Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

An anonymous reader writes with this bit of good news for everyone who is waiting for their homes to one day be on the beach. Melting ice is fuelling sea-level rise around the coast of Antarctica, a new report in Nature Geoscience finds. Near-shore waters went up by about 2mm per year more than the general trend for the Southern Ocean as a whole in the period between 1992 and 2011. Scientists say the melting of glaciers and the thinning of ice shelves are dumping 350 billion tonnes of additional water into the sea annually. This influx is warming and freshening the ocean, pushing up its surface. "Freshwater is less dense than salt water and so in regions where an excess of freshwater has accumulated we expect a localized rise in sea level," explained Dr Craig Rye from the University of Southampton, UK, and lead author on the new journal paper.

Comments

unfair policy

[turkeydance]

the Arctic sea level demands compensation.

Re:unfair policy

[Joe_Camel]

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

Re:unfair policy

[itzly]

Arctic ice is still in a downwards trend, despite some year to year fluctuations due to different weather patterns. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...

Re:unfair policy

[Barsteward]

but is the icecap as thick as it used to be???

Re:unfair policy

[stjobe]

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

Sure, it's expanded by 41% in the last two years. What you fail to mention is that 2012 was a record low.

Guess that didn't fit into your "global warming scam" world-view?

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

But...but... it was really cold here this winter. Therefore global warming is clearly bullshit. Right?

Re:unfair policy

[haruchai]

Wrong.
If you look at the winter & spring periods, all the recent years had more ice than 2006 and yet they all finished much lower by the end of the summer melt.

That means more heat in the system - and you should research just how much heat is needed to melt ice.
HINT: it's a LOT

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...

This is only ice extent, which is probably the worst indicator of the decline in Arctic ice. Total ice area and volume are far better but more difficult to get accurate numbers.

Re:unfair policy

[TitusC3v5]

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

Pro tip: Lie Less

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

But...but... it was really cold here this winter. Therefore global warming is clearly bullshit. Right?

No, but they way the predictions have been used we have seen colder climate than the predictions for some decade straight now.
Thats the problem with exaggerating. Eventually people get tired about someone crying wolf that they won't listen when the wolf actually shows up.
In retrospect it had been better to underreport the climate predictions and adjusted as things turn worse rather than the other way around.

Re:unfair policy

[Pino Grigio]

Certainly not as thick as many climate alarmists here, no.

Re:unfair policy

[ganjadude]

no, its not, it used to cover the entire earth...

Re:unfair policy

[NatasRevol]

Back when Homo sapiens didn't exist.

Re:unfair policy

[ganjadude]

true, however that was not the question asked, the question was is it as big as it used to be, without a time frame, the answer is always no, until it covers the entire earth once again

Re: unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Heres what I think...

All scientific studiy results and proclamations should begin with:

"Well, we don't really know, but we think... (Insert scientific mumbo jumbo here)"

Because we don't really know, do we?

I'm sick of all the global warming / climate change bullshit.

There is / isn't water on the moon / mars.

Coffee is good / bad for you

See what I mean? It's endless bullshit.

We don't REALLY know, do we?

Re:unfair policy

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Actually, there is a lot to learn about the accusations of institutional racism in Silicon Valley here.

If you compare the demographics of both areas, the Arctic is predominantly "white" (polar bears), while the Antarctic is overwhelmingly "black" (penguins). Thus, if institutional racism was responsible, you would expect the Arctic to be rising faster. Since this is not the case, researchers are forced to search for a more scientific explanation of the observed behavior.

Part of the answer could be found in the preferred occupations the residents. Polar bears prefer to source their food from the trash cans of humans in the city of Churchill, Canada, so they want more land for humans and their accompanying trash cans. Penguins prefer a healthier diet of fish sourced from the sea, and thus have a vested interest in a bigger sea to fish in. This may or may not be the answer to faster rising levels in the Antarctic, but in this case Silicon Valley CEOs can safely claim that it is not due to institutional racism in their industry.

I think my argument makes just about much or little sense as other arguments for claiming compensation for the Arctic or in Silicon Valley.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

The Western side of Antarctica has gained some mass but not enough to counteract the much more massive amount the Eastern side has lost. So, a much larger net negative.

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem. The insurance companies ["How The Insurance Industry Sees Climate Change", "For Insurers, No Doubts on Climate Change", "Rift Widening Between Energy and Insurance on Climate Change", "Insurer's Message: Prepare for Climate Change or Get Sued", "On Climate Change: Get Ready or Get Sued" have concluded we have a problem. But, in the interest of sticking with their political druthers, a significant fraction of the American population has decided that 97% of the climate scientists and the insurance companies must be wrong. These people--Conservatives, essentially--are willing to take a risk that 3% of climate scientists are correct and that the insurance companies and 97% of climate scientists are wrong--merely because it serves their political persuasion.

Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of climate scientists to take our point of view and the insurance companies too if this were bullshit? Yet, all these wiseass Conservatives are willing to take a risk with our frickin' planet just so they can jam a finger in the eye of their political rivals--ignoring the reality that has the potential to end life on the damned planet. In short, WTF is going on in the mind of Conservatives? How do you look at all these insurance companies and think: "It's a Liberal plot!" Can you be so stupid?

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they can raise premiums and make even more money off of all the fear mongering. Climate is always changing. The Sun, volcanic eruptions (including underwater volcanoes of Antarctica), forest fires, and other natural emissions of methane and CO2 are the driving factors, not humanity. Our CO2 emissions are so small it is statistically insignificant in the scheme of things. Read the NIPCC Reports for a collection of scientific papers referencing the same data sets used by the IPCC but without the cherry picking and political bias. The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted. NIPCC doesn't deny that the climate is changing and doesn't say that humanity has no effect, it just points out how grossly exaggerated the IPCC reports are.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The 97% comment is a lie and people who repeat it are not interested in the truth.

The link I provided shows a study of over 11,000 scientific papers on climate change where only 0.3% expressed an opinion on if it was man-made or not. Their "global consensus" is based on 0.3% of published papers.

Please look up this consensus yourself and find out where the statements come from.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth

That could be 29 people out of 7,000,000,000+, if you only asked the top 30 climate scientists.

Re:unfair policy

[I'm New Around Here]

Actually, penguins are "white and black", so bi-racial.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are what we call a pyscopath.

Re:unfair policy

[Pino Grigio]

Because it's an absolutely fantastic opportunity to make huge amounts of money from lots of poor suckers. Can you imagine it? No need for fearmongering ad campaigns; the politicians and activist-scientists do it for you. Scare everybody witless then sell them insurance.

It's such a brilliant idea I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Oh I remember now... I'm not a sociopath.

Re:unfair policy

[NatasRevol]

Yeah, because reasonable people assume a reasonable scope - when humans were living.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

Not according to Zwally, et al. (abstract, pdf)

Melting has always occurred around Antarctica. That doesn't mean it's losing ice.

The net gain (86 Gigatons / year) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

[emphasis mine]

Funny how these contrary studies have never seemed to make the headlines on Slashdot.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.

This is wrong, you read the poll wrong (maybe this one?). Here is the part you misunderstood: 97% of climate scientists say man-made CO2 has an effect on the global temperature (and the rest probably clicked the wrong box on accident).

Do you understand that there is a difference between "having an effect" and "is a problem?" Because there is a huge difference, and the people answering the poll understood that there is a difference. Even scientists who are frequently labeled 'deniers' will answer yes to that poll, it's almost like asking a non-question.

Re:unfair policy

[GameboyRMH]

Hey global warming could never end life on this planet. Our civilization as we know it, on the other hand...

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

How do you explain why all the insurance companies are convinced this is a problem?

That's dirt simple. If they can claim it's a problem, they can charge higher rates. So whenever they find something that they can even remotely get away with claiming to be a problem, they claim it is a problem. Whether it's true or not.

This is hardly a genius-level concept.

Re:unfair policy

[ShanghaiBill]

97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.

While I agree with your main point that there is a broad scientific consensus on climate change, the 97% figure is bogus. 97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.

By exaggerating the consensus, you are just handing ammunition to the denialists. The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking). Please calm down and stick to the facts.

The insurance companies ... have concluded we have a problem.

No. The insurance companies have concluded that they have a risk. They will charge more in premiums to compensate for even small risks.

Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of ...

And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA. That is about $10,000 for every person in California, for a train that on a typical day will carry 0.03% of commuters. It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.

*Yes, I know the current projected cost is $100 billion, but on average, government boondoggles in California eventually cost three times the original cost, so $300 billion is a more reasonable estimate.

Re:unfair policy

[itzly]

In addition to the answer being always no, it's also always yes, since the earth has been without any ice too. Without a time frame, the question is rather meaningless.

Re:unfair policy

[itzly]

Not "has an effect", but "is a significant contributing factor". There's a huge difference.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

From a statistical standpoint, "is a significant contributing factor" means the same thing to a scientist that "has an effect" would mean to a layman.

You should know this.

Re:unfair policy

[itzly]

Funny how you react to a comment about Arctic ice with a study of Antarctic ice.

Re:unfair policy

[Joe_Camel]

That's 2 straight years that the AGW clerics got wrong.

Re:unfair policy

[ganjadude]

doesnt make the response any less truthful

Re:unfair policy

[Joe_Camel]

Taking your advice......looks like you're lying....

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit...

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking).

No, the GP is right. We're well past the point where there's much room for skepticism*. The credibility of scientists is "lacking" only in the minds of those who think they'd falsify and exaggerate their finds just to get grant money--a pretty insane conspiracy theory**. This is definitely politically (and ideologically) motivated. It is the work of denialists, not skeptics.

And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA.

Sounds less like a "Liberal Agenda" than cronyism and corruption. The only thing "Liberal" about it is that "Conservatives" are apparently more heavily invested in fossil fuels and don't know how to leverage the cronyism and corruption to get a net positive while "punishing" fossil fuels.

It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.

This is I doubt on plenty of levels. One, I don't believe we'll switch to all electric in 30 years. Two, I'm fairly certain that even if we did, there's more CO2 emissions from many electric car construction and maintenance than one high speed rail--it's why buses are better than cars even though they pollute more per vehicle. Three, presuming this weren't merely a corrupt boondoggle, a high speed rail system that would be built correctly in 10 years would provide service for hundreds of years, minimally. That this is a shitty implementation that costs way too much has everything to do with people willing to look the other way--and the high property rates of California, no doubt, which is why you build sooner rather than later and hence now is better than 30 years from now--because it's environmental--which seems a Republican thing in California too. So, with all that rambling, painting it as a Liberal Agenda thing is more a non-California thing, anyways--where not needless murdering animals makes you a pinko commie.

* Children or adults who have never really researched the subject or given it much thought? Yea, they can be skeptics. And they can do the research to rapidly cure them of their skepticism. Willful ignorance or laziness, though, aren't a reasonable explanation for continued skepticism or an acceptable basis to claim that there are still skeptics. People don't have to be knowledgeable about science or scientific principals. That just makes them uninterested, not skeptics.

** If this were a dozen scientists, perhaps. But the scope of scientists that would have to be involved is hundreds. Group think would seem to be an explanation--as that seems to be what the denialists rely upon--, but that forgets that even a few scientists who broke away and made good studies could debunk global warming if there was sufficient evidence. And there's plenty of coal/oil/natural gas corporations which would be bottomless pits of money to fund more studies in those veins. Given that, it's just as logical an argument that it's a conspiracy of oil companies, who want to be regulated, who are making up these global warming studies.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

Well, isn't that a comfort.

