci code used much more expertly to sell his half-truths as the real deal, even Michael Moore gets some points for lampooning Bush while it was unpopular.

"Perhaps it's just US humour but I think I will leave the red pill alone", said Alice.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[Troed]

CO2 has caused sea level rise which has been accelerating lately

No, and no.

(Reference links in the same order)

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html ... and this debunking of one of the major "omg sea level rise!"-sources is an absolute must:

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

You have the free will to believe what you wish, i can do no more for you.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[TapeCutter]

"You have the free will to believe what you wish, i can do no more for you."

I don't want you to do any more. I decided a long time ago that my freedom to believe whatever I like must be constrained by reason.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference?

[cagrin]

Ignorance and apathy are the two most dangerous diseases of our time, and very difficult to cure. I think you have ingested too much fluoride over your lifetime.

Yeah, but...

[Epsilon Moonshade]

What happens when it melts? I think a chunk of ice the size of CT would cause a -bit- of a rise in sea level, wouldn't you?

Re:Yeah, but...

[LBArrettAnderson]

Displacement. Go back to high school.

Re:Yeah, but...

[MichaelSmith]

Not if it was already floating.

Re:Yeah, but...

[SuperMo0]

Well, this ice is already floating, according to the article. Just because it's floating by itself doesn't mean the sea level's going to rise around it.

Re:Yeah, but...

[pintpusher]

ice that is floating is already displacing an amount of water equivalent to it's mass which has... the same volume as the volume of the ice once it's melted (remember that frozen water has a larger volume, lower density, than liquid water). Thus, melting ice that is already floating has zero effect on sea levels.

Re:Yeah, but...

[xianthax]

conn = 5,544 square miles, earth = 196,939,900 square miles of which 139,433,845 square miles is water...so even if it weren't already floating, your answer is no

Re:Yeah, but...

[xianthax]

edit: yes i'm ignoring the entire volume vs 2d surface area discrepancy in this entire line of argument.

Re:Yeah, but...

[wizardforce]

the ice is floating in the ocean as it is. it is therefore displacing as much water as it possibly can. had it been siting on a continent somewhere and slid off into the ocean then you'd be correct.

Re:Yeah, but...

[Xeth]

Fresh water from ice and salt water in the oceans have different densities. The volume of salt water displaced by 1000 kg of frozen fresh water will be less than the volume that those same 1000 kg of ice occupy when melted, since the salt water is denser.

Re:Yeah, but...

[Epsilon Moonshade]

From TFA: (yes, I know this is /.)
"The Wilkins Ice Shelf -- a large mass of floating ice -- would still be connected to Latady Island, which is also part of the peninsula, and Alexander Island, which is not, said professor David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey."

I guess I just read this incorrectly, but it sounds like it's still connected to some land, which implies to me that not -all- of it is just floating as mentioned in the quote. An addition is an addition, no matter how small. I'm not saying it'll be flooding along coastal areas and all that, but will whatever amount of it that was previously supported by the connection to the rest of the ice shelf and the islands around it be significant in any way?

And thanks for the suggestion, but there's no need to be a dick about my high school learning. I do appreciate it, though - really, I do.

Re:Yeah, but...

[afidel]

Which just makes it more insignificant, ~600 cubic miles for the Wilkins ice shelf vs 329 million cubic miles for the oceans. The west antarctic ice shelf on the other hand is 700K cubic miles which is kind of significant.

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very little of it is not floating, you're still an idiot for not grasping the entire picture.

Re:Yeah, but...

[TapeCutter]

Look at it another way. If I mix bricks with water it becomes more dense but the volume of water won't change.

Re:Yeah, but...

[MichaelSmith]

Additionally ice has a high albedo so it tends to keep itself and the surrounding areas cool. Dark blue ocean absorbs more heat from the sun and stays warmer.

Re:Yeah, but...

[senorpoco]

But what does it do to the salt concentration? I am assuming the ice is largely freshwater.

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, by about 4%. Congratufuckinglations, you want a medal for being a pointless pedant?

The fact of the matter is that the volume of ice doesn't change *much* from the volume and of liquid water. So ~1000 m^3 of ice will melt into ~1000 m^3 of liquid water.

Do you really think that 4% is going to do much to affect global climate change (or whatever they're calling it now)? No? Okay then, let's move on to actually solving the problem instead of debating units and already-settled-scientific-matter with only-the-most-elite-programmers-who-have-no-concept-of-real-units-and-their-use, mmmkay?

Re:Yeah, but...

[TapeCutter]

The point at which the ice meets the seabed is where the ice is no longer part of the ice shelf but is still part of the ice sheet. The amount of floating ice supported at one end by land and held up by tension is insignificant but it does prevent the sheet from floating away into warmer waters.

A thick sheet of ice will resist waves and bend with the tide rather than cracking. However if the temprature is warm enough to reduce the thickness, cracks are likely to appear at tension points near where the ice meets the land. Once cracks start to form the constant battering of waves and tides will break up the ice shelf well before it all melts.

The sudden collapse of ice shelves has been observed in the recent past, this one is behaving in a similar manner and is five degrees further south than previous observations. The loss of these ice shelves is also expected to speed up the flow of glaciers that they've been holding back for millenia.

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that the entire education system in this nation has been carefully crafted to make morons think have real knowledge and that we will all be better off if we just let the government take care of us. It's amazing how well it's working. Some of the people who put all their faith in fake nasa numbers should actually get a job there, and see how 99% of the things done there are complete crap designed to get NASA more money from the government. The rare actual successful thing they done is 99% the result of real engineers done by people at places like Boeing/Lockheed Martin, often over objections of the government tools at NASA.

Re:Yeah, but...

[mysticgoat]

Parent post is the first complete and succinct answer to "why sea level is not going to change" that I've seen. It looks like a good place to hang my question.

Background: As these 1,000+ year old ice shelves break away, the amount of icebergs calving from them is increasing as well. With the increase in icebergs comes an increase in high albedo reflective surface on the ocean. On first look, it would seem that this increase in surface area is quite a bit: break off a 10 meter wide by 100 meter long berg from an ice shelf that is 250 meter thick, and the berg that floats away is 100 meter wide by 250 meter long by 10 meter thick. The white surface area has increased 25 times. So a significant increase in reflective area. It seems possible that a free floating ice shelf the size of Connecticut could become a reflective surface the size of Pennsylvania before it melts away completely.

Has anyone done any modeling of the increasing density of Antarctic ice bergs, and whether the increase in albedo is sufficient to affect climate?

Re:Yeah, but...

[pintpusher]

IANAOceanographer. But according to wikipedia, the ocean has a volume of approximately 1.3x10^9 cubic kilometers. According to NASA the Wilkins ice sheet has an area of 13680 square kilometers and a maximum thickness of 200 to 250 meters. Taking 225 meters as the average thickness (gotta pick something), the Wilkins ice sheet has a volume of 3078 cubic kilometers. That is about 2.368x10^(-4) percent of the ocean's volume. I've tried the calculations of the effect on salinity, and either I keep making mistakes, or it's too small to show up on my calculator.

Re:Yeah, but...

[blueg3]

Unless, of course, some portion of the ice shelf is not free-floating.

Re:Yeah, but...

[TapeCutter]

"With the increase in icebergs comes an increase in high albedo reflective surface on the ocean. [snip] The white surface area has increased 25 times."

Your calculations assume all the ice on the berg is above the water and thus able to reflect more light because of a greater suface area. However 90% is underwater and at a depth of 10 meters nearly all light has been absorbed.

"It seems possible that a free floating ice shelf the size of Connecticut could become a reflective surface the size of Pennsylvania before it melts away completely."

I don't see why not since it's already an efficient reflective surface when it's not moving. However I doubt that breaking a mirror makes it reflect more light.

Re:Yeah, but...

[mysticgoat]

Your calculations assume all the ice on the berg is above the water and thus able to reflect more light because of a greater suface area.

No, that is not my assumption. Try visualizing this:

On the top of the ice shelf, mark off a rectangle 100 meters long by 10 meters wide. It is a reflective surface of 1,000 sq meters. The ice is 250 meters thick. Now calve off that chunk of ice. It is not stable, it will topple so its surface is 100 meters by 250 meters by 10 meters thick. Its reflective surface area is now 25,000 sq meters. The surface area has increased 25 times, because the berg's orientation changes as it calves from the mother ice.

This is a very simple model to illustrate the nature of the problem. But an increase in reflective surface of ice, and a corresponding decrease in absorptive surface of open water, may be a significant factor in climatology as the ice shelves continue to break up.

So is anyone modeling this yet?

Re:Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fresh water from ice and salt water in the oceans have different densities. The volume of salt water displaced by 1000 kg of frozen fresh water will be less than the volume that those same 1000 kg of ice occupy when melted, since the salt water is denser.

You have 1000 kg of frozen fresh water becoming 1000 kg of melted fresh water which then gains some salt to become denser. But water is almost unique in that its solid form is more dense than its liquid form.

Re:Yeah, but...

[goodmanj]

You're right that the shattered bits of the ice sheet do capsize and tilt sideways as the shelf collapses -- see MacAyeal et al, 2003. (MacAyeal finds a height-to-width ratio of roughly 4:1.) Thus, there would be a period of increased albedo.

But it doesn't take long for these bergs to melt: they're not the gigantic "mega icebergs" that calve off the major ice shelves farther south. Since the fragments are much taller than they are wide: once they capsize, they're really very thin (tens of meters), and should melt very quickly.

So, I'd say (without running the numbers) that they might have a short-term impact on climate (months to a year), but I doubt they'll have any significance over years or decades.

Re:Yeah, but...

[TapeCutter]

Ok, sorry I have missunderstood what you were saying. Yeah I think it's an interesting thought but I don't think it applies to ice shelves, they are normally a couple of meters thick and already exposing a high ratio. I think glacial bergs might reflect a bit more but you need to take into account that about half the standing cliffs would be in the shade. I don't think it would be significant to climate due to the size of the ice cap to total size of iceberg ratio. If you did have enough bergs to cause a noticable global cooling it would only last a year or so and most of humanity would have already gone down the tubes.

I have never heard of it being specifically modeled.

Re:Yeah, but...

[mysticgoat]

they [ice shelves] are normally a couple of meters thick

Since they are so thin, then clearly my concern has no basis.

OTOH, NASA states the maximum thickness of the Wilkins Ice Shelf is 200 - 250 meters. Without knowing more about the topology of these sheets and they way they fracture, whether the area of reflective surface increases significantly seems to remain an open question.

From the satellite photos, it does appear that the shards from the break up has increased the amount of reflective surface by quite a bit from what it used to be.

Re:Yeah, but...

[mysticgoat]

Thanks for your reply.

So unless there is some mechanism that would cause the formation of new ice to replace the melt, the situation is self-limiting and will not have a long term impact on climate. That makes sense.

It is also reassuring. The increased reflective surface that is so obvious in comparing satellite photos before and after the making of one of these megabergs was a disturbing sight.

Yet it does seem like the remaining ice shelves are large enough to keep creating megabergs (and lots and lots of lesser bergs) for ten decades or more. So while each instance is self-limiting, there might be a long row of icy dominoes that will fall one after the other. That is a worrisome thought.

Also the melt from all this broken ice will form a fresh water layer on top of the salt water in all those wave sheltered crevices between the remaining bergs. Some of these will freeze in the coming winter, and collect high albedo covers of snow.

My momentary warm feeling of reassurance has just refrozen into chilled worries about greater disturbances in Gaia's heat engine....

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The catch is that the ice shelves slow down the ice behind them which is pushing into the sea.

That ice is on land and WILL affect sea levels when it starts moving forward into the sea a LOT faster.

Even worse, glacier motion is lubricated by water - so if there's already a lot more meltwater under the glaciers --- whoooooshhhhh (in slow motion anyway)

Burn the Heretic

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you question the word of the Gore-acle and Global Warming?

I mean "Climate Change", because it is awful tough to get people to buy off on warming when the planet is cooling. Yeah, our new "De-Politicized Science" is all about marketing.

Re:Burn the Heretic

[Anonymous Coward]

planet is cooling

Citation needed

Are you sure?

[RudeIota]

Unlike the Arctic (which is just frozen water), Antarctica is actually a continent.

Now -- I know I could be wrong -- but I always thought in order to be a continent, a land mass has to be... land? Am I wrong?

Re:Are you sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not wrong, but you're still an idiot who didn't read the RTFM. Antarctica is a continent, but the ice was floating off the continent.

Re:Are you sure?

[YttriumOxide]

Unlike the Arctic (which is just frozen water), Antarctica is actually a continent.

Now -- I know I could be wrong -- but I always thought in order to be a continent, a land mass has to be... land? Am I wrong?

You're not wrong, but the GP's point was that this particular ice is already floating - it's "jutting out over the side" over the continent and is floating on water.

That said though, it's possible that the GP is missing the fact that although this ice is "mostly floating", it's entirely possible that it is at least in part being supported by the ice that it's connected to (which is sitting on land), which would mean two things:

1. That breaking off it is somewhat expected if it gets weaker due to melting or whatever as the weight of it is now too much for the ice it's connected to to hold.
2. That it WILL displace more water once it's broken away from the land ice as the water will now take up the weight that previously the land was supporting. In likelyhood, this is nowhere near as significant as ice that has fallen off land into the water, but it's still more than nothing.

What's in a Name

[pilsner.urquell]

I have a burning question. Why is it now called "Climate Change" and no longer "(Man Made) Global Warming"?

There never was a good war or a bad peace.
                -- Benjamin Franklin

Re:What's in a Name

[SuperMo0]

Because, to the general public, global warming is confusing. "They're saying we're making the world warmer, so how come I just saw on TV that we're having the coldest winter on record?"

Climate Change more accurately reflects that it's going out of whack in both directions.

Re:What's in a Name

[pipingguy]

Or is it a question of "Global Warming/Climate Change" being blamed for every "odd" thing that happens in the world's weather? Append to that the "known fact" meme that this is caused by human activity. Since AGW is a fait accompli and such a huge issue, why are those that have questions about the theory, data collection methods, source code for the computer models, etc., shut down by the proponents of the theory?

Or is Global Warming a convenient boogeyman?

Re:What's in a Name

[FooGoo]

I have a burning question. Why is it now called "Climate Change" and no longer "(Man Made) Global Warming"?

I wonder why it's just not called "the weather" anymore.

Re:What's in a Name

[YttriumOxide]

Why is it now called "Climate Change" and no longer "(Man Made) Global Warming"? [emphasis mine]

It hasn't been called "Global Warming" by anyone doing real research in a VERY long time. The mainstream continued to say "Global Warming" for a long time after researchers had stopped using the term, and unfortunately the mainstream didn't catch on until after it became as political as it has, making a lot of the people sceptical of it think that calling it "Climate Change" is a weasel attempt at making it more popular - this couldn't be further from the truth.

As the other replier pointed out, "Climate Change" is simply a more accurate and less confusing name. It DOES amount to the same thing in the long term and when you look at global scales, but to avoid people saying "it's colder where I am right now, so Global Warming is a myth", "Climate Change" is more sensible.

Re:What's in a Name

[SuperMo0]

Or is it a question of "Global Warming/Climate Change" being blamed for every "odd" thing that happens in the world's weather?

No, it's not. At least, not in this comment thread it isn't. The question was why the shift from the trend of calling it global warming to calling it climate change.

Please, adjust your knickers and find another place to Diggify.

Re:What's in a Name

[atraintocry]

Do you mean the increase in hurricane activity? That actually is caused in part by rising water surface temperatures.

Re:What's in a Name

[DMUTPeregrine]

Global Warming/Climate Change is either caused by humans or it is not.
Also, it is either harmful to humans or it is not.

If it is harmful to us, then it doesn't matter if we caused it, it merely matters if we can stop/prevent it.
If it is not harmful to us, and it is caused by us, then it's our responsibility, but not as important to us as if it were harmful.
If it is not harmful to us, and not caused by us, then the only reason to stop it is if we care enough about those species it does harm to use the resources needed to stop it.

So if it's harmful to us it doesn't matter if we caused it or not, and since it seems like it could be harmful (and the only way to find out for sure is to let it harm us), then it is in our best interests to try to stop it, to prevent harm to ourselves.

Re:What's in a Name

[pipingguy]

Do you think that vehicles with 10 airbags are "safer"? Is 100% safety desireable or even achievable (remember the law of diminishing returns)?