Re:unfair policy

[itzly]

No, in that case, the question would have to have the words "statistically significant" in them. The word "significant" by itself means the same for scientists and laymen alike.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

What about the free market?

If there is no risk, then surely some canny insurance company can make a killing by not raising their rates and getting all that business.

I defy you to find me a big insurance company taking that gamble. They're not because they know climate change is a real danger.

Re:unfair policy

[itzly]

Only if there's no competition between insurance companies. Otherwise, keeping the rates at a lower level will gain more market share.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

The difference between calling it a "risk" and a "problem" is just semantics. The insurance industry is all about assessing risk. If they say there is no risk and they're wrong, they're out of business. If they charge for an assessed risk and their competitors don't, they're out of business. The insurance industry cannot afford to be wrong on either account. Either they pay for big losses or lose the premium income that is their life blood. Given all those factors, these companies--all of them--have decided the risk of Global Climate Change is the biggest risk. If this were a myth, or an exaggeration, surely some big companies would take that risk and scoop up all the world's insurance business--but they won't take that gamble.

Quibbles about the opinions of the world's climate scientists are essentially not important. The people with money and skin in the game--the insurance companies--are convinced. If they were not--surely one big insurance company would run those risks and scoop up all the world's property and casualty business. Notice that's not happening. Doesn't that imply anything?

Re: unfair policy

[rickb928]

Couldn't be a reaction to past losses from storms, eh? Or just profiting from uncertainty?

Seriously, this isn't evidence of anything than a profit motive.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

Funny how you react to a comment about Arctic ice with a study of Antarctic ice.

I should have read more carefully. Certainly that was my mistake. But I think it was forgivable considering that it was a comment about Arctic ice in the middle of a discussion about Antarctic ice.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

How long has it been since the insurance industry in the United States actually represented a free market?

Corporate lobbying, government subsidies, "market capture" (which is another way of saying oligopoly)... all these things have been common for decades.

I defy you to find me a big insurance company taking that gamble. They're not because they know climate change is a real danger.

We both know that's not going to happen, for the reason I explained to you in my last comment, and just now here. So that doesn't prove anything.

Re: unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

So, if this is a myth, where is the insurance company that's willing to keep their premiums low so they can scoop up all the business? Why isn't that happening? Surely--if as you allege all these insurance companies are faking this risk--where are the contrarians willing to sell cheap insurance? You haven't thought this through. If this were a myth then there would have to be at least one company willing to be the contrarian--and there are not any. The insurance companies have actuaries that have looked in detail at this issue and they don't buy the Conservative line. They know--this is real.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. If--as you say--the entire Climate Change thing is bogus and the insurance companies are using it to raise premiums--where is the free market? Where is the one insurance company bucking the crowd? Surely, if this is a big myth, there has to be at least one big insurance company willing to sell cheap insurance. They could make a killing, were it true.

The only problem with your theory is the missing contrarian. No insurance company is willing to buck the science. Not one.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

Okay, genius. You're saying that Global Warming is a hoax--and that insurance companies are all--across the board--raising their rates to take advantage of the alleged hoax.

Well, according to the free market, surely there must be at least one contrarian who is willing to buck the alleged alarmists and sell cheap insurance. If there were one big insurance company willing to do that--they could collect every insurance dollar on the planet and destroy the other companies. Why isn't that happening? Hmm?

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

So are you really trying to suggest that corporate lobbying is pushing insurance companies to fake that climate change is real? Are you kidding me? There is real money on the table. Let's look at the companies with the real risk on the table: the Re-Insurance companies--the ones that backstop the primary insurance market: "No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business".

These are huge corporations with shareholders and greedy owners. They don't screw around. They don't have to prove anything to anybody--they insure the insurance companies themselves. Even they--the Re-insurance companies believe that climate change is a real problem.

Shakespeare had a good phrase for your objections, Jane: "Methinks thou dost protest too much" .

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

What are you talking about? Do you know shit about the insurance industry? It is intensely competitive. They are constantly at war over premium rates. They employ armies of actuaries to compare risk against premium prices. They are not charities--if they assess risk, they are convinced there is risk.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

So are you really trying to suggest that corporate lobbying is pushing insurance companies to fake that climate change is real?

No, that isn't what I wrote. Try reading more carefully.

You asked me about free markets. I was explaining why it's pretty difficult today to honestly characterize the insurance industry, by and large, as a free market.

The other thing (claiming problems where there might not be any) is a different issue, and it's not valid to paste them together as you just did.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

Jane,
Okay, to me it's very clear. The insurance industry is a balance of risk versus premium income. If they misjudge risk, they go out of business paying for huge losses. If they misjudge their premium rates, they go out of business because their insurance is too expensive. For that reason, all insurance companies have armies of highly paid actuaries who get fired if they are wrong about either risk or premium rates. Do you disagree with me so far?

So, don't you find it strange that not one insurance company, not one re-insurance company is willing to gamble with their cash horde that you're right? Doesn't that mean a thing to you? They don't care what anybody else thinks. They don't care what the world's climate scientists conclude or don't conclude. If they're wrong, they stand to lose billions of dollars. Do you disagree with me so far?

If you're with me so far, don't you find it even slightly curious that not one of these big, deep-pocketed insurance companies or re-insurance companies is willing to sell cheap insurance against that "hoax" called Climate Change? Why not? Wouldn't that seem like a way to make a killing? There are no laws or regulations stopping them from doing that. Why don't even the re-insurance companies buy your logic?

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire thread is about Arctic ice, not merely that comment. Maybe you should lose the agenda.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey global warming could never end life on this planet. Our civilization as we know it, on the other hand...

[emphasis added]

Blanket (pun intended) statements are almost always wrong.

Re:unfair policy

[ShanghaiBill]

Quibbles about the opinions of the world's climate scientists are essentially not important.

Over the last few decades public support for climate changed action has declined dramatically. Much of the reason for that is a decline in public perceptions of the credibility of scientists. Much of the reason for that is because of people that exaggerate, and then, when called out on it, insist that the actual facts are just "quibbles" and don't matter. The same happened with the first IPCC report. It contained exaggerations, and made false statements, and when those were pointed out, the response from the authors was indignation and name calling rather than humility.

Look, we are losing the debate on climate change. The Koch Brothers are winning. If we want to change that, the first step is to start building credibility. We don't do that by insisting our facts are important, and the other guy's facts are "quibbles". We do it by being truthful and honest.

Re:unfair policy

[GameboyRMH]

I thought you'd link to the sun engulfing the earth. By the time the climate's on the path to being Venus-like, we'd be knocked back to the stone age or worse, slowing climate change to a pace evolution might be able to keep up with. I'm sure some extremophiles would hang on at the very least.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

I agree with you. It baffles me that people don't believe science. What can you do? I trust the scientific method and live in fear of misconduct by scientists.

I am not saying the science is unimportant. I am saying that the insurance industry offers concrete testimony that stands aside from those questions about the veracity of science. I am trying to stand outside those questions by using the bias of the business community against those who trust it. The same people who don't trust science do trust business. So, pointing to the opinions of the insurance industry is a way to use the biases of the right--trusting in the free market--to show them that they are being inconsistent. If they believe in the free market, they must see that the insurance industry believes that Climate Change is real.

I agree we are losing the debate. By pointing to the obvious beliefs of the insurance industry I am opening a new front. Listen, it is too late to convince climate change deniers that the science will ever be objective. The Kochs have won that argument. But how do they explain the actions of the insurance industry? This is a new front and I bet you that some eyes were opened by that argument.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is how the question was phrased then it was too ambiguous. Many scientist might have assumed "statistically significant" and answered accordingly.
Then the poll needs to be remade with a more accurate phrasing. Otherwise any discussion regarding it might be based on incorrect grounds.

Re:unfair policy

[gtall]

Don't believe in climate change. No problem. Look up the stats on ocean acidification due to extra CO2 and the damage that is resulting. You do recall the oceans? Base of the food chain? Ring a bell?

Re:unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

I'm no AGW Denier... but I think you've struck an entirely different problem than you were aiming for. The illusion of free market. In reality, insurance companies largely operate as pseudo-cartels, with ad-hoc price fixing. No one is going to buck the crowd, they're going to play along with the rest of the cartel.

Re:unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

It pains me to have to agree with you, but you're dead on. The insurance industry is not a free market. It's a pseudo-cartel.

Re: unfair policy

[rickb928]

The myth is that price competition is the dominant method of acquiring market share. Bear in that most insurance markets are state-regulated, and if we limit ourselves to property insurers, rigidly regulated.

Re: unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

You and I agree that it is real. We really, really, really don't agree on corporate business practices it would appear though.

If the CF/EO determines that it is more profitable to raise prices with the rest of the cartel, then that's what they will do, actuarial tables be damned.

Re:unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

It's been pretty much every extreme you can imagine, with the vast majority of its time spent in states that would not support today's human population. To me, the collapse of civilization and the migratory patterns that would emerge with even a small shift in arable land patterns is pretty goddamn scary.

Re:unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

Bingo.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. Have you ever worked inside an insurance company? I have. They are intensely price competitive. Especially the re-insurance companies. There are very few and they all taking climate change totally seriously.

Re:unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

We couldn't get knocked into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect. If we could, it would have happened, as earth has oscillated from nearly 100% carbon sequestration to nearly 0%. The earth apparently has better equilibrium seeking mechanisms than Venus had.

Re: unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

They are regulated on what they have to cover and the reserves they have to keep. They can set their premiums as they see fit. And the re-insurance companies are the most free. The fundamental weakness of that argument is the behavior of the re-insurance companies.

Re:unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

I'm sorry, but no it's not.
You could very well be correct that they take this very seriously, I'm not in a position to speculate.

However, they do function as cartels, and the free market does not serve to regulate ad-hoc price fixing schemes amongst them. Simply google "insurance cartels". Buy some books on the topic. Read some papers.

Again, I'm not denying that actuarially, climate change is a real coefficient. But the assertion that the free market would bring to light any kind of price-fixing scheme? Horse-shit.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

Scientists use the term "significant" by itself frequently with the meaning of "statistically significant."

Re:unfair policy

[riverat1]

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

And yet it's still lower than any year in the satellite record before 2006. 2012 was so low it was outside of the 2 standard deviations range. 2013 and 2014 are near the bottom of the 2 sd range around the 1981-2010 average and back near the curve of declining Arctic sea ice. It will take another 5 years or so to see if there really is any recovery in Arctic sea ice but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Re:unfair policy

[riverat1]

More like it's 2 straight years that folks like you continue to misunderstand scientists expectations.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

Well, let's consider what you're saying. You are a second tier insurance company and you don't have that much premium income. According to what you're proposing, all the insurance companies have decided to act like climate change is a real danger so they can scam premium income--but since you're a second-tier company, you're not really benefitting from the "cartel" but you can't break it so you just accept that you're going to not really benefit from it much... to benefit the big boys... even though you all know that it's a hoax.
Do you really think that would fly? That nobody would break out of the cartel? I just don't think it's that possible. If it's based on a lie, there's always somebody who won't play ball.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The salinity of the water is less and the land mass is in a phase of subsidence, just like New Orleans.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

OP and TFA, therefore this discussion, are all about Antarctic ice. This whole discussion is about Antarctic ice. I admitted that I accidentally stumbled over a mention of Arctic ice, so where is your problem?

If anything, it was the comments to which I was replying that were off-topic.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

Do you disagree with me so far?

Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets.