All the coming disasters claimed by the alarmists are projected to happen only in 100 years or so. "Ah-ha!" you may say, "You don't care about the future and probably eat newborns and burn kittens for fuel as well, evil denier!"

I won't admit to eating newborns but the fireplace is nicely stoked, and the mewing is getting annoying. Maybe I'll move to penguins next time.

Perhaps you are the sort of person who says, "even if it* saves one life it'll be worth it." *Whatever "it" may popularly be today with the crusading do-what-I-say crowd.

Re:What's in a Name

[mvdwege]

Because the mean temperature of the entire globe is rising, it used to be called Global Warming. As more study was thrown at it, side effects that a mean rise in global temperature was found to create were a bigger spread between maxima and minima, effects on ocean currents, and possibly effects on hurricane formation and migration patterns. So Global Warming as a description just didn't cover the entire range of phenomena anymore.

And as pointed out by others, this change in actual scientific terminology is not recent.

Mart

Re:What's in a Name

[jcnnghm]

For exactly the same reason that the Democrats changed all of the documents about their stimulus packages from "Jobs Created" to "Jobs Saved or Created". You can't quantify jobs saved, just as you can't quantify climate change, but it's happening, trust.

Re:What's in a Name

[Ambitwistor]

Scientists have called used the term climate change for decades (I found papers going back to at least the 1960s last time I checked, and that's just from what's available online).

The term "global warming" is a relatively recent, which was popularized in the media. It came to real public prominence after Jim Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress, in which he used the phrase. The media as well as environmental groups embraced the term "global warming". The phrase had been used occasionally by scientists as early as 1975, but it has never been a common substitute for "climate change" in peer reviewed climate journals. In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (not "Global Warming") was commissioned.

In 2002, U.S. Republican strategist Frank Luntz wrote a memo to President Bush advocating he revert to the term "climate change", because "while global warming has catastrophic communications attached to it, climate change sounds like a more controllable and less emotional challenge".

Climate scientists have also traditionally preferred the term "climate change" (and have been using it both before and after "global warming" ever cropped up), since it encompasses all the changes to the climate which may occur and not just global warming.

In an example of having their cake and eating it too, some Republicans, after their party itself advocated the term "climate change", now claim the term was recently invented as some kind of liberal conspiracy to hide the "fact" that the globe warming has stopped.

Re:What's in a Name

[Anonymous Coward]

"Global warming is well underway..."

Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009.

Re:What's in a Name

[NoOneInParticular]

You missed:

If it's harmful to us and it is caused by us, then there's a pretty good chance we can do something about it. If it's not caused by us, we're probably screwed (when using our entire industry to pump CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect, there's probably nothing we can do which affects climate in any way).

Re:What's in a Name

[Coryoth]

Because, to the general public, global warming is confusing. "They're saying we're making the world warmer, so how come I just saw on TV that we're having the coldest winter on record?"

Climate Change more accurately reflects that it's going out of whack in both directions.

This is largely false: things are not going out of whack in both directions, but rather just in one direction -- things are getting warmer. The IPCC clearly states that they expect an increase in the number of extreme warm events and a decrease in the number and severity of extreme cold events. The reality is that climate is still variable, with both warm and cold extremes, especially on a regional scale. A decrease in extreme cold events doesn't mean they won't happen, nor that they won't be very cold, just that they will be less frequent, and less likely to be as extremely cold. Also some rare regional issues (such as the theoretical potential for the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation sutting down bringing colder weather to Europe) may provide other sources of cold spells.

In general however, global warming is not expected to cause more cold spells, or colder extremes, but rather to descrease them.

Re:What's in a Name

[Anonymous Coward]

Append to that the "known fact" meme that this is caused by human activity.

What I would really like to "know" is why people have some kind of doubt that we are responsible. There's more than 25 people per square mile for the entire surface, about 100 per square mile of land. We literally reduce mountains to rubble to get coal. We can destroy all civilization with the push of a big red button. Our pollution can blot out the sun (see Pittsburgh a while back, or China).

There are so many reasons why we are the ultimate power on this planet -- that's undeniable. So my question is why do people like this pipingguy even entertain much less believe that we are powerless over the planet? Maybe there are some with actual mental illness problems, but my guess is that most of these people were raised being taught by their religion that they are powerless (before Gob). Hell, they can't even take responsibility for being moral, upstanding people because they already sinned by virtue being born. And here "science" wants us to be responsible for the whole world? Shyeah, right! I'm trying not to be a troll here, but seriously what possible reason could there be except something irrational like religion?

Re:What's in a Name

[blueg3]

The weather is still the weather. What we're talking about is climate. You should've learned the difference before you left elementary school.

Re:What's in a Name

[spandex_panda]

I read about (in the New Scientist) how the warming arctic is melting permafrost which is possibly related to the cold air flowing down over north america. This is why you call it climate change, there are places which may get colder even as the whole world on average warms.

Re:What's in a Name

[goodmanj]

It's a good question, and the people responding to it on both sides have missed a key point:

"Global warming" implies that we should be worried about temperature. But while temperature rise might be the primary response to greenhouse gases, it's the least of our problems. For most people in most places, a few degrees of warming, mainly in the winter, is no big deal.

It's the *secondary* effects of greenhouse warming --- droughts, floods, meltwater and river flow changes, sea level rise, changes in frequency of severe storms --- that have the potential to seriously disrupt human civilization. These are included under the term "Climate Change", but excluded from "Global Warming".

(And frustratingly, these guys are much harder to understand than the temperature rise.)

Glaciologist

[Centurix]

That's a pretty cool job.

ah, that's better.

Re:Glaciologist

[noidentity]

Glaciologist sounds like a good job for someone who's not quick-witted.

Re:Glaciologist

[aoheno]

Hope he doesn't take a cruise ship to work.

They tend to go straight for the bergs down there.

Global Warming Is A Hoax

[KronosReaver]

Global Warming due to industry and emissions is a hoax...

The truth is the planet keeps getting warmer the closer we get to Hell.

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[YttriumOxide]

Is it sad that in this day and age it's entirely possible the parent ISN'T intended as a joke? (it's moderated "Funny" and I assume that was the intention, but it's not so easy to tell any more.)

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[Burnhard]

Actually, it isn't a joke. People who believe in the AGW religion have a tendency, much like Bronze age fantasists, to assign causes to any and every natural event. I even read an article about Global Warming causing earth quakes. People are all too willing to suspend their rationality in the face of self-proclaimed experts (Hansen, Mann, Gore).

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[YttriumOxide]

The problem is that the "religion" aspect extends to BOTH sides of the debate. Those who argue that climate change could cause a "Day After Tomorrow" sort of situation are at best, completely devoid of both knowledge and reasoning skills (and at worst, complete loonies). On the other side though, those who argue that "There is 'no way' humankind could ever have an effect on our environment" are equally lacking.

I am quite convinced that we are having a measurable effect on our environment, and that without fully understanding the processes involved, it is extremely critical that we examine what we're doing, what effect it is having and, at the same time, take measures to reduce our impact until it is better understood. For this reason, many people who argue that it's all some great conspiracy would be quite quick to label me in with the nutjobs, and this is an intellectually dishonest approach. The vast majority of people that I've talked to (and seen comments from here on slashdot) appear to have the same opinion as myself, however those who argue against us tend to trot out things such as your comment about earthquakes and lump the rest of us in with that crowd. I would kindly request that you stop doing so, as it doesn't serve anyone's interests and only aims to weaken the concept of scientific understanding further.

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[hamburger lady]

People who believe in the AGW religion have a tendency, much like Bronze age fantasists, to assign causes to any and every natural event

so you're saying it's a phenomenon without a cause? cause-and-effect has been suspended?

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[Burnhard]

I am quite convinced that we are having a measurable effect on our environment, and that without fully understanding the processes involved

I didn't say we weren't having an effect on the environment, my point was that any and every natural event is given a globalwarming tag when it doesn't deserve one. Your point about nutjobs is moot, because the very people who are driving AGW policy are nutjobs themselves. If you agree with me that Gore, Mann and Hansen are nutjobs, then the case for AGW falls, because they are its primary proponents.

If you're so concerned about scientific understanding, you'll appreciate that cretinous efforts in climate related fields, particularly with respect to statistical analysis, are doing more to undermine public trust in the scientific method than any nutjob ever could.