If there is no free market in your industry (or not much of one left, anyway), then you don't get to claim free market forces would correct such imbalances. You're like those people who blame corporatism and "crony capitalism" on the concept of capitalism itself, when both of those things don't represent capitalism, but rather egregious deviations from capitalism.

Adam Smith (i.e., free-market) capitalism requires a robust, responsible, and enforced body of anti-trust law in order to keep people playing within the rules. When that enforcement breaks down (as it has, most notably during the last 2 administrations), then you get the kind of abuses of the system that we see. And the insurance industry, as a whole, has been one of the worst offenders.

So yes, I disagree. Your free-market corrections will only work in a free market. Trying to claim insurance is a free market today is a belly laugh. They are in government pockets (and vice versa) at all levels of government.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

Jane, I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.

But since this is now a question of your beliefs versus my professional experience in this precise industry....

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

Considering that the only majour CO2 production is mankind burning fossil fuels, it is a surprise that that is not the cause of climate change!
What is it then? Cow farts only?

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.

Most scientists accept that there's been some warming. How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question, because the models need adjusting (though to be fair, the main difficulty is likely in over-estimating feedbacks). Scientists disagree on that problem, but the main question that matters from a practical standpoint is, "what should we do?" There's no consensus on this at all.

1) Should we do nothing, because eventually technology will replace coal before anything bad happens? (this is suggested by John Christy).
2) Should we do nothing, even though damage will be caused, because the damage will be easier to fix than to prevent? (I believe Bjorn Lomborg holds this view).
3) Should we replace all coal plants with nuclear immediately, even at great expense? (this is proposed by James Hansen)
4) Should we spend a lot of money on research for fusion?
5) Should we spend a lot of money to help push forward the electric car? (I saw this proposed in the Wall Street Journal)?
6) Should we replace all coal power with wind and solar? (this isn't actually possible with today's technology, but some people want it)
7) Should we agree to the Kyoto protocol, damaging the economy while making little impact on CO2 release?
8) Should we agree to the Copenhagen accord, which will do little, but cost billions in transfer payments to impoverished countries?

This is just scratching the surface of possible responses, and there is absolutely no scientific consensus on how to respond to AGW, or even if it needs a response.

Re: unfair policy

[rickb928]

There is virtually NO property or healthcare insurance market that is state-regulated and is NOT rate regulated. Roughly half the state regulate auto insurance rates. Virtually all insurance sold to consumers is state - regulated in the U.S.

Re: unfair policy

[rickb928]

Oh, and reinsurers are largely unregulated, but they largely serve commercial and special (excess) coverage. By definition, they are not primary carriers.

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

Insurance cartels only exist in the USA.
I just figured that car insurances in the USA are roughly 1000 time more expensive than in Germany, e.g. (considering the coverage)
A guy on /. I talked to explained to me how much he pays and how less he gets out ... hilarious.

Re:unfair policy

[tbannist]

Frankly, it seems par for the course that you rarely understand what you are reading when it concerns climate change.

Re:unfair policy

[tbannist]

The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted.

Because, as we all know, an ideologically Libertarian political "think tank" funded by gas and coal owners is clearly the most reliable source of information on the effects of pollution released by the gas and coal industries and whether that pollution requires government intervention. There is absolutely no bias, no politics and no conflict of interest there.

Re: unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

I'm USAian, so there's that. I can certainly buy that countries with actual functioning anti-trust and consumer protection laws force their businesses to actually compete.

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

You have no clue about anything you are talking about.
The re-insurance companies are the biggest companies on earth. And they are the ones who muster right now the blows of Fukushima, Katrina, Sandy etc.
Your standard USA 'cartel' (as you call it) insurance would be bankrupt right now if it was not reinsurance by e.g. "Muenchener Rueck" or "Zurich Reinsurrance"!

Re: unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

The concern of insurance commissioners in each of those states is that the insurers in their state remain solvent. You seem to imply that some artifical bias is pushing insurance companies to see risk where none exists. It's the direct opposite. The insurance commisioners are making sure that the companies do account for all valid risks, so they don't go out of business. The regulation is to prevent insolvency, not some do gooder desire to back global warming.

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets.
No you did not. He has a valid question which you fail to address.
So re-insurance companies are ... what exactly? Part of the problem or part of the solution?

Re:unfair policy

[riverat1]

The Western side of Antarctica has gained some mass but not enough to counteract the much more massive amount the Eastern side has lost. So, a much larger net negative.

I think you got that bass ackwards. It's Western Antarctica that is losing lots of ice and Eastern Antarctic that has had slight gains.

I'm sympathetic to the rest of your argument.

Re:unfair policy

[tbannist]

The 97% comment is a lie [springer.com] and people who repeat it are not interested in the truth.

Following methodology of Legates (geographer), Soon (astrophysicist), Briggs (statistician), Monckton (public speaker), I can prove that gravity is a lie since only 0.01% of papers in the category of science specifically affirm that the force is real and affecting us. That's what they did to get only a 0.3% endorsement of the consensus view of climate change, they included papers that have nothing to do with global climate change to dilute the results. The Cook paper found that 97% of the papers that took a position favoured the consensus view.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

You should read earlier comments. We've covered this ground already. I have deep experience in this subject. The re-insurance companies take risk from insurance companies world wide.

The point is this: "No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business". This conversation is not about the nature of re-insurance but about their view of the risk inherant in global climate change. They view it as a serious risk and so do insurance companies.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

You are correct. I reversed them.'Incredible' rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists

It was found from the average drops in elevation that were detected by CryoSat that Greenland alone is losing about 90 cubic miles a year, while in Antarctica the annual volume loss is about 30 cubic miles. These rates of loss – described as "incredible" by one researcher – are the highest observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago, and they mean that the ice sheets' annual contribution to sea-level rise has doubled since 2009, say the researchers whose work was published in the journal Cryosphere last week.
"We have found that, since 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has increased by a factor of about two, and the West Antarctic ice sheet by a factor of three," said glaciologist Angelika Humbert, one of the study's authors. "Both the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Antarctic peninsula, in the far west, are rapidly losing volume. By contrast, East Antarctica is gaining volume, though at a moderate rate that doesn't compensate for the losses on the other side of the continent."

Re:unfair policy

[tbannist]

97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.

Why, exactly, would you consider the papers that don't talk about a topic when considering whether there is a consensus of support for that topic or not? If you were seeking to see if a dog would make a good pet, how many books about orangutans would you read? Also, the Cook paper also clearly states what percentage of the papers took a position on climate change (32.6%) in the abstract.

According to your logic, we can lower the support level for any topic by simply including more papers that don't take a position on the topic. It doesn't even have to be climate change. Why not gravity, the round-earth hypothesis, or religion. Hey, if we include enough irrelevant papers we can get the consensus level down to 0.0001% for anything.

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

I guess you misunderstood me.
I support your argument :) as some friends of mine and my father e.g. work(ed) for re-insurance companies!

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

The scientific consense is to cut down on CO2 emissions, down to zero.
Because (continuing to) emitting more CO2 does increase the trend to more warming.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

The scientific consense is to cut down on CO2 emissions, down to zero.

Stop breathing.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

Good!
[I guess the I misunderstood it when you wrote: "You have no clue about anything you are talking about." :) ]

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE is about ANTARCTIC ICE, maybe you should stay on-topic.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

How the Fuck do you know what they use terms for? Admit it...you know more about naked celebrity pictures than you do science. I bet you spent the entire weeked on 4chan, jacking off to pics of that Hunger Games bitch.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

How the Fuck do you know what they use terms for?

Read scientific publications my friend, and you too can know how scientists use common terms.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Jane Q doesn't believe in the free market. Doesn't like the facts so dismisses them.

"Reinsurers and insurers lose money when they misjudge risks that come back to bite them. To reduce their own risk profiles, the insurers have to become expert at matching the premiums to the estimated risk. Charging too little for, say, flood risk in a region that is becoming flood-prone is bad business. Equally, charging too much for premiums on natural catastrophes that are not on the rise, like earthquakes, is bad business because it scares away potential insurance buyers." - http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Also doesn't like the facts about Sept-11 or Obama's birth certificate, so dismisses them (but don't call him a birther or truther!). No point in arguing. no contrary fact is ever considered - just dismissed.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

The results have been replicated many times over. Most recently last month in this paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10... . Interestingly, this paper also found that media exposure is higher for those who are skeptical of a significant human influence on climate.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Not just an effect, but 97% believe temperature rise is primarily driven by C02. (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) All climate scientists understand that CO2 has some effect on global temperatures. None are unaware of basic radiative physics, but about 3% think recent warming may have been predominately caused by other factors.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Most scientists accept that there's been some warming.

Really? You could find a scientist who denies that there's been warming? We have so much evidence of this it would be almost inconceivable...

How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question,

Most studies put this between 80% and 120% caused by CO2.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Do you really believe that breathing contributes to atmospheric C02? (not unless you've been eating coal...)

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

Really? You could find a scientist who denies that there's been warming? We have so much evidence of this it would be almost inconceivable...

If a survey says 97% think there's been warming, then it means 3% don't think there's been warming.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

The page you linked to is a propaganda page.

If you want to get an actual feel for what climate scientists think, here is a more scientific survey. The comment section at the bottom is especially fun.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Sure, but you'd need to cite a survey for that statement to have any relevance.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

I linked to NASA... Please don't go down the conspiracy theory path... Are NASA in on it?

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

End life on this planet, Really?

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

Apparently you are unable to recognize propaganda when you read it.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

Survey is linked to in previous comments

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Not on this thread. Maybe you could just provide the link?

Re: unfair policy

[rickb928]

I'm not asserting any state regulators are acting out of some concern about global warming. The commissioners I've had the opportunity to watch have focused on both liquidity and rates. In Maine, for instance, it was a decades long battle with Blue Cross over returns and rates. Then BC went private, and a settlement over capital was reached. In the homeowners market, the commissioner battled over rates and returns, with a tertiary concern over reserves.

Most state commissioners are fighting over rate increase demands based on investment returns, and discerning the true state of the carriers.

None of this is as simple as your (and i) make it seem. Insurers have a vested interest in overstating risk always, either hiding profits or understating the value of reserves.

Global warming is a convenient excuse for higher premiums, but a rogue hurricane will do as well.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they can raise premiums and make even more money off of all the fear mongering.

Absolute nonsense. The insurance market is, and has for a long time been, among the most competitive markets that exist. They assemble an army of actuaries to make sure they ride as close to the metal without entering into unprofitability.

Were any insurance company to raise premiums on the basis of mere fear mongering, they would be driven out of the market in short order.

Read the NIPCC Reports ...

While you are free to select your disinformation on the basis of ideological preference, the insurance industry is afforded no such luxury. It's a tough world out there sunshine.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

It's NASA buddy. They don't have a hidden agenda 21. By the way, you stated earlier that in order to cut down on CO2 emissions we would need to stop breathing. Do you really think breathing contributes to atmospheric CO2? I can't believe you could be so naive on a subject you are so vocal on. Perhaps you are projecting when you suspect NASA of propaganda?

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply google "insurance cartels"

I did. It turned up no obviously credible results on the first two pages. I gave up.

Buy some books on the topic. Read some papers.

Citations please.

Of course there will be cases, especially in restricted markets, where attempts are made to enter into cartels, sometimes, for a time, successfully. After all insurance is generally such an intensely competitive market, participants will be tempted to seek relief from competition if they see a realistic opportunity to do so.