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[Burnhard]

so you're saying it's a phenomenon without a cause? cause-and-effect has been suspended?

Where in my paragraph did I even hint that this does not have a "cause"? My point was the assignment of AGW cause and effect. It's "global warming" (sorry, I mean Climate Change - as if that were somehow unusual - the fantasists in the AGW religion changed the meme when it stopped warming), stupid!

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the "religion" aspect extends to BOTH sides of the debate.

Yeah, and atheism is a religion, just like not collecting stamps is a hobby!

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[YttriumOxide]

I didn't say we weren't having an effect on the environment, my point was that any and every natural event is given a globalwarming tag when it doesn't deserve one.

In many cases, that may be true, but the problem comes when you then begin to dismiss everything as being erroneously tagged when the tag might just be valid in some cases.

Your point about nutjobs is moot, because the very people who are driving AGW policy are nutjobs themselves. If you agree with me that Gore, Mann and Hansen are nutjobs, then the case for AGW falls, because they are its primary proponents.

I'm not familiar with Mann and Hansen at all other than seeing some data analysis attributed to them, and only know of Al Gore in passing (he seems a bit towards the nutjob side of things from what I've seen though). Bear in mind that I don't live in the US and so much of the "politics" of it is completely off my radar - the only time I ever see ANY debate is online, and unfortunately "online" tends to be where most nutjobs come out of the woodwork.

I don't accept that "they [Gore, Mann and Hansen] are its [Anthropogenic Global Warming's] primary proponents" though - they may be the most outspoken or best known names in the US (and perhaps elsewhere also), but as soon as ANY individual names start getting mentioned for things that are widely researched by thousands of people across the globe, the trouble begins. I don't care about the people, I care about the science - and from what I've seen, the results of that science is pretty solidly showing right now that there's an effect, and that we need more data, but in the meantime it's probably a good idea to be a bit more careful.

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[YttriumOxide]

As an atheist myself, there's no way I'd say "atheism is a religion". There's also no way I'd say that believing (or disbelieving) a particular scientific theory is a religion. I was referring to the overzealous behaviour that people on both sides of the debate seem to exhibit, taking things often to the absurd and beyond. That's pretty much why I put "religion" in quotes like that...

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[blueg3]

Frankly, religion crops up almost never in this "debate". People listening to others out of authority or because they like the secondary effects of their claims (I don't like higher taxes, so global warming is a myth), whether that person is Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh, isn't religion. For that matter, neither is blind agreement with something because it's convenient or popular, and neither is the tinfoil hat "everything must be a way for the government to control and tax us".

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[YttriumOxide]

Sorry for my misuse of the word religion - obviously I wasn't clear enough in what I meant. I put the word in quotes precisely because I didn't really mean religion itself, but more or less a religious, dogmatic attitude. People who "religiously believe" one side or another without considering the evidence at hand, or deliberately cherry picking evidence that supports their existing beliefs.

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[hamburger lady]

you're an idiot.

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it isn't a joke. People who disbelieve in the AGW theory have a tendency, much like Bronze age fantasists, to assign causes of any and every natural event to an imaginary god. I even read an article about the Earth being flat. People are all too willing to suspend their rationality in the face of self-proclaimed experts (Robertson, Limbaugh, Hitler, Bush, Phelps).

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[aoheno]

I thought we were already in hell trying to get to heaven.

Now I am confused. Where the hell are we?

Re:Global Warming Is A Hoax

[goodmanj]

Hit the link to the poster's profile, and check out his prior posts. He's a wit, not a whacko.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference? - Solved

[michaelhood]

Fortunately, Antarctica is too big to fail - rest assured our representatives are hard at work on crafting a bailout.

This is news?

[Rogerborg]

BREAKING: rain falls, wind blows, sun rises, Star Wars sucks now. Natural processes are not really news.

Re:This is news?

[YttriumOxide]

Natural processes are not really news.

Regardless of your opinions about the cause of it, I beg to differ that natural processes are not news. Hurricanes in south-eastern US, flooding in India, bushfires in Australia, large rocks hurtling through space that might hit us and wipe out all life on earth - all of these are things are "natural processes", but always make the news every time, and quite rightly so.

Re:This is news?

[Tubal-Cain]

That last one was far from a natural process. It took lots of effort.

Re:This is news?

[BeanThere]

(GenericForm(X)!=news therefore X!=news) = FALSE

Re:This is news?

[BeanThere]

Moderators, how can you mod something down that you clearly didn't understand.

Re:This is news?

[FailedTheTuringTest]

Enormous hunk of ice sits quietly where it is while penguins still shiver = natural process = not news

Enormous hunk of ice breaks off and floats off towards South America, penguins wonder if they should have brought sunscreen = natural process (maybe) = news (definitely)

Changes in state are news. The bigger they are the more newsworthy they are. This is true whether the change is a natural process or not, and changes are especially newsworthy if there is some suspicion that they might not be entirely natural, because then we get to ask whodunit.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[pipingguy]

TWIAVBP, look it up. The "Think Globally, Act Locally" mantra ironically often causes well-meaning individuals to "act" on things they know little about as they are primed by "global" organizations whose main interest is self-perpetuation

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference? - Solved

[ShakaUVM]

>>Fortunately, Antarctica is too big to fail - rest assured our representatives are hard at work on crafting a bailout.

I'll just return my Margaritaville.

That'll give us the trillions of dollars we need to bail out the oceans.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

And what is the volume of ice that is resting on land? None of the surface area figures I've seen for the Antarctic specify how much of the area is actual land and how much is ice over water.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[this great guy]

whoooooshhhhh (in slow motion anyway)

So you mean like: wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ooooooooooooooooooooo ssssssssssssssssssssssss hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Ice Shelf Questions??

[Amigori]

I have 2 questions.

According to TFA, the Wilkins Ice Shelf has lost 1,800 km^2 of ice in the past year. This article states that the ice shelf is 200-250m thick. This gives volume lost of 360,000 km^3 to 450,000 km^3; 2000m*900m*200m, 2000m*900m*250m (easy numbers). Remaining area = (1800/.14)-1800 = 11057 km^2.

First question. Is it possible that over time (think glacial timeframe, not human timeframe) that the remaining 11,057 km^2 will rebuild the lost volume? How long is this process? If I remember correctly, Antarctica is a rather dry place regardless of the amount of ice and snow seen in pictures. This would require 32.5m to 40.6m of new packed snowfall/ice to replace what broken off in the past year; 360,000/11,057 = 32.5m, 450,000/11,057 = 40.6m.

Second question. What is the air and surface temperature impact of the hole in the ozone layer? link. Would the increased UV and microwave radiation exposure, especially in the Antarctic summer months, more directly impact surface temperature than global warming?

Re:Ice Shelf Questions??

[Ambitwistor]

Yes, the ice shelf can be rebuilt on glacial time scales (e.g., in the next ice age).

As for the climate impact of ozone loss, your own Wikipedia link has a decent summary: the net affect appears to be slight surface cooling.

The ice bridge is only 2 km!

[G3ckoG33k]

It is hard to get a sense for the scale and the magnitude from the article's pictures. So, I looked it up on Google Earth.

That "ice bridge" protecting the Wilkins Ice shelf is narrow, only about 2 km wide, or slightly more than mile. And it is that which is breaking up. The floating ice area behind it (i.e. to the east) is huge, about 100x100 km!

Once that bridge is broken, sea currents may more easily flush that ice into the high seas. And, what the effects will be then, we don't know I guess.

.

Re:The ice bridge is only 2 km!

[Anonymous Coward]

sea currents may more easily flush that ice into the high seas. And, what the effects will be then, we don't know I guess.

Yes we do. It will melt.

Re:The ice bridge is only 2 km!

[aoheno]

what the effects will be then, we don't know I guess

Another cruise ship or two making a beeline for one of the bergs as they tend to do about twice a year nowadays.

Re:What, No Climate Change Reference? - Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us hope that this Vaughan will not be allowed to read poetry to us. Who knows, maybe we'll die from internal haemorrhaging or the Earth will get destroyed..

There is NO increase in hurricane activity

[slashbart]

Here's a chart of the global hurricane index. It's the lowest it has been in the last 30 years!.
That is probably because the globe's ocean heatcontent is dropping

Re:There is NO increase in hurricane activity

[pipingguy]

Sorry dude, the science is settled.

Re:There is NO increase in hurricane activity

[atraintocry]

Well, I wouldn't say the science is settled but I'm still gonna stick with the NOAA...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/

60 km long and 3 km wide

[G3ckoG33k]

I remeasured it, the ice bridge is about 60 km long and 3 km wide at its waist.

Re:60 km long and 3 km wide

[Donkey_Hotey]

Measure twice, cut once...

RTFA and RTFS

[BeanThere]

Never mind the article, it's right there in the summary: "it will not cause a rise in sea level because it is already floating, scientists say"

Re:RTFA and RTFS

[BeanThere]

Sorry, I misunderstood you ... still asleep.

Re:RTFA and RTFS

[MillionthMonkey]

That would be correct if the meltwater had the same salinity (density) as the ocean water it's floating in and melting into. Being less dense, it doesn't displace its own equivalent volume of ocean water- and the remaining volume is pure contribution to sea level. But the differences in density are small and the contribution to sea level is only a few percent of what it would be if the ice were on land and not already floating. So they just stick to truisms about floating ice cubes.

Ecological disaster awaiting!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if Florida is flooded by rising sea water? All the false teeth and hair pieces would devastate the Atlantic Ocean. I mean Polygrip and Vicks Vapor Rub can't be good for fish. Polyester suits and Golf Balls have to have a bad effect as well. Add in all the Cocaine and pot and you wind up with a lot of stoned fish choking to death on bad hair pieces. Think of the children hell, think of the fish. The picture of a fish coughing up bingo chips is enough to bring tears to my eyes.

Depicted in sci-fi novel Icefire

[KWTm]

Slightly OT: an interesting doomsday scenario was predicted in the sci-fi thriller novel Icefire, by Reeves-Stevens, where a rogue faction in the government of a large country detonates a bunch of bombs around the edge of the Wilkins ice shelf to detach it from land, and then detonate a big blast above it, in effect slapping the ice shelf into the Antarctic Ocean and creating a tsunami that threatens to wipe out the Pacific Rim --Hawaii, California, Japan, etc. It's a fast-paced novel about how the protagonists try to outrace the tsunami wave, which will take most of a day to get to the Pacific Rim, and how they try to warn various incredulous government organizations about how big the danger is, etc.

Oops, waitaminnit, that's the Ross Ice Shelf, not the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Sorry, wrong shelf.

Anyway, worth a read on your next flight that doesn't have WiFi to keep you occupied.

Re:Depicted in sci-fi novel Icefire

[RockDoctor]

Hey, sounds like a good plan. thanks for that.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, the land ice exerts a gravitational force on the surrounding water. This causes the sea level to rise in the vicinity of the ice. If the land ice melts than the sea level will drop (locally at least).

GM

[Anonymous Coward]

a good thing that GM is about to die. Maybe this will mean that we will start seeing some post 1960 technology in US cars...
Oh but I forgot, all the creationists and other religious nuts don't believe in global warming.

The Obumbler drops some wisdom on hapless...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eurotrash:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

Barack Hussein Obumbler's theory of economics - the swimming pool model:

Moving water from the deep end of the pool to the shallow end tends to equalize the depth of the two ends.

Hide your mistakes

[bradley13]

Because they original "AGW" scientists saw the writing on the wall. There is no human-caused warming, only natural variation. So how can they preserve credibility? Why, change the name. Now, no matter what kind of natural, cyclical change happens, they are bound to be right: "we said 'climate change' and the climate changed".

I'm old enough to remember the last global-cooling scare. In 10 to 20 years, we'll all see the next one, as a new generation of lousy researchers confuses anecdotal evidence with science.

Adapt argument shows true colours

[microbox]

"our committee does not believe that the climate is warming".

Or, if it is warming, we should adapt to the changes instead of addressing economic activity. That's when they show their true colours.

Basically all this noise is just a big psychotic roadblock to change.

Re:Adapt argument shows true colours

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people believe that health, happiness and well-being of individuals is important. Changes in temperature can be dealt with easily in a free country.

All the environmentalism is just a big psychotic impediment to human happiness.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[Kjella]

More like: wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww *to be continued in 2010*

Misleading headline much?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The ice shelf is imminently expected to break away from ONE island which is considered part of the Antarctic Peninsula. It will still be connected to another island which is considered part of the Antarctic Peninsula.

So the Earth is shrinking?

[Kupfernigk]

The mediaeval idea was that hell was in the centre of the Earth - which is why you get volcanoes. In Dante's cosmology, Purgatory was a mountain on the opposite side of the Earth from Jerusalem.

It's remembering this kind of stuff that reminds me why, at bottom, I don't believe the anti-anthropogenic-climate-change brigade; throughout history, the people who opposed the scientists (not the next generation of scientists, the contrarians) have always turned out to be wrong.

The only reason this makes news?

[EskimoJoe]

Seriously, the only reason we hear about these icebergs is due to people using fear to scare mankind into making costly measures to prevent some mythical disaster. Mankind has a remarkable ability to adapt to change. The creatures of this earth also adapt to change. If the conditions are not favorable, they die. Why after all these years of living on this planet do we think we have the ability to stop it? I have seen figures saying more will be spent to ATTEMPT to stop warming than will be spent adapting to the change. It is a SHAM we are trying to stop natural change and are AFRAID to adapt.

Re:The only reason this makes news?

[An Onerous Coward]

I hear these two lies a lot.

First, the lie that it's easier to adapt to climate change than prevent it. It's a lie, because the only way we're going to get through this is to do both. We're already pretty much guaranteed a rise of 2C. More likely, we'll end up with 3C, even with aggressive action. There are going to be changes, and we are going to have to adapt. Worse, we're already at risk of running into feedback loops that will compound the rise.

But if we try to take your "adapt only" approach, while changing nothing about the behaviors that brought us here in the first place, if we keep increasing our coal mining, if we unlock the CO2 in tar sands, if we increase our deforestation rates, we're talking a rise of 6C or 7C. The consequences will be apocalyptic.

The second lie is that the ecosystems will adapt. Except, we suppose, for those lesser, unworthy species which are too weak or stupid, but hey, we're better off without them. Proponents act as though we're doing the ecosystem a favor.

This is a very dangerous sort of stupidity. First, we are making changes to the Earth at a pace that vastly outstrips the ecosystem's natural adaptability. That rise in global temperature has to be viewed in the context of the toxins we put into the ecosystem, the way our structures break up and separate swaths of habitat, our penchant for introducing new species everywhere we go, man-made dead zones in the ocean, and a thousand other stresses we're already putting on the ecosystem.

We also have to remember that, while the Earth has had large temperature swings in the past, they were spread out over much longer timeframe. The difference between a 5C swing over a hundred thousand years, and a similarly large swing over 150 years is the difference between gently braking to a stop and slamming into a concrete wall.

Finally, and most important, proponents of your dangerous delusions act as though we are utterly disconnected from our natural world. If you calculated the economic value of all the economic services we get from our natural world, well, it dwarfs the costs of anything we could consider doing to preserve them. If we assume that climate change leads to even a 20% degradation in the value of those services, it will hurt mankind more than anything most global warming doomsayers are proposing.

Re:The only reason this makes news?

[Ant P.]

Why after all these years of living on this planet do we think we have the ability to stop it?

Why not?

Re:The only reason this makes news?

[FailedTheTuringTest]

Yes indeed, ecosystems change. They sure do. The problem is that if global average temperatures rise significantly, then the new changed ecosystems will tend to have less of the things that we find very convenient, such as places to grow huge fields of wheat, and more of the things that we don't really want, like malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Re:The only reason this makes news?

[falconwolf]

Mankind has a remarkable ability to adapt to change. The creatures of this earth also adapt to change.

Yes, humans can adapt and so can those creatures. However those creatures need tyme to adapt.

I have seen figures saying more will be spent to ATTEMPT to stop warming than will be spent adapting to the change.

And I've seen figures that are the opposite of yours, that it will cost less to try to stop change than it will to adapt.

Falcon

Re: Motion is bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse, glacier motion is lubricated by water - so if there's already a lot more meltwater under the glaciers --- whoooooshhhhh (in slow motion anyway)

Highly compressed landmass under glacier could expand rapidly when glacier slides and weight distribution changes. Resulting earthquake would destabilize surrounding glaciers even more and even worse, could cause a tsunami. Talk about self-reinforcing loop.

oblig

[ZosX]

"The planet has a fever" -Al Gore

**perhaps** ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's why that inconvenient truth isn't out there, because it perhaps ISN'T TRUE.