However, the idea that in the global insurance market, in competition for such important (lucrative) insurance contracts, insurers, and especially re-insurers, will not be sharpening their pencils to be as price competitive as possible, upon the basis of the very best projections of potential climate related liability possible today, is scarcely believable. It smacks of popular knowledge (of the sort exemplified by the Google results) and a profound ignorance of how insurance is actually conducted.

Re:unfair policy

[dryeo]

Some theories say that solar forced global warming will push us into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect in about a billion years. Once it gets hot enough to boil the oceans, it's game over (unless we, or a natural event, move the Earth out close to Mars)
Solar theory says the Sun has gotten 25% brighter since the beginning and will continue to get brighter as it gets more dense due to having a larger portion of He. Venus being closer to the Sun experienced the oceans boiling thing at least a billion years back judging by crater counts. (Resurfacing limits how far in the past we can see on Venus)

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5613255&cid=47801195

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

Propaganda is a way of writing/speaking/presenting information. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy or have a hidden agenda. Learn to recognize propaganda and your life will be better.

Re: unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

That jives with my understanding. Whatever form the great solar death brings for life on this rock, if we havent figured out a solution by then, we're either dead or awaiting our well-deserved fate

Re: unfair policy

[dryeo]

The average species lasts something like a million years, it's hard to believe that we'll last much longer. Either intelligent design will evolve us or natural selection depending on whether we stay on a technological high or knock ourselves back to the stone age. What, if anything, replaces us is any-ones guess.
A billion years is a long time,perhaps twice as long as complex life has existed.

Re: unfair policy

[DamnOregonian]

We aren't the average species. We are (most likely) the first on this planet to have possessed the technological capability (if not the mindset) to survive any of the extinction events this planet has suffered. I think our survival until the death of this planet (a death not caused by us, that is) is dependent upon nothing more than us not killing ourselves. Evolution, natural or otherwise unnecessary. I know our history is a vile thing to look at, but give the human mind a little bit of credit, where it's due.

Re: unfair policy

[dryeo]

We're also the first species that has the technological know how (or will soon) to play with our own genome. Once it gets relatively inexpensive to customize our children, it will happen. Enough customization and you get a new species. It may only be as different from Homo sapiens as Homo neanderthal was but still strictly speaking, a different species. Of course there is also the question of what is human. It's not too much of a stretch to call all members of the genus Homo human in which case we might both be right.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

Jane, I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.

None of this has anything to do with what I said. You keep taking different ideas I have talked about and pasting them back together in ways that don't represent what I was actually saying.

I didn't say their risk assessments and premiums were regulated. In the health care arena they certainly are regulated now to some extent, but that wasn't my point at all. I was speaking of anti-trust regulation, not regulation of premiums or risk tolerance.

Never mind. I see you simply aren't absorbing what I was saying. I don't want to spend the time to keep explaining what I have already said.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

No you did not. He has a valid question which you fail to address.

Yes, I did. I specifically answered his question. I am not responsible for your failure to understand my response, which was about why the market does NOT adjust for the factors he mentioned, if there isn't a real market.

Saying "market forces will drive them out of business", when the insurance companies today are nearly as oligopolistic as cable companies, is like saying "market forces" will force Comcast to invest more of their profits in infrastructure. If there isn't a free market, those market forces simply don't exist. Your cable bill (probably, depending on your area) is a very good illustration of this.

Re:unfair policy

[bruce_the_loon]

Penguins are actually 1%ers, look at how they wear tuxedos all the time.

Re:unfair policy

[bruce_the_loon]

Says the chap who has fallen for the desperate propaganda by the coal, oil and burning-the-forests industry to not have to lose their businesses.

See, propaganda can come from any direction.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

IF you look at what I linked to, this, you'll see it's the exact opposite of propaganda. But don't let that stop you.

Re: unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

You're referring to Blue Cross, which is a health insurer. Health insurance is regulated differently than property and casualty insurance, which is the insurance that is most affected by global warming. (I have professional experience with both types). However, through their investment portfolios, both types of insurance company are affected primarily by the damage to coastal real estate that these companies--and the re-insurers--own as investment vehicles. And, as I'm sure you know, most of the premium income taken in by these companies is used for investments.
Finally, you call global warming a "convenient excuse" while the insurance companies, their underwriters and the actuaries for the big re-insurers call it a "recognised risk". There is a difference as, your appelation implies the risk is ficticious while these insurance companies do not consider it a fictional risk--which was my original point.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

"Jane"--Lonnie--you're a crackpot.
None of your canards explain why Swiss RE, a non-American company and huge re-insurer, also has concluded that Greenhouse Warming is a significant recognised risk that they are not ignoring. To wit, from the MIT article: "Swiss Re identified climate change as an emerging risk more than 20 years ago, long before most financial and insurance companies -- or most businesses in general. A vocal advocate of mitigation strategies, climate change is now a significant component of the company’s long-term risk management strategy."
Swiss RE.
Headquarters: Zürich, Switzerland

• Climate Change Causes Insurers to Rethink Price of Risk After Hurricane Sandy
• Insuring a Better Future: Sustainability at Swiss Re

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that you have a persistent denialist anti-science agenda and in an effort to pursue that you just made a massive fool of yourself.

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

If a survey says 97% think there's been warming, then it means 3% don't think there's been warming.

And this 3% who think there has has been no warming. Have they any evidence to present to that effect?

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

This is compared to the paleo-climate record including the medieval warm period. In that case 3% sounds about right.

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.

No. If you want to convince me that this, simple, logical question is somehow "loaded", then by any means present evidence to that effect. But this is a weak argument, and you know it. You claim that these scientists attribute the present warming to some cause other than CO2, but you can't explain what that cause is. Is this true?

Is it also true that they themselves can't explain the present warming?

Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?

Can you link to this explanatory material?

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

multi-colored, rather

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Propaganda requires an agenda. NASAs only agenda is science outreach... unless you think they have some hidden agenda?

Re: unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is rude. It won't convince the parent, and by being rude you lose the advantage of convincing the undecided reader.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe for the same reason both Visa and Mastercard charge about the same rates even though there's supposed to be a market for credit

Re: unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm USAian

No, you're American. You're also an idiot.

Re:unfair policy

[Stuarticus]

Yeah it's not like historically when one creature has come to dominate an ecosystem there have been any negative consequences, sure we'll be fine.

Re:unfair policy

[Stuarticus]

I'm too busy googling "alien conspiracies" and "chemtrails" so much good information for those willing to do the research! Do you know if he straps on my hat should be tin foil as well or will a rubber band do?

Re:unfair policy

[Stuarticus]

The earth apparently has better equilibrium seeking mechanisms than Venus had.

So far

Re:unfair policy

[dywolf]

And here you go, you ignorant twit:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

Since you're probably too dumb to even understand such basic concepts, here's the nutshell:
Just by coincidence, 2 years ago was the lowest level EVER RECORDED. So yes, the past couple years have seen higher lvels than that...but those levels are still far below the average of the last several decades. A sample size of 2 is not sufficient to ignore decades of data.

btw, you even got your lies (both of them) wrong
-if it had expanded by 41%, it would be covering a fair portion of Canada.
-it's not the most ice since 2006. 2006 had a higher level of ice this year, followed by 2007 was was the lowest level ever recorded...until 2012 which went even lower.

Meanwhile the trend is still down down down down.
Stupid trolls.

Re:unfair policy

[dywolf]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

That was mot the question you failed to address :)
However, how does it come that you have no free insurance market in the USA? Sounds pretty strange to me as the same companies compete everywhere else in a free market.

Re:unfair policy

[dywolf]

Your link is a lie.

Re:unfair policy

[dywolf]

^this. Mod up.

Re:unfair policy

[dywolf]

JFC, even the link you used disproves your point.
From the article you linked:

While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend.

“It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.

(emphasis added)

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

No, he does not believe that, he only tries to annoy me, that is one of his hobbies :)

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps I answered to the wrong person and meant to answer to one of your critics. Sorry! (to lazy to figure if that was the case, hehe)

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

But American Express and Discover do not.

Re: unfair policy

[NARbrat]

Your comment is based on pure opinion, and not science. The Antarctic loses a huge portion of its ice each summer, and it then rebuilds in the winter. But that is the ice that is FLOATING. The majority of the ice in Antarctica is on land, not on the water. And that ice has been declining at an ever faster rate for decades. The effect all this fresh water has on the ocean and ice formation, has little to do with the overall melting.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

I don't know, the survey isn't very good, and doesn't ask that would help understand what they are thinking. Of course we can guess. As I mentioned previously, maybe they accidentally pressed the wrong button. Or possibly they think the measurement methods we have aren't accurate enough to measure the temperature to that degree of precision. Or perhaps they think the heat-island effect has been improperly accounted for, as urban environments grow and lands become irrigated, etc.

These are all speculations, I don't have any insight into what the 3% are thinking.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

No. If you want to convince me that this, simple, logical question is somehow "loaded"

If you can't see it, then you're a moron, and I can't help you. You should take a logic class (or read a book) to improve your ability to perceive.

Re:unfair policy

[jfengel]

I'd love to think that "truthful and honest" would work, but it seems pretty unlikely to me. If it's going to cost anybody money, or even just face, it's going to be pretty easy to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt. As you say, the Koch Brothers are winning, but I can't think of any way to prevent them from winning. The deck is heavily stacked in their favor.

As scientists, we like to think that the universe ultimately and undeniably stacks the deck in favor of reality, and that's true... eventually. A century from now, people will look back and say, "Wow, the data was all there, and it was really obvious. It would have saved so much pain for them to make small changes back then." But that's retrospective. All but the very youngest of denialists will be safely dead before they're forced to confront reality. Even then, there will be those who will blame Milankovich cycles or volcanoes or even just say "look at all the wonderful new Canadian farmland we have!"

So honestly... I really don't know what "truthful and honest" will get us. Sure, hysteria will turn some off... and it will click with others in a "Won't somebody think of the children!" kind of way. This is persuasion, not science, and I truly can't tell you what the most effective tack will be. But there has been plenty of clear-eyed, non-hysterical discussion available for decades, and polls show that it's losing. You can blame the more aggressive promoters for that, but I think that's just an excuse. Really, I think that people will mostly continue to believe what they want to believe, especially when the Koch Brothers and the Daily Fail give them all the FUD they can swallow, and even if there were not a single overhyped story it would have been precisely the same. It might even have been worse.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

None of your canards explain why Swiss RE, a non-American company and huge re-insurer, also has concluded that Greenhouse Warming is a significant recognised risk that they are not ignoring. To wit, from the MIT article: "Swiss Re identified climate change as an emerging risk more than 20 years ago, long before most financial and insurance companies -- or most businesses in general. A vocal advocate of mitigation strategies, climate change is now a significant component of the companyâ(TM)s long-term risk management strategy."

I'm not a crackpot, you just don't know how to make a logical argument. This doesn't prove anything.

I already gave ONE reason why an insurance company has very strong motivation to claim risks wherever they can. The fact that they claim global warming as a risk -- because they can -- is not proof that it exists.

Your actuaries have no valid way to calculate legitimate risk of global warming. The ONLY thing they can do is take the word of the "climate scientists" about whether it is a real risk or not. There are no objective probabilities here to calculate.

Re:unfair policy

[dywolf]

Ice extent is really just area, which combined with thickness gives you volume, so i dont know if i'd say its that bad as an indicator. It's certainly the most visible visually.

Anyway.
Another really good indicator though is Age or Permanence.
Used to be the majority of the ice was old, meaning its more or less permenant, and only some of hte ice, mostly around the edges was refreshed (melted and re-added) every year. Now more and more of it is young ice, and less and less is "old" ice, which also feeds into the "more is melting every year" observation.