And china already have a declining population (child control: when are YOU going to get limited to one child per family???) and the also took up all the outsourced manufacturing jobs and all the emissions needed to support that. Inconveniently enough, despite having removed heavy industry to China, your country didn't drop its pollution rate.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[bartwol]

You can't do justice to the slowness of this whoosh. It reminds me of the Austin Powers scene where a Austing commandeers a very-slow-moving steamroller and steers it toward a security guard who, standing in its path, screams and cowers interminably but fails to simply and slowly step out of the way.

If you're rich enough to have a house so large as to be unrelocatable in the time frame we're talking about, then I am not concerned about your ability to survive. And if you're impoverished and living in a sea-side hut, then I have great confidence in your ability to adapt to the change.

And what of the costs of relocation? That's an unfortunate inefficiency to me. But for the people who are able to rationalize jobs created through "green" regulations, it *should* be as easy to rationalize the relocation requirements as "creating jobs".

Sheesh.

HAHA ice gets "threatened" status!

[jcypher]

From the fine article: "It is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened." So, thinking about the US response to "threatened" spiders, frogs, and other critters...that language prepares us all to have our own rights restricted in deference to ice chunks. Sheesh.

Yeah but CO2 is remarkably worthless.

[tjstork]

the problem of expecting a CO2 market to emerge is that its basically worthless. Everybody can make CO2, its the getting rid of it is that tricky part. If you really wanted to make money, then take a CO2 tax, and then use the money to construct giant atmospheric scrubbers.

Re:Yeah but CO2 is remarkably worthless.

[wizardforce]

CO2 can form the basis of organic chemical synthesis for industry. CO2 can be reduced to carbon monoxide which is *enormously useful* in chemistry being used to reduce and separate metals from their ores, as a chemical fuel, as a chemical feedstock for the synthesis of solvents, plastics etc... so no, it is plenty useful, it is just that oil is cheaper to synthesize other things with at its currently low price. a carbon tax could also work as a part of the green tax shift. cap and trade systems have been used successfully to reduce NOx and SOx emissions so adapting it to CO2 should also work with a few modifications as i had mentioned previously.

Re:Yeah but CO2 is remarkably worthless.

[tjstork]

I have no faith that cap and trade will work. The President's budget basically goes and gathers up all these CO2 taxes and then spends it on health care. That to me tells me what cap and trade really is, just another redistribution of wealth scheme. Can't get enough from taxing income, so now we have to pay taxes every time we build a fire. Go figure.

If we really wanted to get reduce greenhouse gasses, then we would be building nuclear power plants, because, if the nation so willed it, we could build sufficient plants to replace all of our coal, oil and nat gas plants in a decade. But, its not that important and so we'll dick with windmills and solar and pretty much nothing will change, the CO2 will keep going up, and so will the taxes. But this isn't going to help the environment... it never has been about the environment. It's just another socialist scheme, like we've said all along.

I predict that regardless of what treaty Obama signs, or cap and trade he signs, the Earth's CO2 will be higher in 10 years than it is today.

Re:Yeah but CO2 is remarkably worthless.

[Ambitwistor]

The President's budget basically goes and gathers up all these CO2 taxes and then spends it on health care.

No. About 75-80% of the revenues go to the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, and the remainder go to non-carbon energy and technology initiatives.

So its a lie...

[tjstork]

The name Climate Change is a lie. If its global warming that you are hawking, you don't change what you are selling because the guy in minnesota is having the worst winter ever. This kind of constant rebranding just infuriates me because it makes me think that the people doing it are a mess of liars. If you think the planet is warming up, call it global warming, because that's what it is.

Re:So its a lie...

[YttriumOxide]

Did you even read my post before replying? You're doing EXACTLY what I said people do - assuming that the "rebranding" came after it got all political, when in reality it occurred a long time ago in order to better fit the evidence at hand.

Re:So its a lie...

[falconwolf]

If its global warming that you are hawking, you don't change what you are selling because the guy in minnesota is having the worst winter ever.

Minnesota is having it's worst winter? AHAH!!! What a laugh, thanks. I live in Minneapolis, Minnesota and this winter has been mild. I'm getting ready now to plant my garden. I've been here almost 10 years and the coldest it got was a few years ago. When I first came here, to visit my sister for Christmas, it was warmer here than in Florida where I lived. Snow mobile sellers and other winter industry players payed for billboard ads asking "God" to send snow. There was very little of it, most of the ground was grass.

Falcon

Re:So its a lie...

[tjstork]

Minnesota was just an example of "some place"... not be taken literally. Satellite temperatures show North America was quite bit warmer than normal in Jan 2009 but has been cooling off since.

Re:So its a lie...

[tjstork]

The problem is that the Global WArming brand was pushed so hard by certain groups that it became -the- brand, regardless of whatever scientists might have called it. Hansen called it Global Warming. Al Gore called it Global Warming. Plenty of environmental advocacy groups called it Global Warming and that was the message that stuck in the public mind, not, what scientists decided to call it in journals that don't have mass circulation.

noshellswill

[noshellswill]

Heh broken ice ... so mebby a few penguins get smotched. But hellsbelles we shoulda imported a few polar-bears decades ago. Keeps the lil' tux-b*stards frisky. Oh yeah... ice. Drop a cube-or-two into my martini ... please.

It's all about the CO2

[hidispenser]

Climate Change more accurately reflects that it's going out of whack in both directions.

I seem to remember Al Gore stating that when CO2 levels increase, so does the temperature. So are CO2 levels increasing or not? If they are, then call it "Global Warming". Changing the term to "Climate Change" sounds, to me, like a child who keeps adding on to his "story" every time he's caught in a lie.

Re:Yeah, yeah but but...

[Urkki]

Interestingly, the land ice exerts a gravitational force on the surrounding water. This causes the sea level to rise in the vicinity of the ice. If the land ice melts than the sea level will drop (locally at least).

Uh... If the sea level drops locally, then it means that the water goes elsewhere, ie. the sea level rises globally.

melting ice and planting trees

[falconwolf]

if we replant the forests, what are the terrible, terrible consequences?

While I support stopping deforestation and support planting more trees, science is all over the park as to whether planting trees will actually absorb more CO2 than what is emitted do to their planting. Some research shows more CO2 is emitted from planting trees than the trees will absorb. I think more research should be done.

Falcon

Re:melting ice and planting trees

[shutdown -p now]

How much more? I doubt there is a major difference even in the worst case (compared to other major sources of CO2 emission), and there are many other good reasons why replanting trees is a good idea in general.

Re:melting ice and planting trees

[An Onerous Coward]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. The perverse incentives in the Kyoto Protocol were especially concerning.

We are talking about shelf ice.

[falconwolf]

Shelf ice is like an ice cube in your coke. If the ice melts the coke level will neither rise nor fall. And the same thing happens when you are playing with large ice cubes in an ocean.

True, melting ice doesn't raise sea level however thermal expansion does. There's also the ice on land, when it melts it runs to the sea which does raise sea level.

Falcon

Antarctic Ice Desintegration Rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Ross Ice Shelf in the Antarctic expands with the average speed 2.5 meters a day(!). Assuming no iceberg breakage how long would it take to reach New Zealand?

(From http://tegirinenashi.wordpress.com/)

A green shift in taxation may also improve

[falconwolf]

conditions. Shifting away from our current very complicated tax system toward one that both functions to discourage wasteful consumption and simplifies the tax code [eliminating many tax loopoles in the process] may actually offer an overall economic benefit outside of the environment its self.

I and others have proposed as much. I'd like to abolish individual income taxes and replace it with consumption (sales) and pollution taxes and usage fees. That is at the federal level. At the state and local levels property taxes can also be used.

Falcon

I think a market based approach is not really work

[falconwolf]

The actual problem with the CO2-certificates is that they are not reduced every year and they get it for free.

Cap and trade can do this. Cap how much can be emitted then auction off permits to emit. If an entity emits more than they have permits for they either have to buy more from those willing to sale or they pay a fine. Then each year the cap is lowered. Of course the devil is in the details, Europe was gung ho with cap and trade but they haven't been able to get it to work right. Also there's a problem with deforestation, deforestation in the Amazon and in Indonesia are big contributors to emissions. Perhaps those who want more permits can pay to preserve forests and or reforest areas. Another problem, Bush came out against Kyoto because it didn't limit every nation, is that some nations will not accept emission limits. China has now surpassed the US as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Falcon

I disagree that CO2 is a pollutant, as plants need

[falconwolf]

it for one.

Humans need water too but too much can still kill you.

Falcon

nuclear power

[falconwolf]

*remove regulatory barriers to the development of nuclear power, 3rd generation designs are of sufficient safety and can serve to take the burden off of fossil fuels in regard to energy.

You say destroy subsidies to industry then you say the above. If not for subsidies nuclear power would not exist. The freemarket CATO institute published an article originally from Forbes entitled "Hooked on Subsidies" that goes over the cost of energy and shows nuclear power is too costly and would not be profitable without subsidies. If left strictly to the market nuclear power plants would not be built, not even in China, France, India, or Russia.

Falcon

Re:nuclear power

[wizardforce]

indeed however I wonder just how much of that cost was due to overly restrictive regulations and not the failings of nuclear power its self.

Re:nuclear power

[falconwolf]

indeed however I wonder just how much of that cost was due to overly restrictive regulations and not the failings of nuclear power its self.

China, France, India, and Russia do not have those "overly restrictive regulations" yet nuclear isn't profit without subsidies and other government assistance in those countries either.

Falcon

Re:I disagree that CO2 is a pollutant, as plants n

[cagrin]

Yes and that stuff about drinking 8 glasses of water a day is garbage(though it might actually be good for you if the water was oxygenated). Btw, from my understanding fluoride actually acts to reduce IQ among other things (such as brittle bones) and was used in water by Nazi Germany to keep prisoners from wanting to escape concentration camps. Just a little tidbit. Take the Red Pill and wake the fuck up.

too much water can kill you

[falconwolf]

Yes and that stuff about drinking 8 glasses of water a day is garbage

Shove you head in the water and it can be bad.

from my understanding fluoride actually acts to reduce IQ among other things (such as brittle bones)

I don't know about fluorine reducing IQ but it can cause fluorosis, which as one of the photos shows can cause the mouth and teeth to be stained, and cause brittle bones. What happens is that fluorine replaces calcium in the bones which weakens them. I don't know the validity of it but it's been suggested that that's why the elderly break their hips and other bones easily.

Falcon

climate change or global warming

[falconwolf]

I seem to remember Al Gore stating that when CO2 levels increase, so does the temperature. So are CO2 levels increasing or not? If they are, then call it "Global Warming". Changing the term to "Climate Change" sounds, to me, like a child who keeps adding on to his "story" every time he's caught in a lie.

It's called climate change and not global warming because while the earth as a whole is supposed to be warming in specific areas it can actually cool. It makes no sense to say warming when some places will have lower temperatures.

Falcon

Re: Global warming is a myth, I insist! - types

[ibsteve2u]

I have concluded that observing that even the possibility of global warming should be a matter of great concern is pointless when you are dealing with people who believe that all problems relating to the melting of ice can be corrected by adjusting your gin to vermouth ratio.

Some plants and animals may have to adapt

[Jaroslav.Tucek]

"Some plants and animals may have to adapt to the collapse"

Erm ... like learning how to swin?

Is that measurement flaccid of fully erect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that measurement flaccid of fully erect?
Length not so important as girth.

PS:

[TapeCutter]

I also looked at your links and lo and behold it's a "swift boat" site that just happens to agree with your politics...

Speficially they are part of this ex-senators lobbying efforts, you may recall he also set up a similar shop to assist the tabacco industry.

Re:PS:

[ArcherB]

I also looked at your links and lo and behold it's a "swift boat" site that just happens to agree with your politics...

Speficially they are part of this ex-senators lobbying efforts, you may recall he also set up a similar shop to assist the tabacco industry.

Rather than attacking the source as you so often do, why don't you find DATA that is contrary to what was provided. It doesn't matter where the data comes from. Fact is FACT! It is true 100% of the time. It doesn't matter if it's hosted on TheDailyKOS or LittleGreenFootballs, FACT is still FACT! Granted some sites do fudge the numbers or report only that which supports their cause, so you have to look out for that. But until you can provide me data that refutes what was on the page, I am going to assume that you have none and it is correct, regardless of your opinion of the source.

Re:PS:

[TapeCutter]

Was there some specific point on the page you want me to refute because quite frankly there is so much wrong with it I don't know where to start?

Thing is I've never heard of that link before but it's full of the standard red-herrings and half-truths, when I'd read enough of them I looked at the names of their so called scientists. Some stand out like dogs balls, the names also pop up in connection with the heartland institute. You would probably recognise such luminaries as Fred Singer, Dr Ball, George Will, senator Inhofe?

You can rant about FACTS all you like but that site doesn't tell you where it gets it's so called facts from and even when it does give you some clues their primary source does not agree with them on at least one major point.

Re:PS:

[ArcherB]

While this question was not posed to me, I think I'll take a stab at it anyway.

I would say, "pretty damn good." Take THIS graph for example. It shows MORE ice in the southern hemisphere.

Which is the exact opposite of what THIS article states. So, the data doesn't back up the predictions. Strange. Maybe the predictions were wrong?

Then, there is THIS graph reporting the average temperatures in Antarctica. Hmmmm. It's going down? So, who is correct here; the predictions or the data? Are you one of these people who changes the data when it doesn't meet your expected results?

This is what I posted earlier. There are three links. If you can find data that refutes it, let's hear it. Don't sit there and bash the source because you don't like the data.

Put up or Shut up!

Re:PS:

[Ambitwistor]

You totally didn't pay any attention to what he said, did you?

Hint: your second link does not contradict your first link. Can you guess why?

Re:PS:

[ArcherB]

I read a bit of his link. It appears that he is still trying to attack the source and not the actual data. I think you got it though. It's so simple. I don't know what's taking Cutter so long. I thought I gave it away when I asked him to find his own data, but he's so busy attacking the source, that he didn't bother to check it.

Now, don't tell him. Let's see if he gets it. I think he's had enough hints.

Re:PS:

[TapeCutter]

I don't know what the "IT" you are talking about actually is, you haven't stated what what the hell you are on about.

The two bullshit graphs are supposedly for the southern hemisphere, the article talks about the northern hemisphere and is unrelated. One graph indicates it's colder the other indicates nothing has changed.

A common psuedo-skeptical technique is to conflate the two hemispheres, add them together or pick one particular sensor. I don't know what idiocy they have used in their political marketing and since they don't even credit the data for the second graph I couldn't care less.

As for data to debunk it, unless you have a memory problem you are already aware that I have posted it. Have another look at the NASA links from the GRACE sattelite and the 50 peer-reviewed papers from Nature and Science I posted.

Re:PS:

[ArcherB]

Congratulations! You got it! It took you 48 hrs, but you finally got it. You are now a beginner skeptic. You are a very poor skeptic, but a skeptic nonetheless!

Unfortunately, since it took you so long to figure out, I don't have time to go with my original argument. Tell you what. Read the second article I provided and google "Northwest Passage". You have another 48 hrs.

Good luck and NO HELP THIS TIME!

As for data to debunk it, unless you have a memory problem you are already aware that I have posted it. Have another look at the NASA links from the GRACE sattelite and the 50 peer-reviewed papers from Nature and Science I posted.

Debunked it? Debunked what and with what? All I see is a wiki page on on a Senator and an interview about an AlGore movie.

However, going further back in your posts, long before I joined in...(who's the one with the memory problem?) You did link to a couple of google searches. Kinda ironic that you limited them to a single source each. This from a guy who's been hammering the trustworthiness of sources limits his search to a two sources.
  Now, let's go back to your original question:

Under your stated assumptions, what's the probability that Antarctica and/or Greenland is NOT losing ice?

Because you have OR in there, and Antarctica is NOT losing ice, then I have to say, with multiple sources, that YES Antarctica OR Greenland is NOT losing ice!
Site

There is evidence the ocean in this region is somewhat warmer in recent years - true enough - but this fact is dwarfed by the mounting evidence the overall ice mass of Antarctica is increasing.