Re: unfair policy

[dywolf]

blah blah science has been wrong before blah blah.

That's almost, but not quite, the most ignorant position you could take.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

I will leave it to the jury whether or not you're a crackpot based on your other comments, Lonnie. But you fail here to note that a company like Swiss RE bases its entire business on measuring and appraising risk. Second, they do indeed have data they use to assess the change in risk they face--and that is the history of claims they have been paying. Swiss RE and other re-insurance companies such a Lloyds of London now require insurance companies they back to take into account the impact of climate change. The point of this is not to construe their interest as some scientific absolute on the existence of antropogenic climate change--it is merely to combat the notion that is put forward by the non-scientific climate change deniers like you who want to act like nothing strange at all is happening to the climate. The reality that these large corporations whose lifeblood is assessing risks on pain of going out of business, do indeed take the risk of a worldwide calamity driven by climate change serious as a heart attack. Nothing further can be inferred from their interest other than their serious and factual opinions that climate change remains a true and actual risk that our planet faces.

Re:unfair policy

[Anonymous Coward]

I am missing my link to the list that contains 100% of the best climate scientists. Can someone post that?

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

Well, it IS true you can't help me,. Neither, apparently, can you help the thousands of scientists whom you say attribute the recent warming trend to something other than an increase in CO2. They apparently can't detail their findings: you apparently can't help because you can't even describe their findings at any level. What help are you? They apparently can't even put their hand up and say "here I am!" - you can't help because apparently you don't know who they are, you just believe they exist. Like unicorns.

You had an opportunity to articulate this alternate theory and you muffed it. I feel pity.

Re:unfair policy

[david_thornley]

In what way is the US insurance business not a free market? I'm free to shop around insurance companies all I want, and have changed insurance companies to get lower rates. There is insurance I'm required to have by law (health insurance, insurance for any motor vehicles operated on public roads), and as far as I can tell this is competitive. What evidence do you have for the contrary? Sure, they lobby for more insurance requirements, and want government subsidies. These aren't anti-competitive measures, they're attempted rent-seeking.

As for the oligopoly, if all insurance companies but one decided to raise rates, the odd one out would get more business. Without evidence of actual anti-competitive and collusive behavior (and I do mean evidence), I don't believe it's significant.

Re:unfair policy

[david_thornley]

Okay, make a logical argument that shows why all insurance companies would raise rates because of global warming, rather than one breaking away to offer less expensive insurance and get more business. The market isn't free in all respects, but it is on pricing.

Re:unfair policy

[david_thornley]

Could you quote something on that? The consensus is that we've got a serious problem.

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

I don't know, the survey isn't very good, and doesn't ask that would help understand what they are thinking.

The survey didn't occur in isolation. They are scientists. What do their published results say? Have they published any results? If not, why not?

Of course we can guess.

No, not good enough. That is not believable. This is not a smorgasbord. We are not "choosing a truth" that makes us comfortable. Where are the facts to support the theory "there is no recent warming trend"?

Re:unfair policy

[david_thornley]

The comment section is irrelevant.

The survey is for specific questions, and unless I missed something in a quick scan, the answers are not correlated. Since nearly one third of the respondents had published 0-5 peer-reviewed papers in the field, there's a lot of potential for non-climate-scientists here. The survey included people who were legitimate climate scientists along with people on certain mailing lists, so I'd think there's a lot of potential for error here.

Also, people often won't use the extremes on a survey, so there's no real point in not lumping 1 and 2 or 6 and 7. In fact, these types of surveys are a little iffy, since the interpretation of the points is personal. Given, say, a range from "very inadequate" to "very adequate", what does that mean to a scientist?

After all that, we find that opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW happening, and being serious. It would be useful here to know how these survey answers are correlated with (say) number of peer-reviewed papers published, but the necessary information is not provided. I saw no link to the original data set.

So, given a mixture of climate scientists and other people who have registered an interest, we find that the people surveyed agree that warming is occurring, and very heavily believe it's anthropogenic, and believe strongly it's serious. I don't see any contradiction with the NASA page.

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

That is, what I said, we habe a serious problem.
Where did we cross talk each other?

Re:unfair policy

[haruchai]

Extent coverage has a %age range which used to be as low as 15% (I vaguely recall) but is now typically a minimum of 30%.
So the actual volume can vary considerably when you have a region of millions of sq km which is an average of 40% covered vs one that may be 75% covered by ice.

But, yes, the amount of "old" aka multi-year ice is an important factor.

Re:unfair policy

[david_thornley]

When you said the scientific consensus is to eliminate CO2 emissions. That's what I was disagreeing with.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

That's good, a good analysis. You have good analytical skills.

Let's see if you can turn your same analytical skills to the NASA page. Can you do it? Or are you paralyzed, only capable of seeing flaws in things you disagree with? That is the crucial test.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

No, not good enough. That is not believable.

Sure, find a better survey lol. Find out what those 3% are thinking, because I don't know.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

Well, it IS true you can't help me,. Neither, apparently, can you help the thousands of scientists

Most of those scientists can already recognize a loaded question. They don't need help.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

You can't recognize propaganda, it's not clear you're capable of even having an intellectual conversation. Get a book on logical fallacies or something and educate yourself, seriously.

Re:unfair policy

[jafac]

. . . the invisible hand has a thumb up his butt.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Here is the abstract of the survery that NASA cited:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

This is in very close agreement with more recent research that surveyed the literature rather than polling scientists:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. ... Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...

Phantomfive sees hidden agendas and propaganda (from NASA no less), but it is really not clear why. Even the literature that he cited is in broad agreement.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

You could at least get my name right. You're not basing that on my comments, you're basing it on someone else's.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

I already did. Global warming is a risk that actuaries can't actually calculate, but because the government says it's true they can claim it as a risk anyway. They can do their best to do some math on it, but ultimately they're basing it on something that isn't proven.

Historical risk assessment is based on statistics. There are no statistics about the hazards of global warming. Media and government have been proclaiming more "catastrophic weather events", but there haven't actually been any. Florida just set a record for number of years without a hurricane. The U.S. East coast is close to setting a record for number of years without a major hurricane. (Sandy was not "major". It only did as much damage as it did because it took an unusual path through expensive terroritory.)

Global cyclonic energy has been in a 40-year lull, and actually at a 30-year record or near-record low. Despite the drought in California this year there have been much worse droughts in California in living memory.

There isn't enough carbon dioxide in the entire atmosphere to even come close to "acidifying" the ocean if all of it were dissolved. Just ask a chemist.

So where is all this devastation the actuaries are supposed to calculate? Not only are there no statistics, there isn't even any devastation.

Re:unfair policy

[Jane Q. Public]

Nothing further can be inferred from their interest other than their serious and factual opinions that climate change remains a true and actual risk that our planet faces.

That's a real laugh. Despite your protests, there is a hell of a lot more that can be inferred from their interest. Your assertion that genuine risk assessment is the only factor in their decisions is the more unlikely scenario.

Re:unfair policy

[curmudgeon99]

It's a false name in either case--what does it matter?

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Your argument is less than compelling.

Re:unfair policy

[angel'o'sphere]

So? How so? If we don't get down to zero, the planet will continue to warm up, only slower. At some point we have to come to zero, a no brainer.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

I don't care what you think about my argument, as long as you educate yourself. Only then can we have a decent conversation.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

What argument?

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

Most of those scientists can already recognize a loaded question. They don't need help.

I gave you an opportunity to prove that the question was somehow loaded. You declined. Don't imagine you can now return to your pool of vomit and gulp it down again.

You say there are thousands of climate scientists that attribute the recent warming to something other than GHGs. If they ARE scientists, then this attribution means they have a theory.

What is this theory?

Where have they published this theory?

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

I gave you an opportunity to prove that the question was somehow loaded. You declined.

Yes, you need to buy a book about logic, or take a course.

I can't teach a moron.

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

What argument?

Don't you read what you post?

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

Was I being too subtle? Maybe I should have written: Your "argument" is less than compelling? You do recognize that you haven't put forward an argument? Perhaps you can see that asserting the same thing over and over is not persuasive?

On the subject of propaganda, I'll note you are willing to state that breathing contributes to atmospheric CO2, but you are not willing to admit that you believe it. Why would you say something that you know is not true?

Re:unfair policy

[phantomfive]

Right, so have you learned to recognize propaganda or not?

After that, I suggest you get a book about logical fallacies and learn to recognize them, it will make our discussions so much more enjoyable. You'll be able to think clearly.

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

Yes, you need to buy a book about logic, or take a course.

You failed to articulate a scientific basis for you theorem nor a clear statement on why you believe you are not required to do so. You failed.

I can't teach a moron.

Your local fallacy is ad hominem. Your failures are your own problem.

Re:unfair policy

[KeensMustard]

Sure, find a better survey lol.

Not my job to prove your assertions. And if your assertion was correct, there would be theories that these scientists have articulated, and you would be able to describe those theories and the observational basis for them. You can't, I conclude your/their assertion "there is no recent warming trend"? is bunk.

Find out what those 3% are thinking, because I don't know.

You said you did know. You said they were claiming there hasn't been a warming trend. Here.

Re:unfair policy

[Layzej]

I am learning a great deal about logical fallacies and rhetoric from you. You are truly a master of these techniques, though you may be projecting a bit when you suggest that NASA is a propaganda machine.

It's not just the receding shoreline

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more about ocean thermal current disruption and the massive meta effects this will have on established regional weather patterns.

How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having trouble understanding the idea of "a localized rise in sea level". Waves and tides, sure, but they're both very short-term.
How does this work?

Re:How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might think water as a linearly spreading thing but it actually is quite wibley-wobley-timey-wimey stuff.

Failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Local sea level change is not global mean sea level change.

Re:Failed

[Ultra64]

Who said it was?

Re:Failed

[Bartles]

Look up.

Re:Failed

[Ultra64]

Up where?

At the article that clearly states "sea-level rise around the coast of Antarctica" and "Near-shore waters" and "localized rise in sea level".

At the article that does not once use the word global?

Re:Failed

[dywolf]

the entire point of the article was that it's a local phenomina. the massive influx of fresh water is causing a local rise due to the time it takes for it to completely mix and disperse into the global seas. we normally think of sea level being the same (minus tides and other local variations) worldwide, because we know that water "levels out", which is why this is interesting: it's another local variation to that concept*.

If you think of a river in a steady state, it's pretty much at the same level (albeit flowing down "hill" over a really long distance). Similar baseline concept.
Then consider the effects of a sudden deluge upstream, or in today's world a massive release from a dam upriver. Such a thing would cause a significant rise in the river level, but it takes time for it to work its way down the entire river. Similar concept as this here where a rise around Antarctica will take time to work its way out into the global seas and even here.

(*kind of like the Pacific and Atlantic oceans at either end of the Panama Canal being at different heights)

"localized rise"

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does a "localized rise in sea level" work?

Every wave in the sea is a "localized rise".

It seems like he's saying it's permanent, which is ridiculous.

Re:"localized rise"

[NatasRevol]

It's permanent as long as there's 350 billion tons of fresh water melting into the ocean there every year.

land and plates rising causing "extra rising"

[Anonymous Coward]

The reduction of weight on the antarctic plate caused by the ice retreating is causing the plate to lift or possible just the land is lifting. See Eureka 7.

What will it take?

[Livius]

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

Re:What will it take?

[timeOday]

The truth is, they just don't care because they'll be dead before it gets bad.

Re:What will it take?

[ArcherB]

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Just curious, if global warming were not a thing, what would the ice caps be doing?