Site:

However, in a study to appear in this week's online edition of Science, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass

There's more, of course. Just take your sources out and google something without including the sources you want to use. Of course, you know that, just chose to ignore it when looking for data that backs up your own preconceived notions.

Now, to link it back to this story. Yes, a large ice sheet is about to break from Antarctica. However, it may not be because of any type of warming, it could be quite the opposite. It could easily be because the temperature in Antarctica has actually dropped a recently due to a cooling trend that has taken place since 1998. (In fairness, here is the whole thing). Maybe there's just been more snow this year. Either way, I've seen nothing to indicate this ice sheet breaking off has anything to do with temperature changes.

Also, the same could be true of glaciers disappearing. The coldest winters I've spent have been driest ones. You don't spend a whole lot of time in a cold area to realize that -15 F is too damn cold for snow. 15-32 F above zero is where you get your precipitation. Also, you'll learn that extremely cold temps, ice tends to evaporate (sublimate) more as the air is drier since all the moisture has already been frozen out. So, given this, purely from my personal experience, colder temps can and do cause ice to disappear. Fact is that ice levels may have very little to do with temperature changes and much more to do with precipitation, which is a while different argument.

Re:PS:

[TapeCutter]

"Congratulations!"

Now you are pretending it was some sort of test?

"You did link to a couple of google searches. Kinda ironic that you limited them to a single source each. This from a guy who's been hammering the trustworthiness of sources limits his search to a two sources."

You do realise journals are ranked in acedemia don't you, Nature is ranked #1, I threw in the lowly Science rag as backup.

"Antarctica is NOT losing ice"

Refer to the NASA link and the previous list of 50 Nature and science articles. Also the site you link to does not mention that climate models predicted higher rates of warming in the Artic and The antartic pennisula, exactly what we have been observing, see IPCC wrt polar amplification.

"but this fact is dwarfed by the mounting evidence the overall ice mass of Antarctica is increasing"

So why post a link to a paper that only talks about increased snow in East Antarctic? You do realise that climate models predict a rise is snowfall above 3000ft, right? And that this was a psuedo-skeptical favorite for causing confusion a few years back when talking about similar phenomena in Greenland.

"due to a cooling trend that has taken place since 1998."

If you believe cherry picked crap I have a bridge to sell you.

Also ice is less likeley to sublimate at the poles than elswhere due the the high pressure ceters that are permanently over them. Sublimation rate is due to related vapour pressure and has nothing to do with humidty (until the air is saturated).

I am quite capable of debunking your red-herrings but do not wish to spend all my time spoon feeding idiots, why you keep posting ancient psudeo-skeptical crap is beyond me.

"Good luck and NO HELP THIS TIME!"

You want me to dance for you? - fuck off!

Re:PS:

[ArcherB]

You do realise journals are ranked in acedemia don't you, Nature is ranked #1, I threw in the lowly Science rag as backup.

Academia? You're serious? Academia is a liberal bastion of socialist thought by people who couldn't get a job doing what they teach. Of course, they do good work on occasion, but never rely on a single source for information.

Refer to the NASA link and the previous list of 50 Nature and science articles. Also the site you link to does not mention that climate models predicted higher rates of warming in the Artic and The antartic pennisula, exactly what we have been observing, see IPCC wrt polar amplification.

First, I have provided my own data that shows Antarcica is NOT losing ice, or more precisely, the Souther Hemisphere is not losing ice. The difference is that my data had numbers. It showed that the ice had increased and by how much. Your data had some guy saying that Antarctica is losing ice. Sorry, but I need numbers and the raw data, not a conclusion from some guy who is looking to insure funding.

Of course, I respect NASA and NASA does good work. However, as you have said yourself, they screw up from time to time. Why just read this slashdot article that tells how NASA went with an older, less accurate method of measuring ice because more accurate data would negate the older, less accurate data. Seriously! Now are these measurements you bring up from NASA using the older "sensor drifting" tech? Yes they are because it's what NASA uses! Here's a quote from the article:

Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.

GRACE is not as accurate as you would believe either. I noticed that your searches were limited to two sources and GRACE data only.

So, who do you believe? Do you believe your sources that say Greenland and Antarctica are melting? Do you believe the sources that are counter to that?

The result is a mixed picture, with a net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above 1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The trend below 1500 metres however does not include the steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable.

The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area, when corrected for post-Ice Age uplift of the bedrock beneath the ice sheet. These results are remarkable because they are in contrast to previous scientific findings of balance in Greenland's high-elevation ice.

Truth is that you don't know. The scientists don't know. No one knows for sure. When you find a source that says they don't know, that's the one you believe. You rely on data, not opinion. Make your own analysis, don't rely on someone else's.

As for the climate prediction models you mentioned.... which ones? The ones that say we'll increase our temperature by 1.6 degrees over the next 100 years? How about the ones that say that the Northwest passage will be open in 40 years? Maybe the one that says that the north pole wil

Re:PS:

[TapeCutter]

"Academia is a liberal bastion of socialist thought by people who couldn't get a job doing what they teach."

Sorry, I didn't read past your dogma this time.

Re:PS:

[Ambitwistor]

Ok, so apparently you were too dumb to figure out why the second link didn't contradict the first. You had to have it spelled out for you.

The bridge has broken!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm

Upon review of satellite photos, it appears to have been caused by weight of millions of unopened copies of Windows Vista discarded here...

And this is news?

[JimThink]

This is news because???
a) We need more grant money.
b) Must raise taxes on 'carbon'.
c) Ice shelves do that.
d) All of the above.

My thoughts on global warming / climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

The two aspects of global warming that no one can answer with any certainty are: 1) How much climate change is natural vs man made; 2) What are the repercussions. The world has spent a lot of time and money trying to answer both of those questions and still cannot.

If we had applied those resources to solving world hunger instead of climate change, I'm guessing we could have saved millions of lives.

toyotabedzrock

[toyotabedzrock]

Is it just me or does it seem idiotic to assume that a map made in the 1930s is accurate enough to make predictions about loosing ice.

I think more research should be done.

[falconwolf]

How much more? I doubt there is a major difference even in the worst case (compared to other major sources of CO2 emission), and there are many other good reasons why replanting trees is a good idea in general.

First, notice I said "I support stopping deforestation and support planting more trees" so I obviously believe it's a good idea to plant trees. So on to "how much more?" Do more research until science figures out what trees to place where, how to plant them, and what the effects will be.

Falcon

Kyoto

[falconwolf]

The perverse incentives in the Kyoto Protocol were especially concerning.

What's even more perverting is that countries in Europe and elsewhere use biofuel to reduce their emmissions. A lot of that biofuel is made from palm oil which is imported from Indonesia. And how does Indonesia get it? The Bog Barons raze rainforest and drain the bogs to grow palm. This causes more CO2 to be released than if petroleum was used for fuel. That "New Scientist" article explains it pretty good.

Falcon

Minnesota was just an example of "some place"...

[falconwolf]

not be taken literally

Maybe it was supposed to be figurative but another place would have been better to use.

Falcon

Cargo Cult Science

[slashbart]

Thank you for that interesting link!
One of the things that really worries me about this whole 'climate science' thing is the incredible amount of ego, posturing and politics involved. I started years ago with just assuming that the climate scientist were knowing what they're talking about. I'm a physicist, and know how science in physics works, and I pressumed that it would be the same in climate science. But then these creeps like Al Gore started adding their (considerable) weight to the debate with the science is settled.
Ofcourse the science can't be settled. Hardly any science is settled, let alone one as young as complex and as unexperimentable as climate science.
Then I went to a lecture by Amsterdam Paleo-Ecology professor Dr. Bas van Geel, who clearly showed that there are definitely many open ends and that it's unsure what proportion of the warm late 20th century is due to manmade CO2.
It bothers the hell out of me that something that has such large consequences already (extra taxes and such), and maybe large consequences in the future (real climate change, caused by us) is being run like a bloody kindergarten. I'm pretty sure that the late Richard Feynman would have called climate science an example of his Cargo Cult Sciences, that uses the tools of physics without its way of thinking.

All in all it bothers me that both sides (Mann, Watts, Hansen) have political agendas and use their positions (important blog, head of GISS) to pervert this whole process of collecting knowledge.
I'm fairly sure we'll know quite a bit more in the coming decades, and for know it pleases me that the majority of the population is becoming as sceptical as I am.