Re:What will it take?

[Opportunist]

Do what I do, stop caring and move inland. Let the deniers settle at the shore and shoot them when they try to outrun the flood.

Re:What will it take?

[Lumpy]

The Ice age boogie...

Re:What will it take?

[itzly]

But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

citation needed.

Re:What will it take?

[ganjadude]

playing a game of pong, what else?

Re: What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

It never has been level...various oceans have had slightly different levels.

Re:What will it take?

[curmudgeon99]

Why do the insurance companies think you're full of shit and that Climate Change is a real danger to their bottom line? [If you're uninformed about how the insurance companies view climate change, I invite you to view my comment on this article where I link to stories from Forbes, NBC News, the Washington Post and the NYTimes about this very fact on how the insurance companies view climate change--as a real and significant threat. You think the insurance companies are in the pockets of liberals?

No, I think you're a Conservative Moron who lives in fantasy land where you can ignore a threat because it doesn't fit your politics.

Re:What will it take?

[Bender0x7D1]

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.

Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.

So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.

(And, yes; I do realize that this example is a vast simplification - and overstatement - I just used it to illustrate the point.)

Re:What will it take?

[Bartles]

You'll be dead long before the Sun expands and envelops the Earth. What are you doing about it today?

Re:What will it take?

[GameboyRMH]

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

Careful what you wish for - the next, and final stage in the evolution of climate denialism is for it to take a rather different, more difficult form:

Climate obstructionism.

Re:What will it take?

[itzly]

Is there anything we can do to prevent this from happening ? And if there's something we can do, do we need to start right now or would it be okay to wait a few million years ?

Re:What will it take?

[zr]

the next story on slashdot—on iCloud nude pics leakage—collected more comments. ..i'm sorry to disappoint you but it really is not more complex than that..

Re:What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

I will say something that qualify me as a psychopath: I am happy about the climate change because of my geographical location, sure our metropolis will get flooded but my city like many other cities in similar location will prosper. I do not give a damn about unknown peoples dieing, since the climate change will brings my descendant prosperity I says fuck the people who lives on coastal cities, fuck the loser species that are going extinct as they will get replaced and let's keep burning petroleum.

Re:What will it take?

[Livius]

It's called global climate change. The 'global' part means that it affects more than one place.

Re:What will it take?

[Livius]

Unless you already live in a place with such hostile climate that it could only improve, you don't actually know that things will be better for your location. And remember economic dislocations very far away can affect you.

Re:What will it take?

[curmudgeon99]

So you're cool with the tropical diseases? You're fine with the world's forests all being unsuited for their environments because the growning zones have moved? You think climate change is something manageable? You're more of an idiot than I imagined.

Re:What will it take?

[argStyopa]

I don't see it as a "climate problem" any more than I see aging as a "chronology problem".

It's climate.
It changes.
Adapt or die.

Building a city on a coastline might be incredibly convenient, but it is exactly like building it on the edge of a volcano. The only difference is a matter of scale.

Re:What will it take?

[dtjohnson]

Okay, here are some facts. The atmospheric co2 concentration is increasing by about 2 ppm per year. The world currently produces about 4.9 x 10^13 kg of co2 per year from the combustion of fossil fuels. That means that the earth currently sequesters all of the co2 produced by living organisms, decay, natural methane seeps, etc. as well as approximately 80 percent of all of the co2 produced from the world combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. Based on all known reserves, there are approximately 75 years remaining of fossil fuels at current consumption rates. That means that, even if the natural sequestration rate remains unchanged, the atmospheric c02 concentration will not increase more than 150 ppm ultimately reaching a concentration of approximately 550 ppm from the current 400 ppm. Even that increase, however, is unlikely, as fossil fuel prices and the diminishing returns of production will mean that global consumption fossil fuels will likely decline over the next century as it is replaced by solar, wind power, nuclear power, conservation measures, and increase energy efficiencies. Therefore, rather than reach a maximum of 550 ppm and then decline precipitously as the last chunk of coal is burned, the atmospheric co2 concentration will more likely never reach that number as consumption tapers off and consumption continues at a lower rate of several centuries. What this means to an AGW true believer is that you have to believe that the earth's climate would dramatically warm if the atmospheric concentration of co2 went from 400 ppm to 550 (or less) and, there is absolutely no scientific basis for that belief. The atmospheric co2 concentration has increased by approximately 84 ppm since co2 measurements began in 1958 and the earth's climate has not changed dramatically. Even the small amount of warming that we have seen during that time is more likely to have resulted from changes in solar activity and other climate effects than an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Moreover, there are signs of climate cooling as both the arctic and antarctic ice extent have increased in recent years (TFA notwithstanding). If antarctic continental ice is melting, it is likely due to subsurface volcanic activity and geothermal heat input rather than warmer atmospheric temperatures which never rise above freezing in antarctica away from the coastlines.

Re:What will it take?

[Famak1994]

Nah, it's more like a few hundred million dollar effort, chief. However 10s if not 100s of billions are going into the alarmist effort... None of it matters anyways because none of it is going to change the climate.

Re:What will it take?

[Famak1994]

Yeah, because the climate is static and any kind of variations in the climate is undeniably anthropomorphic.. If we don't do something about it soon then...Well, I'll leave it to the Ghostbusters to explain it to you all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:What will it take?

[Famak1994]

The only thing to obstruct is higher taxes that do nothing but widen the class gap and to prevent alarmist radicals from using Earth as a test bed for climate engineering technologies.

Re:What will it take?

[gtall]

You are comparing 50 years to a few billion. The word "proportion". The idea, learn it.

Re:What will it take?

[Bartles]

50 years. Do you actually believe that crap? It was 30 years ago that people started predicting catastrophe. It's funny how Armageddon keeps being moved just out of reach of verification.

Re:What will it take?

[curmudgeon99]

You're not accounting for all the methane that gets released from the frozen tundra in Siberia. Once that goes, it's runaway greenhouse warming. Methane is much more climate warming than CO2.

Re:What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there wasn't a meteor strike 65 Mil yrs ago that did not kill off the dinosaurs.

Re:What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

The sea was never 'level' to begin with and never was at any point in time:

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

Some places are higher and some places are lower just like we're seeing global warming in some places and global cooling in others:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

Re:What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming."

Corrected:

Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global cooling.

The problem with GAT is that it over-simplifies how the climate is changing across the globe. In other words, we're not just seeing global warming, but global cooling as well. However all recent empirical evidence shows a downward trend in global temperature averages.

Re:What will it take?

[ArcherB]

But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

citation needed.

That would be comment I was responding to:
So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

Re:What will it take?

[ArcherB]

Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.

OK. Maybe you should tell all the scientist this. Be sure to copy Algore as well.
See, they seem to think that the first thing to go is the polar ice. That's why they keep measuring it. See, a few years ago, a lot of the ice melted, and we were told that it was because of global warming. Now the ice is back and growing, and we are told it's because of global warming.

And that is my entire point. No matter what the symptoms are, it's always a symptom of global warming.

Also, if it's colder in Antarctica and warmer in Hawaii, that's not really a sign of global warming. That's a sign of global nothing because the average temperature remains constant.

Re:What will it take?

[riverat1]

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Both can be true. Arctic sea ice is declining, the Greenland ice sheet is declining, the West Antarctic ice sheet is declining and other glaciers around the world are on average declining. Antarctic sea ice has increased some and the East Antarctic ice sheet has maybe increased slightly overall but is losing some ice around the periphery. Neither has increased enough to offset the losses elsewhere. As the article points out all the ice melting on Antarctica is causing the top layer to be somewhat fresher than down below. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. Also a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor which means more is available for precipitation which also freshens the water when it falls on the ocean and can also mean increased snowfall over East Antarctica. For the Antarctic sea ice another factor is that the circumpolar winds have gotten stronger with blows the existing ice around which opens polynyas that subsequently refreeze increasing the ice area. All of that will continue until it gets so warm that there is no more ice or snow which is going to be a while.

Re:What will it take?

[riverat1]

Also, if it's colder in Antarctica ...

It doesn't have to be colder in Antarctica for more sea ice to form, just cold enough to still freeze the water.

Re:What will it take?

[ArcherB]

(sigh)
This is the comment I was responding to:
Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.

So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.

But the point is, when there was LESS ice, it was because of global warming. Now that there is MORE ice, it's because of global warming, per the original comment I replied to.

Re:What will it take?

[dtjohnson]

You're not accounting for all the methane that gets released from the frozen tundra in Siberia. Once that goes, it's runaway greenhouse warming. Methane is much more climate warming than CO2.

No, methane does not persist in the atmosphere but oxidizes in a matter of a few weeks. Moreover, the amount of methane potentially released from permafrost is small relative to the amount of methane produced as natural gas.

Re:What will it take?

[dave420]

Translation: "My knowledge of the impacts of a changing climate are limited, but simply guessing, I think it'll be fine, and I'm so drenched in arrogance I can't possibly consider my guesses are wrong, even though they're not based on evidence, but a gut-feeling".

Re:What will it take?

[curmudgeon99]

Despite the shorter longevity of methane in the atmosphere, the danger it poses for runaway greenhouse warming well overwelms any benefit from its short lifespan, as is well recognised, such as its triggering of ground-level ozone, yet another potent greenhouse gas. As you note, fracking is yet another voluminous source of methane, so its short lifespan in the atmosphere is no comfort. In short, it's a runaway effect because CO2 releases lead to Methane releases, which lead to more and more Methane release, which dominoes to other potent greenhouse gases. Textbook runaway warming. So, what was your objection?

• Methane and the risk of runaway global warming
• BBC on Runaway Methane Warming
• Methane Causes Vicious Cycle in Global Warming
• Methane's Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates
• Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases

Re:What will it take?

[GameboyRMH]

Meh, they probably said the same thing when the EPA was about to be established.

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

Nothing. They'd be doing nothing. Or at least less of what they're doing now. That's rather the point.

People too often confuse yearly global scale averages with local daily observations. A planet that is on average 1C warmer on a global scale hides a lot of variation. For ex, this year has seen both coldest winter the east coast of the US has experience in years, to the hottest summer heat wave in Oz in quite some time.

Instability within the system increases which creates more extreme extremes, but the overall global trend is more heat, with rather makes sense because what we're ultiamtely talking about an increase in the total energy of the system because less of it is able to re-radiate away from the planet. (and that's a tremendous amount of energy considering we're talking about the planetary scale)

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

The arctic ice isn't coming back because of GW.

the ice in the Arctic increased compared to two year ago, but 2 years ago was the lowest every recorded, a statistical outlier. this year, while much more than 2012, is still dramatically below the average of the past several decades.

the trendline is clearly downward.
1 or 2 data points dont overturn a several decade long trendline.
and that downward trendline exists because of global warming.

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

also, as weather patterns shift, it makes sense that some regions where its almsot cold enough to form ice become cold enough to form ice. and other nearby areas where its almost warm enough to melt become warm enough to melt.

these are local variations.
again: dont confuse local short term variations with long term global trends or averages.

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

And that right there is your ignorance.

A couple decades ago they figured out CFC's, specifically the chlorine in them, was making it really high up in the atmosphere, where it reacted with sunlight to destroy ozone molecules in an unending chain reaction. The thinning of the ozone layer, and even development of holes in it, was leading to increased UV radiation reaching the ground rather than being absorbed up there in the ozone layer. skin cancer rates were measurably increasing. These CFCs came predominantly from the refrigerants ("freon") we used in these new fangled air conditioners that had popped into use in the recent decades.

Now no one wanted to give up their A/C. It was the single biggest reason people began moving to the sun belt (population exploded down there, where it used to be very sparse). Everyone loves A/C. so instead we did a few things. we developed new coolants there was less reactive. we got better at trapping them and preventing them from escaping into the atmosphere (used to be common to just vent straight into the air before that).

and the result of a world wide effort and fundamental A/C industry changes was that the ozone recovered. it's a natural layer that barring outside influence will develope and hover around a set level on its own. once we figured out what was harming it, and removed that influence it pretty much went back to normal.

We (humanity) did that.
We created a world wide problem.
And then we fixed it.
And people have already forgotten about it.

But there is no reasont o think we can't do it again with GW.
We have the technology right now, today, to end nearly ALL human CO2 emissions.
It would still take several decades for the current trend to slow, stop, and even reverse, but eventually our actions would reach an equilibrium (assuming we havent already passed any of the theorized tipping points that leads to a new, unfavorable equilibrium).

But we could do it.
It's just a matter of political will.

And that's what people would obstruct. From the oil/gas companies who love their money, to the religious folks who think its blasphemy to think we could even affect God's Earth, to the politicians and tea partiers who would rather die young on a dead planet in the name of "Freedom! 'Merica. No taxes! F YA" cause they somehow think fixing it means no feedom at all and nothing but taxes.

Pure greed and ignorance all of it.

We already know what runaway global warming can do. We call it the pre-cambrian extinction event, when nonstop volcanic eruptions in Siberia lasted for thousands of years, causing runaway global warming that eventually killed 98% of all life on earth. Life itself nearly went extinct. (and its rather a miracle that it didnt, and that following events eventually triggered massive cooling that made the planet habitable for life as we know it). And that event, that warming, and the following extinctions, lasted longer than all of current human civilization has existed. And it took millions of years for life to recover and re-evolve.

But still: we could do it.
We could fix this problem before it's too late.
It's not a matter of ability or capability to do it, but simply the will to do so.

Or we oculd sit around with thumbs in our butts and do nothing, calling those who identify the problem and its potential "alarmists" and "radicals", and fear any change or technologies that would enable us to fix the problem.

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

or we could abandon earth and get off this rock before its too late and colonize the stars.

though then when we show up at galactic parties, everyone will turn their heads and hide their chuckles at the species that destroyed their own homeworld though ignorance.

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

sadly, its already here.

case in point: the House science committee, staffed mostly by religious anti-science nuts.

Re:What will it take?

[Reziac]

So this must be the cause of what's probably going to be the coolest August on record for Montana, where a couple weeks ago we got snow down as low as 5000 feet.

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

Actually global warming goes back to the 1830s if not sooner. So it's closer to 200 than 30 years.
Secondly, it's happening right before your eyes. What more verification do you need?

Unless youre one of those who everytime a new line of observation comes along further reinforcing it* you say "lalalalalalalalalalallalalallala cant hear you its not happening".

(*we're up to what now, something 30 odd different lines of observational evidence that either support GW or disprove the deniers favorite pet explanations, between atmospheric temps at various altitudes, polar ice, tree rings, ancient gas samples in rock and ice cores, ocean temps, storm frequency/severity, solar activity/output cycles, etc?)

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

the only reason you dont understand is because rather than correct your ignorance by learning why the paradox exists, instead you stopped and said "Nope, I quit."

Re:What will it take?

[dywolf]

Yeah....cause once it oxidizes its harmless right?

So um...what does it oxidize into?
Oh. Right.

Carbon Dioxide.

Re:What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.

So why don't explain why proponents of AGW have given corporations like Halliburton and Monsanto legal immunity from environmental and climate destruction.

You all are a bunch of nut cases I swear.

Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight

[grimJester]

If you have a source of melting fresh water, water around it will be slightly higher as long as the melting continues, as it takes time for the meltoff to mix with the rest of the ocean. It's just a 2mm difference over maybe a thousand km of sea (which is why the intuitive "should immediately even out" idea doesn't work) so I doubt you could make the same effect visible in a bathtub.

Re:Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight

[Pino Grigio]

Yes and being just 2mm it's way outside of the range of experimental error.

Re:Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of mixing with the rest of the ocean, we'd expect the top layer to flow down like a 2mm high waterfall.

Re:Fresh water less dense, more volume per weight

[itzly]

I don't know that I would expect a "waterfall", since that would imply a sudden edge. I would rather expect some sort of slope. And as long as there a source of new water flowing into the ocean, I would expect this slope to persist.

Re:YOu got that right!

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, a troll that exploits profiling.

guessing your really a liberal.

Why...

[ExXter]

does this article not cover the other site of the apple.

While we have sea lvls on the rise we also have this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Now lets be some proper physicists and analyse it correctly. We have sea lvls rising and also we have ice lvls rising in the antartic... this means... yes that the water lvl is rising faster in antartic than anywhere else. But why? Not hard to explain. The earths outer shell is elasto-viscous which means it reacts time-delayed on outer increase or decrease of pressure. Exerted by water (ice) or land. Since the ice lvl is rising on the antartic continent it also pressures the plates down, additionally the sea lvl is rising. At the end of the day we have a higher sea lvl rise in antartic since two effects exerted over a long period of time add up. On the other hand we ll see far more secondary and tertiary effects...

I love sience.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why... was that so painful to read? There is a stupid mistake in nearly every sentence. And what is it with this 'lvl' business? I mean how much effort is it to type a couple of 'e's?

And having got past that, what you wrote is a pile of shite anyway.

Re:Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is shit. They really expect us to believe anything anymore. "Water piles up on itself in a heap and doesn't seek its own level because global warming", explained Dr. Craig Rye, who should be believed by virtue of having special letters placed in front of his name. If you have to get your rocks off by fooling people, at least come up with some bullshit that helps me bang women. Now that would be something I could get behind.

What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change "skepticism" is highly organized and well funded. It's a billion dollar effort. All those people who glibly tell you it's not real aren't skeptics at all, they're just kool-aid drinkers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

And ... guess what? It's mostly American Conservatives behind it. No surprises there.

displacement

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice consumes more space than water alone. If there was *more* sea ice, then the water would rise too.

Re: YOu got that right!

[Anonymous Coward]

No shortage of you idiot trolls these days. Global stupiding is certainly no scam...

What will it take?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change "alarmism" is highly organized and well funded. It's a billion dollar effort. All those people who glibly tell you it's not real aren't believers at all, they're just kool-aid drinkers.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/11/28/nova-publishes-chart-showing-climate-alarmism-funding

And ... guess what? It's mostly American Liberals behind it. No surprises there.

Re: ta3o

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and gentlemen: this has been a demonstration of inbreeding and opining. STILL think stupid is harmless?

attention all 12 year olds

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain to the dopey adults around you that a 2mm "local" rise in sea level in an ocean of 6 foot swells is just plain dumb. As another experiment, give one of your dopey parents a glass of ice water and have them blow through a straw into the glass. Watch their puzzled expression as you explain that the temperature rise isn't really from CO2.
There are many things you can do to educate the dopey adults around you, you have the advantage of being in school and learning things. Those poor dopes learn everything they know from MTV. One other thing though kids. Keep believing in God. The alternative is to put your faith into these fucking morons who think you will believe everything they tell you. None of it is true.

What will it take to abate your fear?

[SuperKendall]

Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.

It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.

Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[NotSanguine]

Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.

It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.

Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...

No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.

However, making the assumption that because there are non-anthropogenic processes that affect the global climate, anthropogenic processes do not exist, or are not relevant to the discussion, is like saying "well, since people die from old age, disease, lightning strikes, avalanches and landslides, that means that murder, auto accidents, arson deaths and the like do not exist."

Yes, that's a straw man. Yes, I'm exaggerating. However, that argument is at least as good in defending the idea that anthropogenic causes of death do not exist, as most arguments about climate change from anthropogenic climate change deniers.

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[dylan_-]

That climate change occurs naturally is no reason to think it can't also occur artificially. That's like saying that since fire has existed since the earth began, there's no such thing as arson.

You also fail to understand the "oceans storing heat". We measure how much energy the earth absorbs and how much it radiates. The difference must go somewhere. The amount of atmospheric warming plus the ocean surface warming plus ice melting etc etc don't amount to enough to cover the amount of energy absorbed, so either those things are warming *more* than we measure, or the energy is going somewhere we don't measure. So the deep oceans are the best bet. If you have another theory (that doesn't involve the energy being waved away by the natural cycle fairies) then feel free to share.

Perhaps learn some physics first though, yes? (Why do Americans say "physics" but not "maths"?)

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[SuperKendall]

No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.

You are in essence though. You are claiming that natural change is nonexistent next to anthropogenic change. You (and others like you) deny constantly that natural processes account for one iota of change, or else you would mention it with any talk about climate change.

Through omission, you damn yourself.

Regardless of what the mixtures of components are, we already know now that there is no runaway warming process so the reason to fear change the way you do. We know from recent decades that CO2 levels from human emissions has basically zero effect on increases in temperature (as temperature increases have either failed to materialize or been swallowed by other climate processes even as CO2 emissions continue to rise).

So again, why do you fear? What will it take to abate the unreadable and utterly un-scientific fear of a natural process?

Instead lets fight ACTUAL pollution, lets make sane choices that are truly better for the environment and not someones pocketbook or serve to increase government power over the plebes.

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[NotSanguine]

No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.

You are in essence though. You are claiming that natural change is nonexistent next to anthropogenic change. You (and others like you) deny constantly that natural processes account for one iota of change, or else you would mention it with any talk about climate change.

Hmm...Why are you ascribing things to me that I did not say? I make no such claim. Please show me, in any post, *ever*, where I have written anything even close to what you assert that I "claim." This is exactly the kind of stuff I was decrying. You don't know me, you have no idea what "those like me" assert or deny. You're trying (and rather poorly, I might add) to apply your own stereotypes and prejudices to me. That's not logical or helpful, even to you. Careful sonny, your biases are showing.

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[SuperKendall]

My biases are not "showing", I have declared them openly. Unlike you.

The fact that is all you have to say in response speaks volumes.

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[NotSanguine]

My biases are not "showing", I have declared them openly. Unlike you.

The fact that is all you have to say in response speaks volumes.

I'll ask you again. Why are you ascribing to me things I did not say?

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[dywolf]

historically being "many many thousands of years ago" and "it slowly warmed up over a period of many thousands of years".
not "right now today" and "it happened in the past century and half, ever since we started burning oil to make our economies run"
that's a not so subtle, and very important distiction.

yes, seaside communities may be able to adapt....if deniers dont get in the way, such as North Carolina barring state agencies, BY LAW, from using observations and predictions of sea rise related to global warming to make those same preparations and adaptions you just mentioned. They literally made it state law to cover their eyes and ear and ignore and do nothing.

Bear in mind just how high 3 feet average rise is though. that's a TREMENDOUS amount of water. its not just about the basements that are now flooded, or docks that need raised. there's also the dramatically higher storm surges, that will now push even further inland.

your indifference is nothing but a reflection of your ignorance.
whcih is then backed up by your second and thrid comments, which are just dumb beyond comprehension. no one has ever denied that natural warming occurs.

Re:What will it take to abate your fear?

[dywolf]

plus, if you would be so kind as to specify which specific historical events your referencing, i'm sure we'll find even more ignorance on your part for us to correct.
could you mayhaps be refering to a local warming/cooling in europe? possibly the dinosaurs when the entire atmosphere was dramatically different (Oxygen was ~40% higher than today, as well CO2 high enough that we (humans) wouldnt be able to breath comfortably). or some other popular denier myth?

Yawn.

[Famak1994]

Even if all the ice in the world melted tomorrow we'd still have more than enough land mass for nature and humans to thrive on. Sure, many coastal cities would vanish under the waves, but that would force us to build in smarter places instead of wasting tons of resources on something that will eventually get swallowed.

Re:Yawn.

[NotSanguine]

Even if all the ice in the world melted tomorrow we'd still have more than enough land mass for nature and humans to thrive on. Sure, many coastal cities would vanish under the waves, but that would force us to build in smarter places instead of wasting tons of resources on something that will eventually get swallowed.

You do realize that somewhere between 35% (2.45 billion) and 45% (3.15 billion) humans live within 100km (62 miles) of the oceans, right?

Even if only half of those end up having to move, the social, economic and military upheavals would be catastrophic.

This will likely happen, too -- but it's certainly not something to cheer for IMHO.

Re:Yawn.

[riverat1]

If all of the ice in the world melted there would be sea level rise of about 230 feet. Cool, my house would be on an island in the middle of Willamette Sound.

Re:Yawn.

[dywolf]

"smarter places" ? Just precisely why do you think those cities developed where they did in the first place?

A tremendous amount of human civilization has always centered around sea ports.
All you're doing is suggesting moving the location of the sea ports.
Its no more or less smart than the original locations.

And you're also talking about moving more than half of hte world's population, probably around 5 billion people (~3 bil. lives near the current coast, but a 230ft sea rise would go inland hundreds of miles, ballooning the numbers even more). And not just the people, but the infrastructure, the housing, and a not insignificant amount of the agriculture that supports them. Not to mention a lot of the sea port population is sustained not by agriculture, but also by aquaculture, ie, the ocean, both for food and jobs. But if the coast moves inland a few hundred miles it will take time for sea life to colonize and develope the new underwater territory, meaning fishermen need to go out further.

It also means the water column would be significantly deeper. Current coral reefs would die off from lack of sunlight, and all the sea life they support would also die off since it takes a long time for new coral to establish and grow. If sea levels rise and fall at their typical naturaly rates, the coral expands and contracts to match. But sudden and swift changes occur faster than the coral can grow, leaving reefs and all the life they support unsupported.

Yes, your situation is a hypothetical, but it's a perfect illustration of how much thought people -DON'T- put into this, how the effects are far more wide ranging than a lot of people think they are. Are we likely to see 250 ft sea rise? Not yet, not in the next century anyway. But we are likely to see 8-10ft of rise, and that alone will leed to dramatic changes to various ecosystems, both land and sea, particularly those occuring within narrow tolerances.

Re:Yawn.

[Famak1994]

Oh no life is going to end as we know it...FOR !2 fucking time! Who gives a fucking shit! You're not going to stop it. I'm not going to stop it. The corporate ologarchy in washing isn't going to stop. NOT SING FUCKING MOTHER FUCKER IS GOING TO DO A GOD DAMN FUCKING THING., Climate this, climate that, you're all a bunch of degenerate fucking monkies and NOT one of you knows what the fuck is really going on.. Neither do I, so just shut fuck up with all over nonsense.

Opportunities...

[ssufficool]

If I could just get the environmentalists on board, Death Valley has over 500 million acre feet of storage capacity at below sea level. I foresee the creatures there would welcome the gradual filling of this expanse with sea water. We could even see the native pupfish blossom in this new ecosystem. Where is the army corpse of engineers when you need them?

Re:Opportunities...

[Famak1994]

There's an idea, build canals to massive ditches like Death Valley to help mitigate or even control sea levels.

Re:unfair policy tsarkon reports

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh noes! The Jurassic DGW, Dinsaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs with their Airplanes, SUV, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that! And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.

Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" thre is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW ( Disnosauric Global Warming ) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.

tsarkon reports

Slashdot, the home of the Church of Climatology with high-brow fart sniffing arm-chair losers who have no solutions but like to point fingers at manufactured graphs

Bullshit Slashdot, fucking bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

How about posting the truth for once Slashdot?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-
ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Or is that Rothschild ad dollar just to juicy to pass up, being we see a pro IPCC global warming agenda story at least once a day on Slashdot.

Slashdot: nothing more that repeaters of agendas.

Here we go again...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a bunch of Slashdot pseudo-scientists who think they speak for the scientific community when they probably can't multiple above 12x12.

These posts should be banned just because of the excess stupidity that's displayed. Keep it to things more at Slashdot level like which latest version of C is the best or Star Wars trivia.
 

Artic Ice Is Increasing

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your facts right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Re:Artic Ice Is Increasing

[dywolf]

Get your facts right.

No, you.
2 years is not a sufficient sample size to ignore the preceeding several decades.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

It's the tipping point!

[DiamondGeezer]

Local sea level has risen 2mm around Antarctica in 10 years. Everyone run to higher ground!

Like the beer in my glass ...

[fygment]

... the side nearer my lips is rising higher faster than the opposite side is lowering.

So my beer lasts longer.

Validate the Model first _then_ call it conclusive

[fygment]

The models were chosen to support their beliefs, and conclusion.

That's a problem because a model can be tuned to a desired outcome.

If the opposite had been true, say that model after model had predicted a rise, and then they went out and found the model to be true, there might be more credibility.

As it was, they had a measurements first, they had a belief/hypothesis first (naturally), and they found a model they could make fit. That's not a proof, not conclusive. They should take the model, and see if it tells them something they didn't know/expect, and then try and see if they can find it in nature. Validate the model beyond the very very narrow conclusion you are trying to justify.

2 mm?

[doccus]

Hope the ocean stayed still long enough to mesure a pencil lead 's width. Boy what a shocking increase!

Lesson to be learned from this

[MooseMiester]

The Guardian in 2009:

The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.

The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.

The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

What happened: Five more years of no warming followed

You global warming climate change OMG the sky is falling people really need to learn the basic tenants of public relations if you hope to win your battle. Twenty years or more of dire predictions have done more damage to climate science than all the greenhouse gasses released.

Re:Lesson to be learned from this

[david_thornley]

The years since 1998 have not been relatively cool. Once they reached the anomalous 1998 on a smoothed curve, they increased very slowly. If you haven't noticed, this year has so far been the warmest on record yet.

Re:Lesson to be learned from this

[MooseMiester]

That's not the point I am making, Sir. But you fanatics, you don't care, there's only one point to be made, and anyone that disagrees with you has to be challenged.

And that... is the problem. According to "experts" the Arctic Ice cap should be completely gone, and all life in the oceans should be dead. I am sure that these people were well intentioned souls and that their hearts were in the right place. But they did huge damage to climatology. So did all the people who decided that the grant money was so good, it was worth fabricating data. These are the real crimes, that are rarely discussed. No, it's easier to blame "deniers" and call them names like ignorant, stupid, etc.

2014 warmest on record? I don't know. I do know that NOAA quit reporting cold records, and only reports hot records on their maps. This is also a crime against science that should be shouted from the rooftops of every University. What message does this send to young scientists and engineers? That it's OK to lie if you get grant money?

Re:Lesson to be learned from this

[david_thornley]

Um, so somebody who casually follows the actual science on the issue is a fanatic? What should I call you?

Which experts said the Arctic ice cap should be completely gone, and that life in the oceans should be dead? Got quotes? Cites? References?

Why do you think the NOAA is not reporting cold records? Could it be that we're not getting any at the moment? Temperature records are rather rare by definition, and if we're only getting hot records that may be a reflection of the situation.

Re:Lesson to be learned from this

[MooseMiester]

Here comes the exact behavior I am talking about. You state that YOU are "following the actual science" there by insinuating that I must be some ignorant hayseed. This is another reason climate science is going backwards, we have fewer young people entering the math and science field, and your cause is not getting the support you want it to get.

Your refusal to accept the point I am making, and the creation of the straw man where I am an ignorant climate denier probably means you're a troll for the climate change industry or one of those crazy ideologues that gets all of his or her information from carefully culled sources, declaring all other sources to be liars. So there's an insult right back at ya, pal. See how this ensures we have an intelligent discussion? Let's all work together to insure that no intelligent conversation ever takes place, that will ensure that problems never get solved. Our righteous indignation will carry us forward?

Al Gore in 2007 when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on Climate Change:

The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.

I suggest you look this up it has been reported a million times or more. There are so many other examples, and Google works really well, no reason to belabor this point.

You say this year has been the hottest on record. I don't doubt that your intentions are good. Please google "hot records .vs. cold records". Here is the first link you find.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/...

You can see the dire predictions of the "experts" at the IPCC mapped against what really happened.

Which is, Sir, my point. Making dire predictions - so called Climate Alarmism - has done major damage to climate science. So has the tactic of attacking anyone who dares question the myth of the dire prediction. Both of these actions harm your cause.

I couldn't find the graphs from NOAA showing how they stopped showing cold records - but there are many, many examples of climate data being faked ever since climate alarmism started. I understand greed - I'm a business man - but greed mixed with the scientific method is a crime against humanity. All these myths have been created about science, the scientific method, how science is actually done... These myths take society backwards, not forward. That's my point.

Re:Lesson to be learned from this

[david_thornley]

Okay, you're a freaking idiot. Better?

You see reasonable people as fanatics because they disagree with you. I mention that I casually follow the science, and disagree with you, and you take that as an insult. You obviously aren't interested in a reasonable discussion.

Your accuweather friends are going to show any reasonable person that they're not interested in a rational discussion, just from the tone of the discussion. Moreover, any discussion of global warming that concentrates on the US (or any other similar area) is automatically lame.

Re:Lesson to be learned from this

[MooseMiester]

Actually, David, I see people who are married to a position, and perceive any comment that's not "You're so right" to be an attack... to be fanatics. Science is about rational, organized, open thinking where no doors are closed and all possibilities are possible until absolutely proved otherwise. Science is all about the joy of discovery, not the suppression of opposing viewpoints that you disagree with. Science admits when it is wrong, and learns from the mistake, in order to learn more. You've demonstrated none of those traits. What I am getting from you is "My way or the highway".

You can't seriously expect me to believe that you don't know who Accu Weather is - they are a weather forecasting center, not some political organization. It's hard to argue with a graph that shows the IPCC predictions .vs. what actually happened... so you attack them. claiming they aren't interested in rational discussion. How mature. Then you fabricate a strawman for the SlashDot reader that the story only talks about the U.S., in a pathetic effort to suppress the facts presented there from coming out. A scientist takes ALL DATA into consideration objectively. Science doesn't throw out data points that don't fit the observer's opinion.

My opinion is unchanged. Making dire predictions has done more damage to the science of climatology than all the greenhouse gases emitted. Fudging the temperature data, in order to get more grant money, is a crime against humanity - and if you don't think this has ever happened, well, you're the freaking idiot.

Give it up

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years of record cold (as predicted by one scientist in 2008 who the IPCC "discredited" yet he somehow got this right when they didn't, hmmm) and two years or record arctic sea ice growth (you are aware the ice is highly volatile and variable, right?[1] - it's almost back to it's 2000 level [2]) and sixteen years of no warming[3] then by Jesus we better cherry pick to find something to scare the folks into funding us a bit longer.

[1] http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1481.html
[2] http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
[3] http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

I took money for global warming research and I knew it's bullshit. I needed the money badly. Everyone does this. Very few people actually believe what they research and that's the ones that actually know anything. Most don't, frankly. It's the same with cancer research, nobody's pet project gets funded, only cancer and climate does, so that's the teat we drain.